It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6share:
Originally posted by ohhwataloser
am I missing something? the video says private, how'd you all see it?
same here ...
did someone pull the plug on it
reply to post by xsheep
More than likely they are just trying to make their video seem even more "underground".
This is a terrible theory and I would recommend this thread be closed, but thats just me.
More than likely they are just trying to make their video seem even more "underground".
This is a terrible theory and I would recommend this thread be closed, but thats just me.
Use this as a search in YouTube:
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [1/26]
He has some very interesting facts about nukes; it would certainly explain some of the anomalies we saw
that day, however he makes some reaching theories about the reason behind 9/11 which don't support
current evidence.
I'm also not buying the Russian missile theory at all; the facts about missiles are correct, but he shows
no proof to support his claim that the specific missile shown hit the Pentagon.
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [1/26]
He has some very interesting facts about nukes; it would certainly explain some of the anomalies we saw
that day, however he makes some reaching theories about the reason behind 9/11 which don't support
current evidence.
I'm also not buying the Russian missile theory at all; the facts about missiles are correct, but he shows
no proof to support his claim that the specific missile shown hit the Pentagon.
edit on 20-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason
given)
Originally posted by turbofan
I'm also not buying the Russian missile theory at all; the facts about missiles are correct, but he shows
no proof to support his claim that the specific missile shown hit the Pentagon.
Yeah, and you can bet that someone who claims to be an ex-soviet military nuclear ammunitions expert has an agenda of his own. The theory makes sense within the specific scope of his explanations but that's about it.
The general mechanic of the theory might be possible with the little evidence available but the reasons do not make any real sense at all. They blew it up because they feared another nuke in the plane, which according to him (and others) didn't exist in the first place. Lets talk about contradicting theories, damn.
If there would have been nuclear devices under the WTC, wouldnt they have turned path station which was under the wtc into a ball of
plasma?
edit on 21-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Cassius666
It should have probably. What happend to it anyway?
Do we have a proportional plan/schematic of the basement area of the wtc?
It should have probably. What happend to it anyway?
Do we have a proportional plan/schematic of the basement area of the wtc?
reply to post by Cassius666
The plasma would be long gone, all that's left would be a cavity with a solidified pool of molten stuff at the bottom... Like this one.
The plasma would be long gone, all that's left would be a cavity with a solidified pool of molten stuff at the bottom... Like this one.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Insolubrious
Of course the plasma would be gone, along with path station, no? But I think it was still there, albeight shut off and partly collapsed. I am not saying there are not things that would correlate with a nuke having gone off there, such as the long lasting high temps, the blood cancers the workers contracted which are hard to explain with asbestos.
The theory is that in an underground nuclear explosion you have much of the soil turned to dust, because the soil has nowhere to go and all that energy from the device is being released. However what about a building sitting on top of it? Would it act the same way and be partly turned into dust? Would its own weight holding it in place be sufficient for that to happen? With an underground detonation the released energy has nowhere to go, but the soil, crushing it up good, but any energy directed into the building would again follow the path of least resistance, escaping through gaps and probably turning those gaps into big holes in the process. At least thats my guess.
Of course the plasma would be gone, along with path station, no? But I think it was still there, albeight shut off and partly collapsed. I am not saying there are not things that would correlate with a nuke having gone off there, such as the long lasting high temps, the blood cancers the workers contracted which are hard to explain with asbestos.
The theory is that in an underground nuclear explosion you have much of the soil turned to dust, because the soil has nowhere to go and all that energy from the device is being released. However what about a building sitting on top of it? Would it act the same way and be partly turned into dust? Would its own weight holding it in place be sufficient for that to happen? With an underground detonation the released energy has nowhere to go, but the soil, crushing it up good, but any energy directed into the building would again follow the path of least resistance, escaping through gaps and probably turning those gaps into big holes in the process. At least thats my guess.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason
given)
I have watched the whole interview with Dimitri Khalezov on youtube, and must say it is well done.
an interesting theory, and many points do make sense.
what i am missing, and could not find in a websearch:
-is there any source for the claim that nuclear device have been built in the wtc while building it?
- is it true that at the building time there was a law/regulation that skyscrapers needed to have a demolition plan in order to get the building license?
Khalezov mentions some newspaper articles back in the 80ies mentioning the built in devices- anyone seen them?
And last but not least: Who did send the rockets?
If someone has hints / evidences / facts / answer for these questions, please post.
an interesting theory, and many points do make sense.
what i am missing, and could not find in a websearch:
-is there any source for the claim that nuclear device have been built in the wtc while building it?
- is it true that at the building time there was a law/regulation that skyscrapers needed to have a demolition plan in order to get the building license?
Khalezov mentions some newspaper articles back in the 80ies mentioning the built in devices- anyone seen them?
And last but not least: Who did send the rockets?
If someone has hints / evidences / facts / answer for these questions, please post.
edit on 11-2-2012 by svetlana84 because: Typos
reply to post by svetlana84
Missing a lot - if you stay with conspiracy loon sites
One Khalezov is a nut case - he makes wild claims with no eviidence
Two - think about it......
The WTC towers were built in the 1970's. explain how a device planted there would still be functional
30 years later without regular maintenance. How does one hid it in a building which had regular inspections
and upgrades to the fireproofing. Every time a tenant moves out the space is given a complete inspection
and everything is fixed and upgraded
Three - demolition plans. What city would approve a building pre rigged with explosives? What insurance
company would insure the building. Who would want to work in such a building ?
Four - detonation of even the smallest nuclear device - 10 ton (.01 kt) "Davy Crockett: warhead produced
lethal radiation 1/4 mile from the blast. No radiation casualties were found - there were survivors in the
building and in close proximity who exhibited no signs of any radiation injury.
No radiation was found at the scene by numerous agencies and HAz Mat Teams
:what i am missing, and could not find in a websearch:
-is there any source for the claim that nuclear device have been built in the wtc while building it?
- is it true that at the building time there was a law/regulation that skyscrapers needed to have a demolition plan in order to get the building license?
Khalezov mentions some newspaper articles back in the 80ies mentioning the built in devices- anyone seen them?
And last but not least: Who did send the rockets?
If someone has hints / evidences / facts / answer for these questions, please post
Missing a lot - if you stay with conspiracy loon sites
One Khalezov is a nut case - he makes wild claims with no eviidence
Two - think about it......
The WTC towers were built in the 1970's. explain how a device planted there would still be functional
30 years later without regular maintenance. How does one hid it in a building which had regular inspections
and upgrades to the fireproofing. Every time a tenant moves out the space is given a complete inspection
and everything is fixed and upgraded
Three - demolition plans. What city would approve a building pre rigged with explosives? What insurance
company would insure the building. Who would want to work in such a building ?
Four - detonation of even the smallest nuclear device - 10 ton (.01 kt) "Davy Crockett: warhead produced
lethal radiation 1/4 mile from the blast. No radiation casualties were found - there were survivors in the
building and in close proximity who exhibited no signs of any radiation injury.
No radiation was found at the scene by numerous agencies and HAz Mat Teams
Thanks for your answer, you have good points. especially the survivors in the building.
for the preplanted devices, i could imagine that there was a prepared underground shaft to bring down the towers, but without the explosives planted. So that when it needs to be pulled it would be easy to place some kind of explosives (nuclear or not) to bring it down.
I am not sure where i stand on this, but thinking about how to pull a huge steel structure in the middle of a very populated area makes sense. so the idea that there have been measures or regulations on that seems plausible.
People would not want to work in such a building? yes (me included), but then again for example switzerland rigged all bridges and some other structures with exploding devices. the idea, born in WWII was to blow most of the bridges up, when enemy forces would attack. some o these devices have been installed til the end of the cold war...
sounds crazy but is true.
So, a lot of points which speak against Khalezov's theory.
still the amount of massive heat, even weeks after 9/11 plus the 'wtc bathtub' which looks like liquified stone..
That would speak for nukes, since i can't see jet fuel, traditional explosives and even thermite doing this.
Rant: Heck there should really be a serious indeptht, indepenent fact finding commission on the whole 9/11 subject.
so far i see some pieces off puzzles here and there, some plausible, some BS. would really like to have all the facts and nothingelse / rant off
for the preplanted devices, i could imagine that there was a prepared underground shaft to bring down the towers, but without the explosives planted. So that when it needs to be pulled it would be easy to place some kind of explosives (nuclear or not) to bring it down.
I am not sure where i stand on this, but thinking about how to pull a huge steel structure in the middle of a very populated area makes sense. so the idea that there have been measures or regulations on that seems plausible.
People would not want to work in such a building? yes (me included), but then again for example switzerland rigged all bridges and some other structures with exploding devices. the idea, born in WWII was to blow most of the bridges up, when enemy forces would attack. some o these devices have been installed til the end of the cold war...
sounds crazy but is true.
So, a lot of points which speak against Khalezov's theory.
still the amount of massive heat, even weeks after 9/11 plus the 'wtc bathtub' which looks like liquified stone..
That would speak for nukes, since i can't see jet fuel, traditional explosives and even thermite doing this.
Rant: Heck there should really be a serious indeptht, indepenent fact finding commission on the whole 9/11 subject.
so far i see some pieces off puzzles here and there, some plausible, some BS. would really like to have all the facts and nothingelse / rant off
Radioactive isotopes were present after the WTC blast:
The presence of these high tritium levels in water samples from the basement of WTC is consistent with the hypothesis of the prior occurrence of nuclear fission explosions and is further corroborative evidence that this occurred – tritium is what one would expect to find in water at the site of a nuclear explosion.
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir.
The presence of these high tritium levels in water samples from the basement of WTC is consistent with the hypothesis of the prior occurrence of nuclear fission explosions and is further corroborative evidence that this occurred – tritium is what one would expect to find in water at the site of a nuclear explosion.
comparing a Davy Crockett design (as d-man so often does) to the device planted in the WTC would be like comparing a mule to a Ferrari.
edit on
13-2-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)
reply to post by svetlana84
[exSo, a lot of points which speak against Khalezov's theory.
still the amount of massive heat, even weeks after 9/11 plus the 'wtc bathtub' which looks like liquified stone..
That would speak for nukes, since i can't see jet fuel, traditional explosives and even thermite doing this.
] .
Heat came from burning debris, office furniture and paper - thousands of tons of paper, burning in rubble
for months. It burned for 3 months until mid December - not unlike coal mine fires which can burn ffor
years (one below town of Centralia Pennsylvania has been burning for 50 years)
[exSo, a lot of points which speak against Khalezov's theory.
still the amount of massive heat, even weeks after 9/11 plus the 'wtc bathtub' which looks like liquified stone..
That would speak for nukes, since i can't see jet fuel, traditional explosives and even thermite doing this.
] .
Heat came from burning debris, office furniture and paper - thousands of tons of paper, burning in rubble
for months. It burned for 3 months until mid December - not unlike coal mine fires which can burn ffor
years (one below town of Centralia Pennsylvania has been burning for 50 years)
reply to post by Insolubrious
Except for other sources of tritium - aircraft exit lights, luminous signs in stairways of WTC, luminous watch
dials which contain tritium, as do night sights for guns.
Consider that the Port Authority police, Secret Service, ATF, US Customs all had arsenals in the WTC complex
Lot more likely than your insane delusions.....
The presence of these high tritium levels in water samples from the basement of WTC is consistent with the hypothesis of the prior occurrence of nuclear fission explosions and is further corroborative evidence that this occurred – tritium is what one would expect to find in water at the site of a nuclear explosion.
Except for other sources of tritium - aircraft exit lights, luminous signs in stairways of WTC, luminous watch
dials which contain tritium, as do night sights for guns.
Consider that the Port Authority police, Secret Service, ATF, US Customs all had arsenals in the WTC complex
Lot more likely than your insane delusions.....
reply to post by Insolubrious
So what was the yield of your mythical nuclear device?
Consider that no radiation was found at scene by numerous Hat Mat teams ......
comparing a Davy Crockett design (as d-man so often does) to the device planted in the WTC would be like comparing a mule to a Ferrari.
So what was the yield of your mythical nuclear device?
Consider that no radiation was found at scene by numerous Hat Mat teams ......
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Insolubrious
comparing a Davy Crockett design (as d-man so often does) to the device planted in the WTC would be like comparing a mule to a Ferrari.
So what was the yield of your mythical nuclear device?
Consider that no radiation was found at scene by numerous Hat Mat teams ......
I expect the output of the yield is utilized in a considerably different way than to what you'd expect from an 70 year old Davy Crockett design. Considering we have numerous reports from people on the scene who reported significant ground shaking at it's peak that kind of power would be comparable to a 1kt bomb coupled to the ground, if it wasn't coupled to the ground the yield could of been higher.
reply to post by Insolubrious
Ground shaking...?
What do you expect when a 110 story building hits the ground?
Jeez my windows rattle and can feel the vibrations when a dump truck passes my house
Haven't explained lack of any radiation or fission byproducts found at the scene
Nuclear explosion produce a specific group of fission byproducts which can de discriminated from natural
isotopes
You lose again....
expect the output of the yield is utilized in a considerably different way than to what you'd expect from an 70 year old Davy Crockett design. Considering we have numerous reports from people on the scene who reported significant ground shaking at it's peak that kind of power would be comparable to a 1kt bomb coupled to the ground, if it wasn't coupled to the ground the yield could of been higher.
Ground shaking...?
What do you expect when a 110 story building hits the ground?
Jeez my windows rattle and can feel the vibrations when a dump truck passes my house
Haven't explained lack of any radiation or fission byproducts found at the scene
Nuclear explosion produce a specific group of fission byproducts which can de discriminated from natural
isotopes
You lose again....
Originally posted by thedman
Ground shaking...?
What do you expect when a 110 story building hits the ground?
Oh come on, you know full well the ground was shaking before the building hit the ground.
Originally posted by svetlana84
still the amount of massive heat, even weeks after 9/11 plus the 'wtc bathtub' which looks like liquified stone..
That would speak for nukes, since i can't see jet fuel, traditional explosives and even thermite doing this.
Good mind! Ruling out fires, traditional explosives and thermite is one of the first things a 9/11 researcher should do.
Regarding the nukes and Khalezov... Please keep in mind that Khalezov is not a scientist, but just a military with some prior knowledge and close contact to a high Mossad official, that's all what he has. But, knowing his life, counteraction to his story, other his non 9/11 articles(about religion etc), I do not think he has a secret agenda. He came out with his story because of the actions taken by the US against his friend Viktor Bout and this is maybe only time when he intentionally lies. After some fighting with both OSer and truthers he realized that the world does not need 9/11 truth and gave it away.
I guess this underground nuclear demolition scheme existed, but it did just to get the permission to build the towers indeed. It does not automatically mean that it was used on 9/11.
I advise you to check "finnish military expert" thoughts, and then "Anonymous Physicist" (Google both)
Also pay attention to an idea that nuclear bombs may have progressed a lot since Hiroshima and the progress does not have to be public knowledge.
Also, to your knowledge, 9/11 forum is half-dead, with mostly disinfo people left here, that push the official jet fuel, or misleading "approved" traditional explosives or thermite CTs. So do not expect healthy discussion on non mainstream theories.