Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by " Controlled Demolition Inc http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm http://www.controlled-demolition.com I searched nuclear demolition and there is stuff on their site But not specifically demolition jobs, obviously. Why would they publish that ****, So.. it is entirely feasible that this could have been done and is not in fact some fantasy with mudroom clouds. I would never have thought this was possible. So would most people it seems
Do you guys know the difference between practice and theory. It's amazing just how far from reality you can 'prove' things theoretically. I should know I've got 1 PhD thesis, and 2 Masters theses all built on modelling and theoretical constructs.
OK, so it is known that it is a concept that was brought about by the need to destroy buildings that normal demolition jobs could not do on certain buildings And you latch on to that, and you cannot see what you are about attacking straw men, really? Are they going to have such things on their site, imagine the results of that.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that, ffs. That you looked onto a website that you say proves a company can demolish building by nuclear detonation, but that they keep quiet about it - by putting it on their website so that only intrepid conspiracy theorists like yourself can unearth it. Evidently...
No, I looked to see if it still exists, I didnt provide it as confirmation, the text that followed pretty much assures that. The plan was made in the 60s so I just wanted to see if they existed, and they do. What I was pointing out that the idea of a nuclear demolition seemed ridiculous and that in fact it has already been planned for certain buildings because they were not allowed to build buildings without an attached plan to bring it down and in the 60s there was only one way to drop the wtc. You were not surprised by the fact that this could be done or planned yet you jumped all over that bit of text I provided to say the link to the site will have no info on nuclear demolitions thus saving anyone trouble of looking So there was already in pace a plan to drop the wtc with small nukes, that's convenient for Khalesov Anyone reading this, myself included would never have imagined this sort of **** could be done or at least would be surely?
To me it looks like this 210 story building just turns into dust, I am saying looks, obviously I aint seen any large buildings collapse before. Just commenting on what I see. Where the **** is the collapsing building? please log in to view this image
Well then, before I go to bed just a quick question that I'll hope you can answer tomorrow (or RHC, if you read this?). What about the fallout? Surely if you detonated even a small nuclear device you'd cover New York with, say, strontium isotopes that have a half life of forty years (I think - can't be arsed just now looking it up). But that's just one isotope. How would you 'hide' all that fallout/ Are you saying they took it away with the trucks? Did you see the citywide clouds of dust after the towers' collapse? every Geiger counter in the state would still be going off now. Or did they use some sort of neutron bomb in reverse? seriously, why use anything nuclear? They could have used benzene bombs, and it'd be put down to aviation fuel... I can see where this is leading...
You really need to watch the longer full version from the Khalesov interview and his book is free on the net, the short video doesn't do it justice, he covers how nukes behave under ground as opposed to in the atmosphere and how the demolition actually worked a lot more than in the short vid. he is claiming it was not the US government that attacked the US though. He claims they did use the already in place demo plan because they were informed there might be a nuclear device in the towers so they pulled the buildings, the on site fire chief reported this and it is on media coverage that devices may be in the towers and that footage is in the inerview and less than 20 minutes later both buildings are gone, wtc 7 was where both nukes were accessed from and that had to go to cover path to the others demolitions and would have been discovered by the commission, this explains why they could demolish the buildings so quickly and also the demolition theories that were wide of the mark, he explains that if a nuke went off at ground level in the buildings it would be nowhere near as deadly as 100 floors up. The granite missile fired at the pentagon was in fact a nuke that did not explode, the US did enable their nuclear attack protocols and that was what the plane over the whitehouse was about, it was the doomsday plane, one of 4 which were airborne because of the device that hit the pentagon and why they suspected their might be a nuke or nukes in the towers. You really need to watch it, it goes into great depth and too much to explain, 4 hours though so maybe 30 minute sittings. It's very interesting though, even if you dont believe it. In the full vid he really explains why there is the top of the building and the debris from the immediate section below and the rest being microscopic dust from being pulverised. The top hierarchy knows they pulled the buildings by nukes All the people of note who signed the commission report were told that Bin Laden demolished the buildings with three stolen suitcase nukes and obviously agreed to not divulge that info for good reasons, those people who signed the report would have known from radiation ect that nukes were used. The people cannot be told this for obvious reasons to anyone. Its mental and totally not what i thought would be the case because it is so hard to believe so many US citizens could be complicit in attacking the US and covering it up and that was rightly pointed out by many. I have only watched half of it myself What is worth noting on this nuke concept is that the 911 commission determined themselves that the dust that was scattered everywhere, the find minute particle dust was composed of the steel from the building as well as the other materials. Now the only way to explain that is if the steel was turned to dust, microscopic dust. There is only one way to turn steel to dust on that day. What happened the tons and tons of the main component in the construction of the entire building. the steel Was it supposedly crushed to dust in the collapse? that is not possible, it just disappeared magically then Or it was pulverised to dust and ended up scattered all over new York and of course there can only be one explanation for that and it is just a coincidence that the demolition plan to demolish the building since before a brick was laid in the 60s, was a controlled nuclear demolition. i also find it amusing that they never found a body a desk a filing cabinet nothing nada yet they found a hijackers passport
he covers how nukes behave under ground as opposed to in the atmosphere and how the demolition actually worked a lot more than in the short vid. Nuclear underground testing in the 50's was done down mineshafts (that were covered over with millions of tons of earth and rubble) that were hundreds of feet deep. I'm really intrigued how anyone believes that detonating a nuke at the foot of a building would contain the fallout. Infact, as was demonstrated by the percussion/compressed air effect of escaping 'squashed' air at the bottom of the towers as hundreds of thousands of tons of compressed masonry sent out percussion waves that enveloped WT7 (remember the lessons of 'blockbuster' bombs in WW2, that you doubtless never read?) would disperse the fallout at nearly supersonic speeds around the area, and well out over the area of the city; as was evidenced by the dust clouds lingering around the city for days. Btw, the smouldering rubble for weeks - why is that a problem? A burning warehouse can smoulder for days after the brigade have doused it, In this instance there's millions of tons of superheated metal, compressed into a relatively small area and surrounded by tons of compressed combustible materials and oxygen. I helped one of my mates a few years ago gut a home he'd bought and was renovating (he made £75k on it eventually, jammy twat!). We built a bonfire in the back garden for all the doors, floorboards, etc, and it got so hot that in the end you could put anything on it and it'd melt - even a bath, as I remember. All we had to do, at first, was to keep poking it up and stoking it up. It smouldered for three days. The fire brigade came around eventually, and though it was not out of control, they doused it because of complaints from neighbours. As a postscript though, my mate told me that a few weeks later a brick wall in the garden ten yards away fell down! I really don't know what the problem is about smouldering rubble.
khalesov spent a a couple of $100k on putting it together at a serious loss and gave his book away for free, the costs are claim and I cannot say whether it is true or not. it is about as verifiable as your claim he made wads, 75k is nothing in terms of years of work don't you think? I did not read the item you mentioned either I may do so. Now, lets be clear, you have the composition of the building wrong, there was 200,000 tons of steel in the building, it was primarily steel. the outer walls and inner core were mostly steel with concrete facade and every piece of flooring and other parts of the concrete was re-barred. also the heat months after the event was measured in areas beneath the rubble at in excess of 1000 degrees. "smoldered for 3 days! are you serious, even when during the event at the time I clearly remember there being intense heat months after the event dude. You can see easily in the clearance work, much later than 3 days after the event workers preventing the hosing down of material they were trying to remove because it was so hot the steam would have clouded the entire site on widely available videos of work being done by the clearance operation As for the demo. in the proper interview the long one, at 1 hr and 20 mins in, and he worked on nuke projects, he states that a 150 kiloton (limit set by the PNE treaty with Russia) explosion will evaporate 50 meter circumference of granite so 100m wide. Remember also that there was collateral damage, water flooded into the cavity beneath the site and that was in the news ect. I also find it interesting in footage there is a tremor before both towers collapse, you can see the building shake as supposedly the nuke goes off, then 10 seconds later the building just falls at free fall speed, and no one can deny that was the rate at which the towers fell. I find it interesting that 210 stories of metal and concrete leave this behind, this is before the clean up as you can see there are no clear up operations running, this is very soon after, the dust has not even settled, does this not beg some questions. Where are the collapsed buildings? They are certainly not there, 2 210 story buildings and wtc 7, 3 buildings with over a million tons of iron plating concrete and the contents of those buildings and this is what is left! please log in to view this image Is this the top of one of the wtc towers sitting on the ground? Where is the rest of it? please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Said the bonfire smouldered for three days. You haven't even REMOTELY answered the question re fallout. Or why WT7 needed to come down. Or, in this Heath-Robinson, over-complicated affair of edited videos (were the thousands of eye witness who saw and recoded planes hypnotised or something?) if you were going to demolish the buildings you'd use nukes THAT WOULD LEAVE MASSIVE EVIDENCE OF FALLOUT when you could use conventional explosives such as benzene bombs. Or even sonic waves at strategic places. I bet you there were some folk in ancient Rome who believed Versuvias was a plot by the Emperor. "What, you don't believe us? You're controlled by the heralds, you are.."
Ok, so the fallout. It can be blamed on multiple things but it is coincidental that there are many cancer victims after the work done on the clear up. Developed cancer long before 2013, rather quickly, could this be from radiation? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers <This I do not put forward a proof, nothing is, I am questioning everything. You seem to think I am offering "proof" I am not I posted a bit in a previous post, Firefighter chief medical officer reports of cancers and firefighters have already died. Could be related and again could be coincidental but neither you or I are educated enough in that aspect to determine what exactly would happen. Also I posted earlier that those who would be well aware of the radiation were told that Bin Laden used nukes on the buildings it is claimed anyway, if it is true I can understand then why they would not speak out and again why the public also could not be told from a physiological perspective, nukes going off in new York would have put the entire country into meltdown and almost uncontrollable hysteria. Also remember that a 150 kiloton nuke is small. A quarter size or less than a conventional nuke. One going off it is claimed would measure as 5.7 on the Richter scale and localised to the immediate area given the composition of the ground, granite. Again you misconceive the effects of the process and I've had a gander out there, there is a massive difference between this happening above ground and below. Almost immediately after the event as soon as possibly the job would have been to fill the cavity. Thousands of witnesses did not see the planes, that is a massive exaggeration on your part, literally no one seen the first one, and only one video exists which came out well after the fact. the second one that supposedly hit has witness, on air on the day say there was just an explosion and they seen no plane but of course we should just dismiss those accounts and go with 1 live video and 3 that came out after the event some time later, one of which has audio added that was not in the original footage, and there are those who said there was a plane and video evidence of that plane that has been picked apart, especially the impact in the 2nd crash. there were reporters who said they were looking up at the towers and had their cameras and seen the 2nd explosion, given the official stance those who have reported anything that did not fit the official explanation have been excluded from any media coverage and ignored totally. You need ot remember that people were in total shock and one guy talking to the TV station via phone says there was just an explosion and the anchor said there was a plane and the guy said oh.. was there I just seen it explode and then the reporter repeated there was a plane and the guy just accepted there was even though he did not see one. So, who do we discount as valid witnesses and also even the light reflective examinations of the footage of the second plane strike do not add up at all, but I know you will not research anything other than to debunk, where as I have looked, gotten it totally wrong so i was not entrenched, I believed it was the government, and it was wrong, I thought the buildings were conventionally demolished and actually scoffed at the nuke idea until researched the actual events before during and after the collapse. You know quite well you nor I can fully explain the radiation situation after it happened but heat over 1000 degrees, cancer, totally pulverised buildings into microscopic dust the plan to demolish them that way in the first place and the flooding of the site as well as silicon quartz in the air all coincidentally match what could possibly be the outcome of such a demolition. You certainly just dismiss anything whatsoever that contradicts your view of events, mine has changed totally given more research, I bet you have not done any research to the affirmative during this thread's existence. I have gone down a 100 blind alleys and got 200 things wrong, you haven't once admitted you got anything incorrect in your assumptions, ignore the points you can't just disprove with a tap of the keyboard, it's totally apparent from this thread. You sort of mock videos, like Joe Casaliggi who was with Engine 7 who says everything was totally pulverised. Real reports that people seen no plane even though they were watching. the evidence given by structural engineers that say the plane could not have possibly penetrated the building as it did, I mean c'mon even the ends of the wings cut through the steel ffs. What I am getting at Donga is that there are a thousand things that point to the official story being a lie and you ignore every one of them. Some of those aspects that contradict the official line are strong evidence of a lie.
The dust and burning chemicals and metals would account for all of that. See the lung cancer of Donna Summer. If your demolition engineer has a way of producing fission with such piffling amounts of radiation I suggest they start constructing nuclear power stations, as the energy needs of the world are taken care of for the next millennium. And there are a million things that point to the accepted story as being right. I consider your thousand things: you just deny the million things on the other side. So there it is - nuclear demolition without significant fallout (that would still be giving off enormous radiation even now, twelve years later)? No. Not a thousand times no, but a million times no. To quote one of the greatest scientists who ever lived "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled". No fallout = no nukes. Edit 150 kilotons if nearly five times the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People were dying from the effects of those bombs for decades, and some reckon Nagasaki is still giving off high background radiation (that was the plutonium bomb) now. Further edit + I'll go through the rest of your post later, but one other thing jumps out - you, who in an earlier post discounted how the nose of the plane could be forced through the building if a bird strike dented it, now reckon that the wings tips (aerodynamically the lightest part of the plane to produce lift) should cut through steel? Hmmm.
unanswered issues for me Hijackers still alive after 2001 Norad moved to Cheyenne mountain and for the first time in US history closed it's nuclear blast doors. The E4 Boing Doomsday planes were in operations, for keeping things running in the event of a nuclear attack Firefighters because gravely ill very soon after the event and cleanup, died of cancer within a few years after the attack - a fact, formerly healthy men until that day. The actual plans for the demolition of the WTC buildings. US dictionaries changed the meaning of ground zero from place of centre of a Nuclear explosion to bomb explosion after 9\11, why bother, and why call it ground zero The actual footage of and results of the buildings coming down which has never been explained in any credible way officially The missing mass of 3 sky scrapers. Cant be explained away by "smouldering" Extremely dodgy low res footage of the plane, not one high def copy of any kind. The impact described by physics teachers and engineers as cartoon physics Accounts of just explosions, believe it or not, as many as claims a plane was actually seen, but ignored totally. Accounts of the ground shaking prior to collapse, by firefighters and people. metal like swiss cheese, metal that belonged it is claimed to the damage zone of the demolition, all the steel below was pulverised. The smouldering mentioned by some was in excess of 1000 degrees. that's some smouldering given a whole building and tons of microscopic dust should have smothered any fires, are we to believe the fire from the top of the building burned on after the whole thing came down? really? and I could go on, that list is just the tip of a mountain of unanswered questions and given this was supposed to be simply a terrorist attack there is a distinct lack of proof that it was an attack by Bin laden which is weird if that was actually the case doesn't one think, there should be a unquestionable amount of proof in that respect if that's what happened, only when there are lies are there so many holes in a story,
Here is Joe, a firefighter who was there and worked on the aftermath, he says it all collapsed to dust. it's only 20 seconds long, I think Joe would be aware of the terrible power of "smouldering" [video=youtube;eSueQsVsk_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSueQsVsk_M&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
This is 6 weeks later, 6 weeks Donga, you say smoldering for 3 days, 30 sec vid, 1500 degrees! [video=youtube;xsh-JpY9bk4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh-JpY9bk4[/video] So are you gonna climb down from your 3 day smouldering claim? They bore into it and it's like a furnace. Check anywhere you like, there is only one way, One way there can be molten metal beneath the rubble after 6 weeks, it was there after 3 months. only nuclear explosion cause that.
