Sup,

I am not interested in speculation!

Dimitri Khalezov told in his legendary documentary that there was a scandal in the 80s because some guy found the blueprints for the wtc demolition device or something... he even states that there are newspaper articles about that incident...

so i never found proof for that claim - since time passed i am asking if there now is proof for a "demolition device" installed/planned in the WTC?

he also stated that these devices were common and related that claim to the chicago towers who got closed at 9-11 because of fear the installed demolition device could turn on...maybe there is proof for a demoliton device in the chicago towers or even some proof for these (nuclear) demolition techniques/devices pre 9-11..

peace and wake up!

i delete the link because its just confusing...i am looking for the device / plan dimitri is talking about

Personally, I think Khalezov's "theory" is a complete crock.

I can't believe I just found out now, months after this story started making the rounds, the actual details of this nuke theory. I guess I never looked into it before because it seemed preposterous to even think in terms of nuclear explosions on 9/11.

There is no evidence of an upwardly moving nuclear blast wave to be seen in the demolitions of the twin towers. Nothing moves upward from the base of the towers at the moment they come down. Bye bye Dimitri.

The real question is why is this theory being put forward. Is it a fallback position by the main perps to attempt to isolate the Bush administration from responsibility for planning 9/11 and to lay the operation off on an Israeli cabal?

This is organized crime strategic thinking. The chief perp starts knocking off his helpers to insulate him from the crime.

In terms of legit controlled demolition options for the WTC, installed in the 1960s, no explosive demolition could have been forseen or planned, let alone installed. There just wasn't the knowledge in the controlled demolition industry at the time. No company of the period they were built, or even now would consider taking the upper floors of those towers down with explosives.

The whole idea is absurd. I'm sure it can be argued against on technical/circumstantial details as well.

He argued that the wtc would be affected the same way soil is affected surrounding a nuclear device in a deep underground explosion. Of course in this example the device would be under the tower. I dont see how that comparison holds water, the explosion would just break through the structure. At that point it wont have the effects the nuclear device has on soil in a deep underground explosion, because the matter isnt as compact. The force escapes where it can and when it does it does not produce the effects observed on matter in deep underground detonations.

There is some stuff posted in support of Khalezov's theory which actually contradicts it. I am referring to the photos of the hole at ground zero which show smooth rock, implying that this is rock which was melted by a nuke and then hardened again.

To me this rock looks water eroded. It looks like sedementary rock, not granite.

In fact on Khalezov's website, his own depiction of the effects of an underground nuclear explosion includes no layer of melted rock. He talks about a zone of vaporized rock, a zone of powdered rock and a zone of crushed rock.

By the way, has anyone who has looked at videos of the collapse of the towers noticed that they seldom linger on the column of smoke where the core of the building is still standing, emitting smoke. They always cut away from what Judy Wood refers to as the dustification of the metal in the core.

The process which is causing this is unknown, but I won't believe nukes were involved unless there is incontrovertible evidence in the form of by products. Apparently they are looking for beryllium in the dust, which is supposed to be a very strong indicator of a nuclear explosion.

I don't know if this issue has been settled yet.