It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:29 PM
I'll go watch the linked videos. Until then,
kudos for not putting "PROOF!!" in your thread title.

Back later!

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by arbiture

Did you watch any of the vids at all ? If you did , then you might be suffering from short-term-memory-loss. If you did not , then here is what you missed... The guy said DEVICE...not BOMB. He makes that very clear.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by okbmd
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 ?!!!

I must tell you that bait and switch games do not work on me. Why on earth does it require a degree in nuclear physics to understand that it's horribly improbable that an explosion in the basement, nuclear or non nuclear, can ever cause the building to start collapsing up at the ninety somethingth floor? It's like saying I can kick you really hard in the ankle and by some magic, your elbow will get broken. You keep insisting how absurd it is for a plane impact and fire could ever bring down a building and yet you're substituting something even more completely absurd sounding.

So, how did an explosion down in the basement cause the building to collapse up where the plane hit the buidling? It's a legitimate question that deserves a legitimate answer, so you'll excuse me if I don't accept your "I don't know what I'm talking about" frippery that you're passing off as an attempt at a response.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Again, he answers this very question in the videos. I refuse to repeat it all to you here. You are only a mouse-click away from having your questions answered .

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:54 PM
I couldn't get past part 2 when the no-plane theory and video manipulation was discussed. At that point he loss all of his credibility with me.

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by kj6754

Please tell me which vid it was in that he said this about no-planes/t.v. fakery. I began watching at #7 which is where the link opened at and I watched thru #15, and so far, I don't recall him saying this .

You say he said it 'by' part #2, but I seem to have trouble finding parts #1,2,and 3 ., so could you link this for me, as it could very well shift my opinion ?

Also , I dont find links for #20,21,22,23,24,25 and 26 . Anyone ?

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Try this link:
upload page

All of the videos are in order starting at the last row, going right to left.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by kj6754]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by kj6754]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by truthquest

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.

Don't you find it odd that Jones was the only non-governmental person ( that I'm aware of) to obtain steel samples from the WTC? I never said he got rich, in fact there are other ways to get people to do things by threat, blackmail, etc. Jones is a whackjob who believes literally in the book or Mormon, says loads about his ability as a scientist. Check the link I posted above, it's all about debunking Jones' research on 9/11. These videos have really clicked with me and answered many lingering questions that had no other logical answers.
It would also make perfect sense for the PTB to control the opposition in some fashion. If you went to the trouble to pull off 9/11 they knew there would be a great deal of follow up work to keep the truth well hidden.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:27 AM
Hello all, I hardly ever post, but I read thread constantly. I have watched all 26 videos about the nuclear demolition theory. I really can't believe this isn't getting much attention. I realize it's very long and sometimes doesn't agree with what most people who don't buy the official story buy into, but this video is very informative and makes quite a lot of sense.

I admit it doesn't answer all the question, but I think if we really want the truth we have to be able to look at all angles. This is another angle. A very interesting angle I believe holds some validity.

So I watched all 26 parts and outlined it. I added some personal side notes about things that I had questions or comments on. It is very long so I can't post it all on here. I uploaded it to some document hosting service. For those who don't want to watch all 26 parts you can read it and go the parts that you want to watch.

It is hard to watch and follow all the time. I had to watch many things several times and still find some gaps that I guess they assumed we knew the middles.

I really wish more people would take the time to watch these videos and comment, I have followed every angle I can find from thermite, to Dew, to missiles, to no planes, etc.....this is just one more. I found it to be highly informative. The interviewer ask questions, some soft, but quite a few challenging his position.

Please watch. ;-)

Here is the link to my uploaded outline of all 26 parts

It is free....push the free download and wait 60 secs then it will let you downlaod the document.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by okbmd
Again, he answers this very question in the videos. I refuse to repeat it all to you here. You are only a mouse-click away from having your questions answered .

And just WHY do you "refuse to repeat it all to me"? If you genuinely believed the towers were brought down with nukes then I'd have thought you'd be preaching it all over creation. You ARE trying to warn us about the deliberate murder of US citizens by the gov't, after all.

As it is, all you've done is to say this guy is pushing out crackpot accusations that can only be swallowed if I listen to the sexy sounding marketing progam he's using to push it out. It's the same ploy advertisers use to get men to buy THEIR deodorant that smells like poison gas becuase their commercials make me think that women will spontaneously jump all over me, or to get women to buy THEIR guaranteed-to-spill paper plates becuase buying anything else makes them bad mothers and family services will need to take their children away.

Give me a synopsis, please, in your own words, and if I find it credible, then I'll watch it.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by GoodOlDave]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

I really can't believe this isn't getting much attention.


Maybe cuz he's batpoo crazy? Perhaps?

In part 4 he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by Insolubrious

He even claims the FBI reviewed his book and unofficially agree with it.

The FBI is not in the business of "reviewing books" then agreeing off the record either officially or not that they approve/agree with the content. Only in very rare instances will the FBI offer their approval of written material and I dare say they did not under any circumstances agree with the man's book. I think this guy is a shyster out peddling another theory to toss into the already insane number of them out here in regards to the 911 events.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by mikelee]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:51 AM
I am still having a peoblem with why the EPA blamed the radiation found at the sites on DU carried in the planes when most people know that that 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

All it takes is about 30 seconds of research to learn this fact.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by REMISNE]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by pizzanazi75

Hello to everyone. I am actually the very person (Dimitri A. Khalezov) who is being vilified in this thread. Since I see no keen interest in my video published on YouTube, I have no interest in discussing it here either. However, I would like to post this info personally for pizzanazi75

- I downloaded your word file with comments to my video and would like to thank you for your kind interest and for your patience in composing it. Now I added some of my comments to clarify some of your points and some misunderstandings and uploaded this file back to the Internet. You can download it from here:

Request to everyone here - please, pass this info to pizzanazi75 because I was not able to find it out how to send to him any personalized message on this Forum.



Please don't post personal information

[edit on 4/2/2010 by semperfortis]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:36 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:37 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:53 AM

Check out the Picture of types of Nukes and 2. Underground Bomb with a tower above it . A bit creepy.
They have been doing this for 60 years fair to say they could have perfected it by now.
It makes sense to me only because I have trouble with the amount of people who would have had to plant explosives all through the buildings.
I believe there were some in buildings to help it along.
The molten steel for months also nothing else explains that does it ?

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:26 AM
Goodness, the guys theory is pretty crazy. For those who couldn't be bothered watching his painfully slow explanation:

He say basically that the buildings were turned to dust and fragments from the bottom up, which somehow miraculously retained the appearance of an intact building, then the top bit just crushed it's was through the miraculous powdered bottom section.

Pretty silly sounding to me.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by mrwiffler]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:35 AM
Before anyone comes along and say, "but you don't understand..."

He says that with underground nuclear detonations(he IS talking about a bomb..150 kilotonnes he says) in a certain region of the blast radius rocks and stuff are so highly compressed that they retain their shape. You pick up a rock and it turns to dust in your fingers. He says this is what happened to the buildings. He forgets to mention that the buildings don't meet the criteria for this level of compression.

What he's talking about is with blasts 500 meters underground where the rock is held rigidly against the forces, hence the massive compression.

For Madscotless:

(His explanation of typical nuclear demolitions is totally different to that of the twin towers. In a typical scenario the building melts into the ground, bottom first of course. He modifies this for the Trade Centers and makes some fanciful assumptions about the forces, IE that they would pulverise the building but leave it looking perfectly intact.)

[edit on 2-4-2010 by mrwiffler]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by mrwiffler

He says that with underground nuclear detonations(he IS talking about a bomb..150 kilotonnes he says)...

The "He" you are referring to is the Rusian in the videos, correct?

"150 kilotonnes", he says?

Well, I found an interesting article after Googling '150 kiloton nuclear bomb' ----

Here's just one little pertinent tidbit:


This circle contains a daytime population of roughly 75,000. There will be no survivors. Those caught outside will be exposed to the full effects of the blast, including severe lung and ear drum damage and exposure to flying debris. Those in the direct line of sight of the blast will be exposed to a thermal pulse in excess of 500 cal/, causing instant death. Those inside, though shielded from some of the blast and thermal effects, will be killed as buildings collapse.

I tend to agree with you, this Russian should not be accepted at his word. He seems to be believed by folks who don't bother to check the veracity of his claims.

Because, I do not recall anything described above occuring in NYC. Certainly were not 75,000+ casualities....

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in