Russia Opens Files on Nuclear 9/11 and Israeli Proliferation

I don't know if I am allowed to link this, but you can go to nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap and select the Davy Crocket warhead, which is listed with a yield of 20 tons, and select the target, in this case Manhattan. You can drag the marker to place it directly over the area in question. It should be noted that this particular warhead could have the detonation altitude adjusted.

Now, there is a HUGE difference between .02 kilotons and 2 kilotons, as the map shows. There is absolutely ZERO chance that such a high yield device was detonated on that day. The effects would have been far, far worse. Now something that is very telling, imo, is that there were survivors in the towers. We know this for a fact, that they were alive and unharmed before the collapses.

That unequivocally tells me that this was not a nuclear device. The simulation suggests that a 2 kt device would have killed over 30,000 people and injured many more, while a .02 kt device would have killed 2,270 and injured around 20,000. Not precise by any means, but interesting.

a reply to: butcherguy

I'm showing a 2 kiloton device with the following effect in lower Manhattan.

- Fireball radius: 100 m (0.03 km²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation. If it touches the ground, the amount of radioactive fallout is significantly increased.

- Air blast radius (20 psi): 270 m (0.24 km²)
At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

- Air blast radius (5 psi): 0.58 km (1.05 km²)
At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread.

- Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 0.69 km (1.48 km²)
Third degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves. They can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation. 100% probability for 3rd degree burns at this yield is 7.4 cal/cm2.

- Radiation radius (500 rem): 0.94 km (2.8 km²)
500 rem radiation dose; without medical treatment, there can be expected between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone. Dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Source

Looks like near total destruction to around half a kilometer and things cease to exist within a 100 meter diameter at something hotter than the sun.

We'd have noticed. I'm sure of it.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm showing a 2 kiloton device with the following effect in lower Manhattan.

- Fireball radius: 100 m (0.03 km²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation. If it touches the ground, the amount of radioactive fallout is significantly increased.

- Air blast radius (20 psi): 270 m (0.24 km²)
At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

- Air blast radius (5 psi): 0.58 km (1.05 km²)
At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread.

- Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 0.69 km (1.48 km²)
Third degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves. They can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation. 100% probability for 3rd degree burns at this yield is 7.4 cal/cm2.

- Radiation radius (500 rem): 0.94 km (2.8 km²)
500 rem radiation dose; without medical treatment, there can be expected between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone. Dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Source

Looks like near total destruction to around half a kilometer and things cease to exist within a 100 meter diameter at something hotter than the sun.

We'd have noticed. I'm sure of it.

That's an airburst Wrab. The instructions on the VT tin was that the bermb be placed underneath the towers. Not that I particularly go for the whole scenario, there were those people in the towers who said there was an explosion in the basement or car park areas, either they are wrong or right. I exclude mistaken as it is not relevant.

as they are the authors ? there even one jew was killed and you for him took revenge by killing 3000000 Arabs for what ?

I saw reference to the author being interviewed by Stew Webb. In a world full of 'pecking parties' where conspiracy enthusiasts regularly throw out accusations of 'shills' and 'disinfo agent'...well, let's just say that I don't trust Webb one iota.

a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

If you ask me, Russia is lying about the nuke + 9/11 stuff. They are trying to push people TOWARD the truth without giving them the truth.

I'm still a firm believer in the thermite theory for the towers. I haven't seen anything that explains the melting steel and continued burn of the rubble quite like it.

Russia probably knows, but they also can't say it. They have to give us a lie that's headed in the right direction and hope people don't give up. I think they know if the truth comes out the US government is going to have serious problems from the citizens.

That's to say, they are starting to abandon the friendly intelligence protocol that the perhaps once had with the USA. But obviously I'm just guessing.

It sounds like Russia's gonna hit them where it hurts. Watch the rats start scattering. Hopefully he releases the evidence on who was behind 911 and many other false flag events. And he's talking about Israel just to make all the traitors in DC squirm. I love it I want some more of it!! Come on Putin, let'er rip!

originally posted by: Arktos1
It is a real challenge to find the truth. I wish there were some real links to sources of the docs at the VT site.


Link to youtube video where Gordy himself admits to propagating lies:

Sorry I did not embed, will learn how for next time.

Here's your video,

originally posted by: SMOKINGGUN2012
Well we all knew this was coming the only question was when. Now that we have pissed off Putin and again are reviving all cold war efforts it was only a matter of time before he started spilling the beans on what Russia knows of things from the past 25 years since the wall came down.

You may or may not trust this source but feel free to browse this..........

www.veteranstoday.com...

According to a retired FXX agent specializing in Israeli counter intel: The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.

We all knew what was coming? That a site known to spread BS would spread some more? Are you seriously suggesting/believing that nuclear devices detonated on 9/11? Have you any idea what would have happened, or are you blindly reading and believing any crap that you can find on the internet?

a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

What a load of rubbish OP... 2 x 2 kiloton = 4000 tons of TNT

That would have reduced central Manhattan to Rubble.

There was no nuclear detonation on 9/11

Apparently it is possible to put a nuclear device in the ground and detonate it without seeing a huge blast above ground.

As far as I understand it, the idea is to put the bomb so deep, that the upper edge of the round cavity that is formed by the blast would only touch the bottom of the building, which then would pretty much rush straight down as it turns to dust, thus filling up the cavity.

If it actually works that way, it certainly would explain why there was molten metal under the rubble that took about a month to stop burning, but I guess it would also literally rip a hole into the subway system and the sewers, depending on how deep they go.

a reply to: Sirrurg

You can detonate a nuke in ways that can't be visually seen from above ground, depending on size and specific yield. However, there is absolutely NO chance of hiding the event of a nuclear detonation from every seismograph in the region and likely most, if not all of the world.

Nukes leave a signature as distinct in it's own way as a fingerprint on a seismic trace.

originally posted by: Sirrurg

If it actually works that way, it certainly would explain why there was molten metal under the rubble that took about a month to stop burning, but I guess it would also literally rip a hole into the subway system and the sewers, depending on how deep they go.

That's just it, it's entirely possible for any kind of explosive underneath, and why I mentioned about the suitcase bombs, and there were seismic signatures at the time. What isn't given in the VT story how they would match in size, timing of events etc;
Plus there is no doubt the story is embellished in parts which is not needed, the remarks about the the mast vapourising for instance, when it clearly did not.

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

What a load of rubbish OP... 2 x 2 kiloton = 4000 tons of TNT

That would have reduced central Manhattan to Rubble.

There was no nuclear detonation on 9/11

Rubbish? Actually it is a fact that around 70,000 are sick, from what is the question.
The article claims this is very similar to radiation symptoms from a detonated device.

No actually it would not have reduced it to rubble. Read the post just below yours.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Sirrurg

You can detonate a nuke in ways that can't be visually seen from above ground, depending on size and specific yield. However, there is absolutely NO chance of hiding the event of a nuclear detonation from every seismograph in the region and likely most, if not all of the world.

Nukes leave a signature as distinct in it's own way as a fingerprint on a seismic trace.

Wrab,

What do you make of this fireman's comments?

"Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. ... By the time the debris settled from the first collapse, we started to walk back east, toward West Street, and a few minutes later ... we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." Lieutenant Bradley Mann.
The video below is of the North tower, so it is the second event, and the camera was static and secured.



It is weird isn't it?

a reply to: smurfy

I really don't know, to be honest. I mean that could have a perfectly logical physics explanation in so far as the collapse starting from the core out and both being of identical construction, failing in near identical ways. They were designed to pancake in the event of collapse, that much I believe is well established in period records back to their construction.

On the other hand? Aside from the signatures of a nuclear detonation or signs of a big explosion measurably preceding the start of the free fall, I haven't really looked at the seismic tapes for a lack of engineering background to know what should be normal and what shouldn't be.

Manhattan sits on real solid bedrock though, which I guess is part of what makes it very good for these kinds of buildings too (just reading on that..). It should make anything easy to see for vibration to capture on graphs right there in the city. Multiple, I'd guess, within NYC alone.

Also, if we think about the premise of a nuke? Where is the radiation? I don't mean just air release at detonation. That could be contained below ground, true enough. However..millions and millions of gallons of water flowed into and had to be pumped back out of that site down to the bottom of the existing soil layers.

New York would all have a problem for how widely that would have spread in small amounts by now, from such a blanket and careless flow out into the wild. The workers so openly exposed for long terms, even in small amounts, wouldn't be filing for lung impairments as their top issues I'd think.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: smurfy

I really don't know, to be honest. I mean that could have a perfectly logical physics explanation in so far as the collapse starting from the core out and both being of identical construction, failing in near identical ways. They were designed to pancake in the event of collapse, that much I believe is well established in period records back to their construction.

The core was the last thing to collapse, at least in the north tower. That much is well documented too. And, if you look at the camera in the video it shimmys laterally, and up and down.

a reply to: smurfy

Well, you probably know volumes more about some of those specifics than I do. There are a few events I don't necessarily have every aspect researched, and this is sure one of them. A lot of reasons for that...but suffice it to say I have major questions of what happened I'd like to see a clean and real investigation of sometime within my lifetime.

A question of what impacted the buildings or whether a tactical nuclear weapon could ever have been present aren't among them, but for what I think are reasons built on chains of logic. Like the steps outlined for why a nuke could never have remained unknown, even a small one.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Your post is entirely meaningless, really...

Noone is concerned here with what happened BEFORE the collapses, this is clearly about THE COLLAPSES.

Nice try but entirely off-course, and also telling of the compartmentalized mentality of those who desperately want to believe this is all possible with jet planes and KINETIC ENERGY.

Still amazing how even people who work with metal can suspend all the things they know about metal for one day, and then go back to the old physics afterwards, a VERY SUCCESSFUL showing of how to create multiple realities inside one person.