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.


Proof for "planned [nuclear] demolition" of WTC (like Khalezov mentioned)

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:10 PM

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!
edit on 16-5-2011 by Hessdalen because: no reason

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by Hessdalen

Hmm after going to Dimitri Khalezov's website I'd stop eve bothering. He's got articles explaining pretty much ever recent even as a mini nuke.

Bali bombing? mini nuke
OK city? mini nuke

The patent you linked is referring to demolishing of concrete, so I'm not entirely sure this would be a "demolition device", more likely a method to work WITH demolition.

I'n not a scientist and hope someone more knowledgeable can look at those briefs and explain the technology. If this device works as it sounds, it could have been PART of the 911 puzzle and would explain the pulverized concrete. Though I don't see how this plays into a mini nuke.


It's a little confusing to name the thread : "Proof for "planned [nuclear] demolition" of WTC (like Khalezov mentioned)"

When in reality no proof is provided at all.

edit on 16-5-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by Hessdalen

I think the above is the "Truth" of the matter. That's my theory anyway.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

The mini-nuke guy won't argue his theory with anyone who disagrees with him and is generally an attention-deprived soul who likes to make things up.

You asked about the invention. I looked at the patent and it is not likely that this will be used anywhere. It uses electrochemical means to corrode steel rebar within the concrete causing the rebar to expand and the concrete to crack. It takes hours to days to see effects but is basically a sped up version of the common road spalling by rebar corrosion. It looks as though the concrete would still have to be demolished by standard means but that it would break up much easier.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:12 PM
i delete the link because its just confusing...i am looking for the device / plan dimitri is talking about

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by Hessdalen

He might be referring to "red mercury", a substance, rather than a device. It is not a nuclear detonation but rather a more like conventional demolition by a substance that was super charged by being cooked in a nuclear reactor.

This substance could be so explosive that it could act as a nuclear trigger device. Or it could be used alone mixed with other substances, possibly thermite. I think it is called a ballotechnic.

Some say it is pure fiction and does not exist. Some say it is "cooked" tritium 6.

Google search "red mercury".

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:08 PM
Here's a pretty cool thread on the topic:


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)

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:46 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:13 PM
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.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:04 AM
Heres the wikipedia discussion page for the article DK tried to add to wikipedia

He never even brought in 911 or WTC as the examples...

The moderators jumped on it as a 911 conspiracy as though they were on the watch for it....

Has any other building in the world been brought down by this method and documented?

The Control Demolition document would be the rocket to this theory...

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

Here is the "fingerprint" of the Thermo nuklear explosion underground.
Take time to read the hole article.

The melted steel, and the heat pouring out from the rubble weeks after 911 is a hard nut to crack without
this considered.

Most people have a "fence" put up in their brains when it comes to nuklear bombs.
Don`t think Hiroshima, this is no emitting radiaton of "rays" as they are absorbed by the rock,
the crushing effect takes the short resistense way, straight up in the tower and pulverises the steel, concrete, glass and other solids. Paper and other soft material is not affected of this force.

Dont rush throug the article, lean back and take it`s time, then you can watch the 3 hour of Dimitri Chalezow
with an open mind.
Strongly recomended:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed

This theory has absolutey no evidential support. Jeff Prager dotes on the dust samples but if he explosion was contained, to include all radiation and radioactive materials, the dust would be from what was present in the buildings. As none of the dust was found to be radioactive, it is not evidence of a nuclear fission explosion, erroneously termed a 'thermonuclear' device by the author and must have come from the buildings.
Prager seems unaware of what a nuclear explosion does, of the EMP, of the residual radiation or of the shockwave propagation. There is also no explanation why an underground explosion would start the collapse at the top.
Any conspirators using a nuclear device could not expect to have their plot go unnoticed and it wouldn't require Jeff looking at dust analysis ten years later to determine a nuclear bomb went off.

top topics


log in