posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:08 AM
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.
edit on 28-9-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)