9/11 Nuclear Demolition Of The WTC By Dimitri Khalezov **** MUST SEE *****

yes, i hope he and others are safe there.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Look carefully at photos 5, 6 & 7 on the following web page and you will see the central core of WTC2 dropping out of sight.

[link to 911research.wtc7.net]

Carefully examine the following four photographs. Particularly the last photo on the far right. Note the smoldering central core is still standing (after the outer shell and floors have collapsed). This photo was taken during or just prior to the core's foot-first decent into "the pit of h3ll".

[link to 911research.wtc7.net]

Thanks for those links!

gosh,

Dmitri never came back and I was looking forward to the battle between

top-down THERMOBARICs

and

bottom-up NUCLEARs

I know which I'd rather have going off, standing in the lobby, hearing the booms and starting to run.... did that happen? Did people WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT of WTC 1 or 2 actually run out, as that building was falling?

I don't mean the NEIGHBOURING building, I mean the ACTUAL FALLING BUILDING?

This is very important because the NUCLEAR option negates all escape.

I did not quite get the concept fully of Dimitris' nuclear demolition idea until editing the video and watching over and over again in edit mixes with a new perspective and it became clear. The "squibs" so called were NOT falling debris pressure.

They were the outward pressure already blowing UPWARD from the rising nuke below fired before the fall of the top section onto the rising mushroom of the blast. The amount of pressure and applied force would be relative to a mathematical equation given they knew what the specs were on each tower. The top timed JUST in timed to fall on the rising mushroom.

As far as the survivors in the stairwells the 26 part video series does cover that in the devices were set off centre and left one whole corner on each tower relatively unscathed.

Note that the presence of Thermate does not discount Dimitri's theory in anyway. As "SOFTENING" of a building is typically required prior to the final "PULL".

Thermate was most likely used in conjunction with the subterranean demolition "device(s)" to help manage the tricky destructiion of the upper floors and also cut key supporting columns in order to prevent any major sections of the building from falling laterally. Note how the top of the tower (which was out of the range of the Dimiti's theorized pulverization & crush zones) disintegrates, despite falling sideways. Complex problems require complex and multifaceted solutions. (no pun intended).

Hello to everyone. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday. Just became free to visit your Forum. Regarding 'thermobaric(s)' I would like to state that I will not participate in any 'battle between 'nukers' and 'thermobaricsters''. Sorry about it. If you want to know my humble opinion, here it is:
1) Thermobaric explosive devices however modern and however fasionable can not be compared with old good hydrogen charges of over 100 kiloton when it comes to their respective explosive energy.
2) Thermobaric explosive devices can not cause typical underground nuclear explosion and unlikely they could explode underground whatsoever because thermobaric devices need huge volume of air around to produce their actual trade-mark thermobaric effect.
3) Anyone can type into YouTube search box this phrase 'thermobaric explosion' and he will find a lot of movies that show live various thermobaric explosions that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the WTC demolition.
4) Thermobaric devices can not cause shaking of earth akin to a typical earhquake.
5) Thermobaric devices cause neither radiation sickness, nor any abnormally high levels of radiation on ground zero.
6) Thermobaric devices do not cause a place where they exploded to be dubbed 'ground zero'.
7) Explosions of thermobaric devices do not cause massive attempts by responsible high-ranking officials to re-print all English dictionaries with a view of re-defining former 'ground zero' term from 'hypocenter of nuclear explosion' into something vague with multiple meanings.
I would like to close this subject on this optimistic note and cowardly withdraw myself from the abovementioned battle.
However, it is OK for me to participate in the rest of arguments, providing that the subject of discussion is reasonable enough to spend time chatting on it.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

Dimitri:

This is probably a dumb question but could the nooklear device be used to create both a primary pulverization wave and a secondary thermobaric vacummn (within the building only)?

Just trying to understand, not to argue.
Thanks

Yes, it was possible because some lower parts of the WTC-1 and WTC-2 were indeed spared by pulverization due to they came into a kind of 'dead space' on the way of propagation of the 'crushing wave'. It happened because the nuclear charges intended to demolish the Towers were positioned not exactly in the middle of the Towers' footprints, but somewhat outside, thus 'sparing' the opposite Tower's corners perhaps 30 or 40 meters high. These corners also included surviving staircases with some lucky survivors in them, mostly firefighters. See my movie attentively for more details in regard to this effect.

Dimitri:

Just trying to gain supporting answers.

The foundational "Bathtub" which holds back ground and river water from flooding the WTC subterranean complex was never breached, miraculously. Would it not have been in the better interests of the perps to do so, thus flooding, sealing off and assisting in the cooling of the pit? Or would that simply have spread radioactive vapours further in the resulting steam clouds?

Dmitri,

thanks for coming back. Glad you're safe. I did look into the allegations of RADIATION @ 'ground zero' and all I came across was a de-bunked tritium-in-sewer-water spike.

Can you please provide a decent online source for
a) the RADIATION READINGS @ WTC post-demolition?
b) data-spike of RADIATION SICKNESS within New Yorkers?

Also, is it TRUE? You can't take a GEIGER COUNTER to 'ground zero'? Has anyone attempted to do so? And that hole in the floor (the pot hole), does it have glass sides?

cheers

when I say THERMOBARIC POWDER, I'm talking about a nano-aluminium (not thermite) powder dispersed using the WTC hi-oxygen air-conditioning system.

Thermobaric weapons @ WTC on 9-11?
[link to mikephilbin.blogspot.com]

etc...

I suggest every one who haven't seen it yet, watch this video - it is short, but very illustrative. It shows how these remaining 'spikes' standing for a while after the Tower collapsed slowly were blown by wind into steel dust:
[link to www.youtube.com]
I think this movie is the most illustrative to this effect from all available 9/11 movies. This proves that all steel was pulverized, but remain sticking as a pile of compressed dust for a little while. The major part of the Tower was finally reduced to the actual fluffy dust by the heavy Tower's top crushing downwards. Some parts that were missed by the heavy Tower's top (like those 'spikes' we discuss here) were finally reduced to the very same dust by nothing else than common wind. Hope it helps to realize how fine was the Tower structure after its near complete 'dustification' caused by the crushing wave.

Question?

As clearly seen in the picture links posted above. Based on your information, why would the core section of the tower (sink foot-first into the Earth) seconds AFTER the outer sections consisting of floors and shell structure were dustified and peeled away?

Might this be due to the higher density or structural integrity of the core? Or could this be due to the charge being placed under the perimeter shell of the building, thus the central core would be pulverized slightly later than the external shell of the building?

Note that during the demolition, a remaining spire of free standing columns remains for a few seconds before also collapsing. It would be interesting to confirm if this spire was located in the far corner of the building from the charge, which I expect will prove to be the case.

Hmm... thanks for pointing this out. To be honest, I has always suspected that some firefighters from among the Freemasonic brotherhood must have pretended to run upwards and then reported over his radio (while safely driving away in some get away car) 'from the place of impact' that he saw, he saw, he saw with his very eyes something looking like warhead from the 'Truthful lie' movie. Because such a claim would be in a perfect compliance with the 'awful' version of the 'truth' - that the US officials believed there were terrorist nukes (not 'mini-nukes' but real warheads) in the upper floors of the Towers and this must finally push them into a decision to collapse the Towers. I always thought that it should be like this and some bogus firefighter from among the 'dead heroes' must have been an 'eye-witness' to this so-called ‘secondary explosive device’, but I have never encountered any real info on this particular. Here is the first one I see. Thanks. Could you, please, send me a link to this info published anywhere? I guess this is extremely important evidence.

but TOWER ONE is 'visually' a top-down demolition... the entire building doesn't turn to dust... nor does it drop all at once as the basement is collapsed... it just explodes from top to bottom - that's why I don't understand the nuke-underneath theory.

[link to www.youtube.com]

^^^ visual reference

No, I think it happened simply because the heavy Tower's top crushing downwards did so with a certain degree of tilt (the tilt was especially noticeable in case of the South Tower, but even in case of the North Tower it was quite noticeable too). That is why the opposite corner of the Tower's perimeter did not come under direct pressure of the Tower's top falling down and therefore was spared. I think this one is pretty obvious and does not require much guessing.

Cross link to pothole photos thread.

Thread: Pothole inexplicably beneath WTC confirms the nuke theory!!!

hi dimitri,

very happy that you are safe from the turmoil there.

my question, buried in all the posts in this thread, is about thermite used as cutter charges. it seems to me that there is good evidence of thermite and that cutter charges are the only explanation for the breach in the building where the plane allegedly went in the building. since an aluminum aircraft wing cant cut steel like that and the steel is obviously breached in photos, not bowed in, not blasted outward, but simply cut, then the inescapable conclusion is that charges were fired there.

i had other questions too, but thats the main one.

thanks again for everything.

Thank you too for your care. Tritium is a signature of a hydrogen explosion (nowadays called 'thermo-nuclear'). If you know it is not possible to built an atomic (fission) bomb over 40 kiloton. Everything above 40 kt must be hydrogen (thermo-nuclear/fission + fusion) only. So, there is no doubt the 150 kt nukes under the WTC were hydrogen ones. Hence Tritium.
Regarding the rest of your questions:
a) it is very difficult to find any mentioning of ionizing radiation on ground zero, because as you may sincerely expect responsible US officials heavily suppressed free distribution of this kind of dangerous info. It was classified and is known only to involved officials who signed non-disclosure contracts. So, don't expect to find much on this issue.
b) the same as above. The info is classified. Though the effects are pretty obvious.
However, not to leave you completely without any answer, I suggest you seeing these:
1) [link to www.newscientist.com]
(here two obvious radioactivity absorbents mixed into waters of firefighters are mentioned)
2) download book by William Tahil from nucleardemolition.com and you will have a lot of info
3) [link to www.denix.osd.mil (secure)]
here you can get quite a big document and 'Ionizing Radiation' is modestly mentioned in it among other hazards on the Manhattan ground zero.
4) [link to www.epa.gov]
here you also can get interesting document. It is not directly related to the Manhattan ground zero, nonetheless, if your read it carefully (it is a short document, you can read it quickly) you will find a lot of similarities between what is described in it in regard to radiation sickness and real cases of 'unexplainable' sickness of the ground zero responders.
That is maximum of what I can offer you. Don't forget that info was firstly classified, secondly - heavily suppressed.

Theory:

As stated, the crush and pulverizing wave would not reach the top of the towers, which poses a bit of a problem for the demolition engineers. So did they do it in two stages, using somewhat similar devices and techniques?

It was "reported" by firemen there was a secondary device "INSTALLED" at the top of the building. Was this a secondary upwardly vectored pulverizing device? Note how the top of the (second to fall) core section is blown off at the point where the top floors were initially destroyed from the BOTTOM UP from a point located near the upper limit of the subterranean crush wave.

So did they first pulverize the top floors from the bottom up using a demolition device mounted in the vicinity of the 82nd floor, while the subterranean demolition waves propagated from the ground up of the bottom section of the tower to the vicinity of the 82nd floor, as Dimitri has suggested?

This might explain the mystery of the "evaporating" top sections of the towers.

Hi. Thanks for your care. I don't think thermite could have been used as cutting charges in the abovementioned sense. If you see an event of electric welding you will notice that thermite is very slow (it is fast in sparkling, but it is slow in actual job of cutting steel). It will take perhaps 10 minutes or so to cut completely those double-walled steel beams using thermite. Which is far from being sufficient to successfully imitate 'plane' impacts. The steel in that sense was cut by so-called 'hollow-shape explosive charges' - traditional anti-tank weapon, not by 'thermite'. I suggest you forget once and forever about the thermite. It had nothing to do with the 9/11 affair and any claim to the contrary (like calim that 'themite was found in dust') is blatant lie.

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Dimitri, the pothole in this picture also looks accompanied by tunnels and also looks like it has had a pouring of smooth concret on top of it's bottom.

Could these be remnants of the tunnels for placing the nukes as well as the indication of the place where one charge was buried for WTC-2 take-down?

I tried really hard to understand but was unable to. I don't understand why would we discuss any 'wacuum' if there were not any wacuum recorded/reported/noticed/visible in case of the WTC demolition? What we are talking about?

The location of this pothole is very close to your placement of the WTC-2 nuke.

Would you mind, please, to be more attentive and to read carefully what I have posted in about the middle of the page 12 in regard to the very same question of yours? And I am waiting to your comments regarding that post of mine with impatience.