The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
9/11 Physics Debate: Were the Three World Trade Center Buildings Demolished with Nuclear Devices?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


VIDEO VERSION

In this, the eighth annual 9/11 Physics Debate sponsored by ANETA.org, François Roby, associate professor in physics at the Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, and German nuclear physicist Heinz Pommer join American engineer Joseph Olson, PE to advance the 9/11 nuclear demolition hypothesis. Since all three agree that the official NIST position (“minor kerosene-kindled office fires demolished the buildings”) is absurd, and that the best and only explanation is nuclear demolition, it isn’t much of a debate. As in all previous debates, it was once again impossible to find any qualified experts to defend the official story. But we do hope to find one or more proponents of the thermite-plus-explosives hypothesis to respond to the pro-nuclear-demolition arguments advanced here. Stay tuned to Truth Jihad Radio for details.

Heinz Pommer writes:

In physics we have two sacred principles:

– energy

– momentum

From this all follows and flows. Dr. Roby proved that the energy source HAD to be nuclear. Not because of the destruction itself, but because of the energy density on site: the cooling process took at least three months (“after 100 days the fires were out”).

Relevant links:

Breathtaking: Solving Nuclear 9/11, the Pommer Report https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/12/30/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/

Exclusive: 9/11, It’s Not in the Details by Dr. Francois Roby, Forget the Details! https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/06/01/exclusive-9-11-its-not-in-the-details-by-dr-francois-roby-forget-the-details/

François Roby’s blog: https://aitia.fr/erd/

Why the nuclear demolition hypothesis is not an option, it’s compulsory https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696

Exposing 9/11: NIST Jenga Game by Joseph Olson, PE https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/10/06/vital-exposing-9-11-nist-jenga-game/

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Science • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories, Nuclear Weapons 
Hide 165 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Highly interesting. The theory seems to fit the energy-momentum analysis presented in the 2005 book by Dr. Judy Wood: ‘Where did the towers go? Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11’ Right after 9/11 I read in the press that the authorities were trying to confiscate the many video cameras pointed at the disappearing buildings. But sequential still photos of the event still looked just like a very smooth controlled demolition It immediatedly called to mind the famous Peter Sellers-Inspector Clouseau film in which the UN building vanished in a wink from the top down, leaving no rubble. Hollywood portrayed such a prophetic scene as the work of a mad scientist with a death ray. Coincidence? Thanks you your posting on this still wide open 9/11 phenomenon. Now I’ll have go through the URLs you referenced, unless Darpa has caused them to disappear too.

    • Replies: @anthony aaron
  2. karatic says:

    I did not hear the interview yet but the title caught my eye. I read a book by Dr. Judy Wood titled “Where did the Towers Go?” a while back. one does not have to read the entire book to draw any conclusion. Just looking at the collections of photos on 911 damage is a story itself. Even the Truth movement guys did not like her book.
    Towers are on the west side (Hudson River) but interestingly enough some of damaged/burned properties were located on the east side about a mile away from the towers. It supports Dr. Wood’s assertion the energy wave caused the damage. When I showed those pictures in the book to a a friend now retired scientist who worked with a Federal agency. The first thing he said was this damaged was caused by energy waves. Just by looking the photos.
    I bought the book directly from her university because it was not available from Amazon at the time and fearedd the book may be banned or disappear. Now the book is available on Amazon

  3. anarchyst says:

    I tend to believe that nukes were used to destroy the WTC due to the fact that the amount of heat emanating from the rubble lasted for months, if not years and was carted away under armed guard, with removal personnel wearing protective gear.

    • Replies: @Iris
  4. bcos says:

    Dmitri Khalezov’s book and video went through the details exhaustively. Nuclear demolition liquifies the granite rock, then sends a shockwave upwards, pulverizing into microscopic dust any object connected to the ground above. Free-fall speed of the top of the towers, since the explosions (not planes) in the building carved out a big chunk of material, preventing the tops of the towers from getting the full shockwave. Also, Ground Zero has always been the name of the place where nuclear explosions take place. Asbestos was a cover story for the real item which adversely affected cleanup workers – radiation poisoning. And, of course, there was the intense heat from liquified rock lingering for months, as this article states.

    From a long-term point of view, nuclear energy was the goal of alchemy – the ability to transform good people (base matter) into malleable subjects (gold). And alchemy extended from Kabbalah, fulfilling the rabbis’ desire to play God – the power to create & destroy at will.

    Hail Mary, the Snowball, and the Fuse:


    Video Link


    Video Link

  5. Hans says:

    They were demolished by the chosen people. Period. End of discussion.

    A NATION CHALLENGED: THE DETAINEES; Dozens of Israeli Jews Are Being Kept in Federal Detention – New York Times, 11/21/01 (a mere 2+ months after it should have been front-page news)

    “Immigration officials began deporting five young Israelis who have been in federal custody since Sept. 11. Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari, landed in Tel Aviv yesterday. The others, Paul Kurzberg & his brother Sivan, & Yaron Shmuel, were expected to fly to Israel today…The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center and making light of the situation. One photo showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background, said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five.”

    Israel did 9/11: All the Proof in the World – http://whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html

    How Your Government & Media Solved the Problem of Guilty Israeli Agents Arrested on 9/11
    The most logical scenario:

    The Israeli “movers” film the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the greatest Israeli spy operation in history.
    One of them, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report “Palestinian bomb makers in a white van”
    headed for the Holland Tunnel.
    After framing the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.
    But police react wisely by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move foils the Israelis and leads to their capture.
    To cover up this story, the Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York jails. The Israelis therefore are less conspicuous. The media can now claim the Israelis were just “Middle Eastern” immigration violators.
    FBI and Justice Department higher-ups push aside local law officials and lower-ranking FBI agents and the Israelis are quietly released.

  6. bayviking says:

    First the building caught on fire, from jet fuel on one floor. As the contents that floor combined with the jet fuel burnt insulation on the columns and beams separated from the steel. Although kerosene (jet fuel) can burn in a jet engine at 2000F, high enough to render steel a useless structural material, in free space it is more likely to burn at about 450F, certainly enough to cause the columns and beams on that floor to collapse, not from their own weight, but the weight of the floors above them. Once that collapse began nuts and bolts began snapping everywhere triggering a collapse at nearly the speed of gravitational acceleration.

    In a nuclear explosion there would be no delay between the heat wave it would trigger, creating images of anybody escaping the structure on the sidewalk, and the collapse. No one would have gotten out alive, or even had time to jump to there deaths. The telltale radiation levels after the event would be impossible to hide and follow a known sequence and timeline.

    We know the hi-jackers were Arabs, mostly supposedly our Saudi buddies, but the Saudi government refused to cooperate in any investigation of how the nineteen known hi-jackers operations were funded. We should know that Osama bin Laden was incensed that the USA housed troops in the Moslem holy land. We also know that the World Trade Center has been a frequent target of angry Arab splinter groups.

    We know the FBI was derelict AGAIN in failing to follow up on warning from a Florida pilot school that they had Arab students interested in learning how to fly a commercial plane, but not interested in learning how to land the plane.

    We also know that if Dick Cheney knew of the attack in advance, he would have welcomed it as a way to justify invading Iraq, which he was most anxious to do. We now this because he had stated that that the only way to get the US public behind another war was t have a “Pearl Harbor Event”.

    It has also been documented that a group of Israelis in a van were setup to film the event. It has also been documented that a Palestinian refugee elementary school student in the USA warned his teacher about the attack days before it happened. We also know that President Bush was provided multiple warnings about an immanent attack on US soil by Arab terrorist groups. The most likely target would be the World Trade Center, which had been unsuccessfully attacked twice before. Condelezza Rice’s claim that “no one could have anticipated such an attack” was completely ridiculous, just like her later claim that Iran was a threat to Poland.

    The only country constantly threatening other countries and attacking them is the USA. Arabs are one of the smaller populations which are sick and tired of US aggressions and determined to fight back., by whatever mesns is at their disposal.

    Every major steel structure is grounded using thermite materials to permanently weld steel to copper ground wires. Within all these facts there is plenty of room for another conspiracy theories, but a nuclear device is hardly one of them, dubious estimates of thermal convection rates not withstanding.

    • Agree: James Speaks
    • Thanks: mc23
    • LOL: Hans
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @peterike
    , @JamesinNM
  7. polistra says:

    No. The buildings were destroyed by Saudi pilots driving jet planes. That’s a simple unarguable fact. We need to discuss and research WHY the Saudis were ordered to destroy the buildings, and WHO ordered them to do it. Those questions are still unanswered.

    Give up these hypotheses about the mode of destruction. The alternate modes are simply wrong and impossible.

    • Replies: @Hans
    , @Rahan
  8. And yet, no EMP.

    Burning kerosene mixed with atomised aluminium and whipped up with high velocity winds would burn hot enough to strip oxides from a steel superstructure, i.e. presenting the basic elements of thermite, and the resulting exothermic reaction from that would burn hot enough to degrade the strength of structural steel and leave traces of thermite behind. Gravity would do the “heavy lifting” by dropping the centre of mass straight down towards earth.

    I’m not saying the official story is the truth, but it is plausible.

    • Agree: bayviking
    • Replies: @zimriel
    , @Joe Stalin
  9. Jimmy1969 says:

    It is childish nonsense like these articles that discredit this entire site. Too bad, a few of the articles on here are well written and researched and serve the public good. This trash is just used to ruin Unz News.

    • Agree: GeeBee
    • LOL: Hans
    • Replies: @Iris
  10. Kevin, this is a complaint directed to Ron Unz.
    The comment section for https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-puppet-masters-is-there-really-a-deep-state/ isn’t working.
    As for your choice of guests, far out theories can damage the hosts’ credibility.

  11. Unlike others, I want to thank Ron Unz for publishing this lunacy.

    I need to be reminded from time to time that it is pointless to try to reason with some people.

    Humans are not rational animals, we are animals that rationalize.

  12. anon[373] • Disclaimer says:

    Agency personnel and Yid out of gate early.

    • Agree: Hans
  13. bcos says:

    Wow, this topic really brings out silencers. But, it needs to be said, this event was not just an unexpected attack of Muslims against the US/Christians. It was an Event. Conceptualized centuries before, and little by little over time, various pieces of the puzzle were put into place for the Grand Event. It was built into Kabbalah, as payback, punishment to the Christian world for reconquering the Holy Land during the Crusades and expelling the Jews from Jerusalem. It was to be a secret, a death ritual murdering the Christian world, but tricking the Christian world into believing that Muslims did it. As part of cementing the re-creation of Israel for the Jews.

    And did you know that August 29 (6/29) used to be the Egyptian New Years Day? The day that Osiris experienced resurrection into the heavens after being in the land of the dead. With the Vatican’s Gregorian Calendar shift in 1582, it made that day change to 9/11 by the turn of the millenium. The Great Seal of the US shows it – the phoenix (bald eagle) would die & be reborn on the Egyptian New Year’s Day (pyramid). The Vatican was deeply into Kabbalah, magic & paganism during the Renaissance (see Michael Hoffman’s The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome). The calendar shift was the culmination of the infiltration of Kabbalah into the Vatican.

    There are so many facets of this secret, enormous event, that we can’t isolate it to just what happened on that day. Sure, Israelis participated. But so did the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Vatican, and a host of others, in various ways over time. Many powerful, rich, famous people were “in the know” about the event. Not that they had anything to do with the nuts & bolts of the days’ events – they just had to keep quiet and let the day happen. And reap the benefits afterwards.

    Freemasons passed the knowledge of it down through the centuries as the symbolic destruction of the Temple of Solomon. WTC Building #7 was the Salomon Brothers building, and twin pillars/towers were out front. And from another perspective, it was a sexual climax of death. A male tower (the one with the antenna) and the female tower (no antenna) climaxed, they were annihilated into nothing.

    The towers didn’t just fall floor by floor & crush themselves. They turned into MICROSCOPIC DUST instantaneously! Watch the footage again. DUST! Poof! Like a magic trick. And who would’ve known that there were nuclear devices beneath the buildings? Lots of folks, but especially, the ones who spearheaded the construction – the Rockefellers. See Aaron Russo’s interview, when he says one of the Rockefellers told him “there’s gonna be an Event”.

    Let the shamers & Hasbara fly into hysteria 🙂

    Hail Mary, the Snowball, and the Fuse



    Video Link

    • Replies: @Greg S.
  14. saggy says:

    As in all previous debates, it was once again impossible to find any qualified experts to defend the official story. But we do hope to find one or more proponents of the thermite-plus-explosives hypothesis to respond to the pro-nuclear-demolition arguments advanced here.

    This ‘debate’ is imbecilic – It’s easy to see that the truthers’ claim that the buildings were wired with explosives is absurd, for several reasons –

    #1 – The whole premise of the truthers is that the feds wired the buildings with explosives, and then used drones or Arab stooges to mask their activities by flying planes into the buildings. But, that premise is absurd because they couldn’t and didn’t fly a plane into WTC 7.

    #2 – See how a building is prepared for demolition – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg, it’s an extensive involved process that takes place throughout the entire building. Not only are explosives placed, the major supports are cut. It can’t be done when a building is occupied, much less done unobserved.

    #3 – WTC 7 and the south tower collapsed in completely different ways, which would not have happened had they been wired. WTC 7 collapsed from below, with all floors of WTC 7 beginning to fall simultaneously when the collapse starts. The south tower collapsed from above, with each floor not beginning to fall until the collapsing top floor reaches it. The difference is dramatic and easily observable:
    South tower at 0:20
    WTC 7 at 0:28

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W00HXsep_c

    • LOL: Hans
    • Replies: @GeeBee
  15. GeeBee says:
    @saggy

    Your logic escapes me. First you say that “the debate’ is imbecilic – It’s easy to see that the truthers’ claim that the buildings were wired with explosives is absurd, for several reasons”, but then you claim that “The whole premise of the truthers is that the feds wired the buildings with explosives, and then used drones or Arab stooges to mask their activities by flying planes into the buildings. But, that premise is absurd because they couldn’t and didn’t fly a plane into WTC 7.”

    So you’re saying that the buildings weren’t wired for demolition, but neither did an aeroplane strike WTC7. Surely you can’t be asking us to believe that the collapse – in free-fall – of WTC7 was brought about by collateral fire outbreak, with a few items of office furniture catching fire?

    • Thanks: Hans
    • Replies: @saggy
  16. I suspect the planes had been outfitted with a special autopilot program and the hijackers were unaware they were on a suicide mission. The precision hit on the Pentagon budget office less than a week after Rumsfeld announced \$24 Trillion in unaccounted money was just too convenient. More like Kosher Lightning.

    • Replies: @Hans
    , @Iris
  17. Hans says:
    @Alfred Muscaria

    Rummy announced on 9/10/01 that 2.3 (or 2.4) trillion was unaccounted for.

  18. Hans says:
    @polistra

    Saudis?? LOL

    “September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.” – Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal.

    The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” – Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

    Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam… No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. … And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I’ll tell you exactly why he couldn’t do it the first time. Now, I’d have trouble doing it the first time.” – John Lear, retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.

    “In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident…The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.” – Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  19. Iris says:
    @anarchyst

    I tend to believe that nukes were used to destroy the WTC due to the fact that the amount of heat emanating from the rubble lasted for months

    The amount of heat released by the WTC was calculated by Pr Roby in his article above.

    Despite using only a low estimate (heat transfer by free convection only), he came by the astronomical value of 10^15 Joules (10 Peta Joules). This value is in the order of the monthly production of a 900 MW nuclear reactor.

    No fuel other than nuclear could have caused such heat release, because there was nowhere to hide the stratospheric quantity of conventional fuel or explosives to produce a similar outcome.

    • Thanks: profnasty
  20. Iris says:
    @bayviking

    There is so many falsehoods in your comment than one does not know where to begin. I should have been wiser and just given you a LOL, but I will assume you are sincere and briefly address the major flaws in you reasoning:

    – You have understood nothing about the nuclear thesis developed in this discussion.
    The nuclear charge is detonated underground, in a borehole, so radiation and visible effects are hampered and masked. This is nothing new, it is an obsolete nuclear engineering technique, popular in the 1950’s-60’s and abandoned since.

    – No plane whatsoever crashed on the Twin Towers: no material plane can disappear, like a piece of immaterial ether, without any flame or any debris, inside a steel tower. Not in the real life.

    Witnesses heard a bang and saw the terrible explosions. They were later told that “planes” had crashed on the WTC, after the “planes” were added by CGI onto the real explosion videos.
    The top of the Towers exploded because they had been planted in advance with nanothermite by the Israeli “Art Student”.
    People aboard the planes we killed elsewhere; no Saudi was involved in the execution of the WTC false flag.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Commentator Mike
  21. Iris says:
    @Alfred Muscaria

    I suspect the planes had been outfitted with a special autopilot program and the hijackers were unaware they were on a suicide mission.

    There are many logical objections to that:

    – If a “plane” really had cruised at sea level to crash into the WTC, all mobile phones on board would have been in reach of telecom towers. Anyone among the passengers or crew would have been able to give a phone call, raise the alarm and get the plane shot down by USAF.

    – An aircraft has limitations of speed, When flying, it creates a hydraulic turbulence within the surrounding air, called the “Lift”. This hydrodynamic phenomenon creates a force that lifts the wings of the aircraft and allows it to remain in the air. However, this “Lift” force increase proportionally to the speed and to the density of air, and can reach a point where it breaks the wings. The purported 500mph speed at sea level that the South Tower “plane” were supposed to fly at is impossible in the real life: the plane would have broken in-flight long before reaching the WTC.

    – The best objection however remains to use your common sense: does this look like a real plane to you?

    Where are the debris? Where has the wing disappeared? How come not the even the flimsiest piece of aluminium can be seen falling or flying around? How could the wing have allegedly penetrated the building without the wing fuel reservoir immediately exploding or catching fire, without any flame?

    • Thanks: Thomasina, Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @anon
    , @D. K.
    , @Kit Walker
  22. zimriel says:
    @The Alarmist

    I try to skim over Barrett poasts here. I’m just here to drive up mine own poast count so I can “agree” to your comment.
    Barrett is a Moslem doing Moslemey things here, to support his Khomeinist masters, and he is not to be trusted.

    • Troll: Genrick Yagoda
  23. Iris says:
    @Jimmy1969

    It is childish nonsense like these articles that discredit this entire site

    The real sad thing is the amount of effort deployed by Ron Unz and his authors to present exceptional intellectual material to people who don’t have the slightest curiosity about the real disaster their country finds itself into.

    Go and get drunk or stoned somewhere, don’t waste your time reading.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  24. @The Alarmist

    And yet, no EMP.

    EMP would have been detectable on an VLF/LF/AM or HF receiver.

    On this atomic detonation at 2:23 you can hear the manifestation of EMP.

  25. Sparkon says:

    One of the primary purposes of 9/11 was to steal a vast amount of gold and other valuables stored in vaults beneath the WTC. At least that’s the claim of reputed mobster Tony Thomas “Tommy” Gambino, who made these allegations on Greg Szymanski’s radio show “The Investigative Journal” in 2007, after spending 20 years in prison.

    The extent of those vaults is not known, nor the amount of gold and valuables in them, but anyone who doubts their existence, or believes in underground nukes on 9/11 should read this article in The New York Times:

    A NATION CHALLENGED: THE VAULT;
    Below Ground Zero, Silver and Gold
    By Jim Dwyer, Nov. 1, 2001

    For people who have seen the surface destruction, either in pictures or in person, it may be hard to imagine that anything is intact below ground. But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed.

    […order edited for narrative…]

    As layers of debris are peeled away, recovery workers are opening gangways to intact portions of a 16-acre basement that was largely unseen but was a place of spectacular scope in its own right. Just the basement area of the World Trade Center enclosed twice as much space as the entire Empire State Building.

    Nearly a quarter of a mile below the spectacular vistas from the towers was their upside-down attic dropping 70 feet below the ground, a strange world with enough room for fortunes in gold and silver, for Godiva chocolates, assault weapons, old furniture, bricks of cocaine, phony taxicabs and Central Intelligence Agency files…

    https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html

    These facts rule out the use of any underground nuclear devices to destroy the Twin Towers.

    And to repeat a point I’ve made many times here at UR, there was no real need for even one 110-story skyscraper in Manhattan by the late 1960s, but between them, the Rockefellar brothers and the Port Authority of NY & NJ pushed through plans for two of the soaring monstrosities, which were widely opposed and disliked from the beginning.

    Certainly, there should be little need to point out the occult symbolism embodied in the design of the Twin Towers.

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey is on record saying that 9/11 was a 30-year old conspiracy. How did that work? Well, if you look around online, you’ll find references to the Last Will and Testament of Ferdinand Marcos

    That I,Ferdinand Edralin Marcos with Diffused codename: AAA – 777 and Spiritual King Solomon of Israel, of Legal Age, Married to Imeda Romuladez Marcos y Ongpin…

    followed by some fantastic amounts in two accounts, and an additional 10,000 metric tons of gold bars, then worth \$20 billion, said to be preserved beneath the World Trade Center for the benefit of the Philippine people. Marcos passed away in 1989.

    Reputed hood Tony Gambino claimed his grandfather built those vaults beneath the WTC and also claimed

    “I know for a fact Bush, the Pope and other top Vatican and U.S. government leaders had prior knowledge and help organize 9/11. They did it for many obvious reason, one being instigating the war in Iraq. But they also did it to get their hands on all the gold that was hidden below in the Twin Towers.

    “My grandfather’s construction company built the Twin Towers and after it was completed, I know they went in and put in big underground vaults to house an enormous amount of gold which is now in Bush’s and Vatican hands in order to fund the war.”

    — Tony Gambino

    https://hyperspacecafe.com/Thread-Tony-Gambino-Claims-Vatican-and-U-S-Government-Behind-Pedophiles-And-Drugs?pid=18047

    Follow the gold.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  26. anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    Guessing you’re familiar with Simon Shack, “September Clues”.

    http://www.septemberclues.info/

    Carmen Taylor/Michael Hezarkhani both fakes:

    http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/who-really-took-famous-carmen-taylor.html

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @bcos
  27. Iris says:

    But we do hope to find one or more proponents of the thermite-plus-explosives hypothesis to respond to the pro-nuclear-demolition arguments advanced here.

    Best of luck with that.

    You may as well try to find somebody who could supply the entire electrical consumption of a medium-size town using a simple garden barbecue grill.

    Having a sense of orders of magnitude is part of basic common sense; it does not take a rocket scientist.

  28. saggy says:
    @GeeBee

    Let’s just stick with this one ….

    “The whole premise of the truthers is that the feds wired the buildings with explosives, and then used drones or Arab stooges to mask their activities by flying planes into the buildings. But, that premise is absurd because they couldn’t and didn’t fly a plane into WTC 7.”

    I’ll reiterate – we’re the plotters, before the event. We have the capability of wiring the buildings to explode, but we don’t want that to be known. So we devise a plan, instead of just exploding a building and giving away the fact that it was wired, we’ll hijack an airplane and fly it into the building, and then we’ll explode it and everyone will think the plane did it. That is completely idiotic to begin with but that is apparently what the ‘truthers’ think happened. But for that plan to work they would have to fly planes into each building that they exploded, … but, obviously they did not. So, that plan, absurd as it was, cannot have been the plan of the plotters. There is no coherent plan that the plotters could have had that includes wiring three of the building for explosion and only flying planes into 2 of the buildings.

  29. Iris says:
    @anon

    Thanks.

    The 9/11 videos being faked has been shown many times over:
    – by the shooting where the South Tower “plane” pokes it nose the other side of WTC2 before retracting back inside.
    – by the Chopper 4 video that was aired live on the morning news without plane, and then broadcast in the afternoon this time with a plane. See below at 1:32.

    For those really interested in how the forging of the videos was done, the best, first-class explanatory work was produced by Ace Baker: watch it as it is disappearing quick from the Internet.

    Anybody who still believes, twenty years on, that planes really crashed on the WTC on 9/11 should stick to reading Harry Potter children novels.

    • Replies: @glib
  30. Greg S. says:
    @bcos

    I’m not sure about the Kabbalah stuff, but the dust part is one of the most under-reported and least talked about aspects of 9/11. The following video is very long winded, but its simple point is made quite clearly: by your own eyes you can see in all the video and photo evidence that the towers turned to dust. Once you really see it, you can’t unsee it. Where did the towers go? Where did the filing cabinets go? Why wasn’t there a huge heap of rubble strewn around?



    Video Link

    • Replies: @R2b
  31. bcos says:
    @anon

    Absolutely! Simonshack’s September Clues is essential. The real-time video insertion of a plane, timed to an actual explosion in a building, constitutes one of the biggest pieces of magic & alchemy used for the event. Aleister Crowley wrote many veiled references to the upcoming death & rebirth of the world. In The Book of Lies, Chapter 1, he called it the Night of Pan (Greek letters Pi, Alpha, Nu). Pi represented duality, or the twin towers. Alpha, or A, the shape of it suggests the pentagram (Pentagon), and Nu was the Hebrew letter associated with the Tarot card of Death, card 13. He wrote about magic, saying that it was just science, but beyond what normal mankind knows is possible. Use an already existing force, and utilize it for a particular magical operation. Don’t walk from one end of Europe to the far east part of Russia, when an already existing force (airplane) can move you there quicker. Applying that to 9/11, don’t use real hijackers when you can use a remote control. Or better yet, don’t use real hijackers, or remote control, when real-time video manipulation is available. Get a few people planted on the ground, and in news media, to say they saw a plane, and the whole TV-watching public falls for the gag. The image they swear they saw, on their trusted TV.

    Crowley also wrote that this alchemical change of the world would occur “At the end of the century, At the end of the year.” Hardly anyone knew he was speaking of the upcoming turn of the century, into the new millenium, at the end of the Egyptian year. With the Gregorian calendar change, the Vatican shifted the Egyptian New Year’s Day from August 29 (6/29), to September 11 (9/11). Because of the 10-day shift, and the new leap year rules, the Gregorian calendar finally ticked the Egyptian New Year’s Day into place in 1901, and it will remain 9/11 until the year 2101, when it will switch to 9/12.

    • Replies: @Just another serf
  32. @Iris

    I agree with your observations on the aircraft.
    What also strikes me is the weather on the day. But there was hurricane Erin off thee east coast. How would they have accounted for any change in it’s direction.
    For an operation which required the Saudi pilots with apparent poor flying skills and was apparently planned well in advance, how could they have coped if there was poor weather anywhere along their flight paths?
    What would have been their contingency plans?
    How would the WTC pilots have handled a crosswind, sudden or not?
    Their precision was such that any slight deviation would have them missing completely or at best only having partial impact.
    As for thee Pentagon pilot, why go through all the acrobatics? Why not fly into the roof, which from the air presents thee largest target area?
    And finally, I don’t believe thee NYC Building Codes have ever been modified to account for the type of fires which allegedly caused three towers to fall that day.

    • Replies: @Iris
  33. Miro23 says:
    @Iris

    @Jimmy1969

    It is childish nonsense like these articles that discredit this entire site

    The real sad thing is the amount of effort deployed by Ron Unz and his authors to present exceptional intellectual material to people who don’t have the slightest curiosity about the real disaster their country finds itself into.

    Go and get drunk or stoned somewhere, don’t waste your time reading.

    Agree with this. I’ve spent the last 3 hours reading this article + following the links. @Jimmy1969 is waste of space – but the US is full of uninformed dopes like him.

    • Replies: @Iris
  34. Iris says:
    @Kit Walker

    I agree with your observations on the aircraft.

    Dear fellow commenter, these observations were made by the PilotsFor911Truth whistle-blowers organisation, a community of a few hundreds US professional pilots. Their site has apparently been taken down:

    http://p3nlhclust404.shr.prod.phx3.secureserver.net/SharedContent/redirect_0.html

    You make another very true observation: it would have also been impossibility to hit the Twin Towers at 400-500 mph because they were too narrow a target.

    The experiment was made on flight simulator by a group of very experienced pilots, using a B737 which is a smaller and more controllable plane. The only way they managed to hit the target was to slow down at landing speed. See from 33:00 in the video:

    There was no plane whatsoever involved in the WTC attack; the story violates the laws of Physics, of Engineering and of the most basic human common sense.

    https://cosmoschronicle.com/pilots-presents-evidence-that-no-planes-hit-towers-on-9-11/

    • Replies: @j2
  35. Iris says:
    @D. K.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    I have a photo very well suited to believers like you: it was found inside a camera that lied just next to Mohamed Atta’s pristine passport, on top of the melting-steel hot pile of 200,000 tons of dustified structural steel, where the North Tower used to stand.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  36. dimples says:

    Poor Mr Barrett is chasing clicks again with conspiracy dregs. Let’s hope that he isn’t attacked by flunkeys of the Atomic Energy Commission for hate speech.

    But there’s a positive side to this theory. Now when replying to some dingbat’s rant about renewable energy saving the world, at least we can reply “and the Twin Towers were destroyed with mini-nukes too!”

  37. glib says:
    @Iris

    I am a physicist and on that day, pedaling back home from work, I figured what I wanted to look at that night on TV. I figured that an airplane could be modeled as a can of beans, but I also figured that the speed of the airplane was high enough to break steel columns, which i knew were on the outside.

    But that night, over and over on CNN, I saw an airplane slamming into the South Tower and *disappearing* into the tower, leaving the facade intact. I was ready to dismiss it as my poor modeling skills, but even the material between columns was not breached! I never forgot that, and once youtube went online I looked for that clip many times over the years. Well, it was not there, and for a long time I could not find a front clip of the South Tower, but eventually whatever clips are loaded show a clear breach (as it should be) with both columns and windows broken. The original 9/11 clip, seen by hundreds of millions of people, has been memory-holed. This clear instance of photoshopping, and seeing machine guns holes in the remnants of MH17 in July 2014, completely changed my world view.

    I have a simple question, because I was convinced of the thermite version of events: how do you measure the energy released? Solely through the heat intensity after the fact, and decay time?

    Secondarily, how do you make a nuclear weapon hypothesis consistent with the apparent collapse from above of the towers? Do you think WT7 was also downed using a nuclear weapon?

    • Replies: @Iris
  38. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Iris, do you think the towers were hit by cruise missiles or not hit at all?

    • Replies: @Iris
  39. GeeBee says:
    @saggy

    Could the flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania have been intended for WT7? That apart, just what do YOU think happened (including the collapse of WT7 and the very strange inconsistencies at the Pentagon)?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @saggy
  40. @Hans

    … no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn….

    Dropping a 767 7k feet in two minutes (3.5k per minute) is trivial if you don’t care for passenger comfort… doing a 280 while doing it would be add a bit of a challenge for an amateur to roll out of it on the heading he wanted, but not out of the realm of possibility. As for hitting something, you just keep it on the same spot on the window until you arrive.

    There was plenty of identifiable aircraft debris; unsurprisingly was portions of undercarriage. Surprising debris included hijacker passports, but again, not outside the realm of possibility.

    • Replies: @Kit Walker
  41. Iris says:
    @Miro23

    Thank you Miro, for always being a voice for rationality and decency.

    I do get very angry now, reading moronic things about 9/11. It was THE founding event of the New Cold War. Three thousand Americans were lost, millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Yeminis, thousands of Western servicemen, and hundreds of European youth cruelly killed in staged false flag terror attacks…. How many million more before people wake up?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  42. Mefobills says:
    @GeeBee

    Some of my history regarding 911. I know you are addressing Saggy, but there is no response to your question, it forces people to do a rethink. Asking somebody a question is also forcing cognition – a good tactic.

    At the time I was working with a very small group of research and development engineers and scientists. These were people who were winnowed down from a very large R&D operation, and were all high IQ, some with multiple degrees.

    As a sidebar, they were all white men save one, who was Chinese. Virtually all of the white men had bright blue eyes, and since then I’ve always wondered about that correlation with extreme IQ and/or capability.

    Astonishingly, most of these thinkers, whose job it was, to ferret out problems and solve them … all of them fell for the 911 hoax. All of them did not believe their eyes.

    If one is aware of Bernays and his propaganda techniques, and how the brain works to myelin sheath, then one is also aware of the primacy of information. What info comes in first, gets a permanent place in the brain’s information processing hierarchy. That memory becomes prominent.

    Clown world actually depends on this action, as you will notice that news prostitutes always have a ready narrative; narrative to plant first, to then have first information processing, before any sort of legal or subsequent scientific investigation can pursue the truth.

    What I did to break through the narrative programming on this elite group of men (no women at this level), was force them to play the game of Jenga. Or, rather I would threaten them to take the game home and make them play it with their children. This was all in good fun, and eventually it caused them to start questioning their programming. Buildings don’t fall into their own footprint.

    I would also pepper our conversations with… Calculate for me the combustion temperature of Kerosene at standard atmospheric pressure. How many BTUs of heat energy per unit time is available, and you also have to include thermal transmission to the outside word, etc? What would it take to melt steel? Our conversations would turn on chaos theory, and the like, where I would force them to return to their training.

    This worked eventually with this kind of person, but would be met with MEGO (MY EYES GLAZE OVER) on standard everyday people. Later, the R &D team members would thank me, but some even had trouble at home – especially with their gullible wives who fell for the false narrative.

    The only angle of attack that I could get traction on with non-scientific low information type of people, was WTC 7 implosion into its own footprint. Even the most thoroughly brainwashed cannot overcome the simple illogic of WTC 7.

    • Thanks: GeeBee
  43. peterike says:
    @bayviking

    Although kerosene (jet fuel) can burn in a jet engine at 2000F, high enough to render steel a useless structural material, in free space it is more likely to burn at about 450F, certainly enough to cause the columns and beams on that floor to collapse

    Then I guess my kitchen oven will collapse the next time I roast a chicken, which I routinely do at 450F.

    • Replies: @TheMoon
  44. Jiminy says:

    What was surprising is that under the foundations of one of the buildings workers found a wooden ship that was several hundred years old. Apparently boats filled with rubble were used during the reclaiming of the area in the early years. How would this vessel survive a nuclear blast?

  45. Iris says:
    @glib

    I have a simple question, because I was convinced of the thermite version of events: how do you measure the energy released? Solely through the heat intensity after the fact, and decay time?

    Hi. The use of thermite/nanothermite is not in contradiction with the underground nuclear demolition thesis: it is is on the contrary complementary and indispensable .

    This chemical explosive, most probably military-grade nanothermite since traces of it were found in the WTC dust, was indispensable to build the scenario incriminating the Saudi patsies.

    Nanothermite was planted over weeks by the Israeli “Art Students”, and detonated at the right moment to simulate the “planes” crashing into the Twin Towers. There could have been no 911 without nanothermite.

    The presence of nanothermite/thermite is also attested by the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower before its collapse. No material present in the Tower, including the alleged kerosene, can burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel (above 1000 degree C). Thermite/nanothermite on the other hand can melt metals, as it burns circa 1540 degree C.

    Secondarily, how do you make a nuclear weapon hypothesis consistent with the apparent collapse from above of the towers? Do you think WT7 was also downed using a nuclear weapon?

    The collapse mode of all 3 buildings is entirely compatible with an underground nuclear explosion; it is actually the only hypothesis that best describes what we saw.
    This demolition technique is not some fanciful, far-fetched idea. On the contrary, it is an obsolete nuclear engineering technique that was enthusiastically explored in the 50’s and 60’s, until engineers fully realised the long-lasting hazard posed by radio-activity.

    When the nuclear detonation occurred underground in the bedrock, in a borehole below the respective Tower, it of course generated an extremely powerful shock wave (pressure wave) that shattered all the rock around the detonation chamber.

    But the shockwave shattered the Tower as well, as the Tower was materially anchored in the bedrock, as a material prolongment of it. The shattered Tower held standing in a sort of meta-stable state for a few seconds, similar to a pile of dominos. But after 12 seconds (time delay visible on the videos), the pressure resulting from the explosion dropped, the shattered rocks under the Tower collapsed, engulfing it into the nuclear chimney.

    This happened by design: the depth of the explosion chamber and the yield of the nuclear charge were carefully chosen to obtain a subsistence crater similar to fig.f below:

    But as you know, the power of a pressure shockwave decreases as a factor of 1/r^2, with r being the radius/distance from the explosion centre.
    This is why the Twin Towers were imperfectly shattered a the top, which was too far from the detonation point. The effect was particularly visible on the South Tower which top tipped to the side as if intact when the lower floors collapsed underneath it.

    Conversely, WTC7 was perfectly shattered by the shock wave because shorter. Hence, it fell almost in free fall as all its floors were dustified.

    This demolition model was best described by real-life experimentations made by the French Nuclear Agency in the Sahara’s granitic soil in the early 1960’s, similar to Manhattan’s bedrock on which the Twin Towers were anchored.
    https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20528748

    There also exists documentation in English describing it; see from point 2.102 in this official American document.
    Starting from the explosion, the underground detonation model comprise successive stages , of which the final collapse is described in 2.103;
    https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf

    This story is a harrowing nightmare. The only pathetic consolation is that the people inside the Towers would have met an instant death when hit by the shockwave.

  46. Iris says:
    @j2

    Hi J2. Lovely to hear from you.
    There is no hard evidence that the Twin Towers were, or were not, hit by a missile. We can only speculate about the pros and cons:

    Pros:
    – a missile would have been one way to fake the necessary “Saudi” planes.

    Cons:
    – a real missile is very identifiable; it would have shed “rogue” debris with “rogue” spare parts number that could have been picked up by thousands of witnesses, and later first-responders…
    – a real missile could have been filmed by anybody, and looks nothing like a commercial aircraft
    – a real missile would have required more mobilisation and risk for the platform launching it (a submarine?)
    – a real missile was NOT necessary: it is necessary only in the mind of the people who cannot accept to having been fooled by the WTC “aircraft” attack
    – a real missile would NOT have produced the grotesque, tell-all sign witnessed on the South Tower video, retracting inside the building after having gone through it.

    Personally, I am convinced there was no missiles involved at the WTC neither; there was no need for any.

    The Pentagon, on the other hand, was definitely hit by a missile. Only a missile could have:
    – gone as fast as to be missed by the surveillance camera
    – twice execute complex turning manoeuvres and change direction
    – surgically cut through 6 reinforced walls and end up the other side
    With regards.

    • Replies: @j2
  47. Another addition to the boat load of conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of the twin towers.

    I have seen the film of the strikes and the subsequent multiple times. The collapse of the towers is consistent with the fires from the jet fuel in the part of the structures that did not have good fireproofing (the use of wet applied asbestos was terminated several floors below the strikes). The steel did not have to melt. Heat weakens steel and, combined with the structural compromise caused by the impacts, led to the cascading collapse of the structure.

    A theory that posits nukes causing the collapse is worse than silly. There have also been numerous people that have come out in support of the conventional “theory” of the cause of the collapse. There is no need to “defend” it as it is fact, not merely theory.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @davidgmillsatty
  48. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Thanks Iris, I always like to read your comments. You are mostly always correct. About the missile, yes, to Pentagon it had to be a missile, but I listened simon shank video here and there were some witnesses, especially a soldier, who claimed what he heard was a cruise missile sound. A missile does explode a bit better than a plane, so there would not necessary be any remains of it.

    There is a reason I asked this. I like the scenario of Potter. It is too complicated, but the nuke there is clearly a mininuke of the type used to destroy command bunkers, that is bunkers that can stand a direct hit from a conventional atomic bomb as they are under a very thick layer of steel and concrete. Thus, the bomb can only destroy them by creating a thin beam that goes deep along the tunnel to the bunker that usually there is. The same way as plasma needle goes up in Potter’s slides. And then comes the natural question, what for a missile? It could be so that they wanted the lift shaft floors of one floor destroyed, not too high up, so that the pressure wave from the nuke when the cavity has erupted would totally destroy one floor. Because with one floor removed, gravity does indeed lead to the collapse of the building. If so, the missile was really needed and faking it as a plane was not a useless trick. I mean that only a mininuke probably would not bring the building down. One had to destroy totally one floor.

    The old demolition method of collapsing the building to a cavity is not the one used here because the collapse clearly starts from the middle, from the floor where the plane apparently hit. The old demolition method would work, but the building would collapse differently. Here the mininuke was only needed to collapse the core. If the core is collapsed, then the building falls inside. But maybe also they needed the plasma needle to remove one floor without setting explosives on all pillars on that floor.

    But I now think you were correct, it probably was a nuke, but a mininuke, a bunker destroyer bomb.

    Just a thought, Greetings, J2

    • Thanks: Iris
  49. Sparkon says:
    @Iris

    I do get very angry now, reading moronic things about 9/11.

    Moronic things like the untenable nukes in the basement theory?

    After your impassioned but failed attempts here at UR to promote phony wannabe assassin James Files, I’m surprised you have any credibility at all.

    Now to gain credibility, I see you’ve festooned your comments with many of my past arguments about no-planes, CGI, Hezarkhani’s still frame, etc. but Dimitri Khalezov’s nukes in the basement theory remains as ridiculous and unbelievable as it was at first reading, all the more so as reports like the NYT article show, large parts of the underground structure at the WTC survived intact, ruling out any nukes down there, and in any event, the Twin Towers were blown apart from the top down, as the debris fields and damage to surrounding structures plainly indicate.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @glib
  50. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    “large parts of the underground structure at the WTC survived intact, ruling out any nukes down there,”

    It only rules out old nukes. It does not rule out modern weapons that give the pressure wave only to a chosen direction, as must be the case for weapons that are intended for destroying command bunkers that are deep underground. There are such weapons, some are nuclear, some are not nuclear.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  51. @bcos

    Applying that to 9/11, don’t use real hijackers when you can use a remote control. Or better yet, don’t use real hijackers, or remote control, when real-time video manipulation is available. Get a few people planted on the ground, and in news media, to say they saw a plane, and the whole TV-watching public falls for the gag. The image they swear they saw, on their trusted TV.

    Clearly true.

    But, as many have observed, including Mr. Unz in his 9/11 American Pravda article, the how is quite a bit less important than who. As to who, what group had the means, motivation and absence of morality to accomplish this? There does seem to be some level of US government involvement. How could that be? Best theory I’ve seen, possibly originating with Laurent Guyenot, involves the US planning the fake Pentagon attack and Israel carrying out the Manhattan attack without their partner’s knowledge (with possibly a similar conspirator double cross used in JFK’s murder).

    If we must dwell on the how of 9/11, my money is on Heinz Pommer’s evidence

    http://911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html

    • Replies: @bcos
  52. R2b says:
    @Greg S.

    Sure.
    Compelling.
    Bring us that energy.
    Get us the scientific data.
    Show us the science behind it all.
    But who did it?
    We cant just look at the fenomenon.
    We want the explanation.
    Free energy?
    How do you capture that?
    Someone has, according to Wood.
    And did evil!
    Are we to rejoice at that?
    Why didn’t they who found this energy, immedeately not let it be used for good?
    So the question remains.
    Who did it?

    • Replies: @Iris
  53. R2b says:

    Short.
    J Wood pushes ”unscientific postulates” like free-energy.
    And do not want us to ask who did it, or who possesses it.
    It might be real.
    And then she by that means, we all have to bow down, cause otherwise we will surely be pulverised.
    Or this is nothing short of a new age cult, hijacking the most important crime in The World.
    Which of it is it?

    • Replies: @hillaire
  54. @Quartermaster

    A gravitational collapse would have arrested after a couple of floors. That has been proven over and over and over. And a gravitational collapse would not have the energy to pulverize steel and concrete to dust. And that has been proven over and over and over. And if you notice, it is very clear that in one of the towers it starts to list and then falls apart before it tips over. If it were a gravitational collapse the top of the tower would have simply taken the path of least resistance and fallen off to the side.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @dimples
  55. bcos says:
    @Just another serf

    I don’t know which is the more important: the who, the how, or the why. But I think knowing ALL of the aspects of the day’s events – especially including the history of its conception – will better lead everyone to the who. For example:

    (The Hail Mary pass, aka, the Snowball)
    mid-late 1100’s: rabbis are PISSED that Christians have reconquered the Holy Land, and Jews expelled from Jerusalem, so they turn to the scriptures and develop Kabbalah. Stories of God’s wrath in the Bible will be put together for the enormous event of murdering the Christian world at the turn of the upcoming millenium, as part of re-getting Israel for the Jews. Samson took down 2 pillars, and killed 3000 people. The destruction of the Temple of Solomon (Salomon Bros Building = WTC 7, twin pillars out front). God created the light – so there must be the invention and possession of a new form of “light” – Crooke’s tubes, vaccuum tubes, and ultimately, Television becomes that new “light.” The Tree of Life, when plugging the Major Arcana of the Tarot into it, shows the initiation of the microcosm & the macrocosm. No surprise about rabbis warning people through Odigo.



    Video Link

    [MORE]

    (The Fuse)
    late 1500’s: Vatican institutes the Gregorian calendar shift, thus creating the date for the actual event – the Egyptian New Year’s Day will shift from Aug 29 (6/29) to Sept 11 (9/11) by the turn of the millenium. Why do this? The upper levels of the Vatican prefer to be above the flock, more powerful, more knowledgable, and permissible for them to be as sexually deviant as they want, without question from the lower-level people. Plus, they could use an event like the death of the world to reunite the Christian world back together (remember, this is the hey-day of the Protestant Reformation), and institute a new Crusade to reconquer the Holy Land, but in the name of the Vatican and the Catholic world.

    late 1500’s: Rabbis don’t want the Catholic world & the Vatican to be the ones to capitalize on the event, so they leak the knowledge of it to John Dee (English Protestant & occultist), and they form a pact to help each other overtake the Catholics. The New World must be won for British & Protestant interests. This is the seed that creates the Rosicrucians, and later, the Freemasons. They all work together to bring about the symbolism, and actuality, of the event.

    late 1700’s: Great Seal of the new nation contains the secret – the new nation will die & experience rebirth (Phoenix = bald eagle), on the Egyptian New Year’s Day (pyramid). Layout of the new capital is designed by a French Catholic occultist, containing pentagram symbolism.

    1800’s: architecture put into place, full of symbolism. Hieroglyph for Isis, regulator of the Egyptian calendar, is built (tall triangle/obelisk, dome/Capitol, and 5-pointed star/pentagram/pentagon). Statue of Hekate/Isis, guide of the initiate back from the land of the dead. Cornerstone ceremony on Aug 5, 1884, which is the date of the return of the star of Isis (Sirius) from the land of the dead.

    1900’s: Aleister Crowley gets initiated into the secret upcoming death/rebirth of the world, and writes extensively of it throughout his life – albeit in symbolic, occultic language. Celebration of the old goat-god, Pan, the model for the Christian devil. The number of the goat is 77. Crowley creates numerous lodges of secret societies, initiates who will undergo ritual death/rebirth ceremonies (symbolic, and sexual), and gain knowledge of the upcoming event. Goal, to shape the world into more of an occult, pagan, playground, where the initiates reap the benefits of possessing knowledge over the lesser folk.

    1960’s: Rockefellers get the building of the twin towers started. Groundbreaking on Aug 5, ’66, which is date of the return of the star of Isis (Sirius) from the land of the dead. Now that the event is coming into reality, the next year, the emergency number is created as 9-1-1. After the symbolic Killing of the (Catholic) King (Kennedy assassination), and the capture of the Vatican (Vatican II Council), the shaping of the Christian culture goes into overdrive with a new pop culture, slowly leading the flock into a more sexual, pagan, worldview. 2 albums celebrate Pan – The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (Pan is the piper, from Ch 8 of the Wind in the Willows), and Piper is the Latin name for the genus of peppers, Sgt Pepper.

    1990’s: real-time video manipulation becomes available. Used only by military & intelligence agencies in the beginning. Granit nuclear missiles from the Kursk submarine are stolen.

    Day-of: explosions planted in 2 buildings. 1st one goes off, only a few people speak of seeing a plane. While the world is focused on 1 building, real-time video manipulation inserts a plane flying into the 2nd building, perfectly-timed with an explosion into the 77th floor of that building. 77=goat-god, Pan. At the same moment that the President, an initiate of Skull & Bones, who underwent a death/rebirth ritual initiation, is being read aloud a story called The Pet Goat. Crowley’s Liber 175 is about uniting to a deity. United Flight 175 into floor 77 is symbolically Uniting to Pan (the all). 30 minutes later, an unarmed Granite missile is shot into the pentagram/Pentagon. Frightened officials are told that the 2 towers have similar nuclear missiles on board the “planes” that were believed to be lodged into the buildings. The nuclear demolition scenario is initiated, bring both towers down to a lower level where, even if the believed nuclear missiles were to go off, they would affect much less damage. (Thank you to Dmitri Khalezov’s 911-thology, The Third Truth).

    Who: inserted the planes into the various camera angles? held the cameras steady from their locations? planted explosives in the buildings? stole the Granit missiles from the Kursk? Shot the missile into the Pentagon? Used voice modification to fake calls from loved ones on a supposed plane (no cell phones could make calls from planes)? Told Pentagon officials there were nukes on the “planes”?

    The list of who is supremely long, and stretches back through history. The how is interesting, and can lead to the real culprits. I would say there are many guilty parties, or at least, many people in-the-know, amongst: rabbis, the Vatican, highest levels of Freemasonry, British intelligence, British royalty, Israeli intelligence, bankers, media, movie stars, TV stars, pop music stars, defense industry.

    A bit overwhelming, but that’s why I don’t support Israel, or trust the media, nor the government.

    The Urantia Book, and the Unz website, though, rock!

    (Hail Mary, the Snowball, and the Fuse)



    Video Link

    • Replies: @Just another serf
  56. Iris says:
    @R2b

    Sure.
    Compelling.
    Bring us that energy.
    Get us the scientific data.
    Show us the science behind it all.
    But who did it?

    You are very correct and ask the only relevant question: Where did the energy come from?

    No directed energy beam could have been involved, since there was no visible equipment capable of storing electrical energy and release it under the form of beams, plasma or others. This nonsense is akin to superstitious Haitian Voodoo.

    The energy came from 3 thermonuclear charges, rated 100 to 150 kT equivalent TNT each, lowered into a borehole dug up in the bedrock, through to an explosion chamber.

    This embedded installation was executed during the construction of the WTC.
    It is mandated by building controls regulations to plan in advance for building end-of-life and propose a controlled demolition method as part of a construction application. Because it was the crazy 1960’s, the nuclear demolition method was adopted, to be later misused by criminals.

    It is Israel who did 9/11, almost exclusively. American institutions were merely dupes, and no Saudi was involved whatsoever. More in this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/what-to-do-about-israel/#comment-4499685

    • Replies: @Kit Walker
    , @j2
    , @The Alarmist
    , @R2b
  57. @Iris

    I agree with most of this, but:

    People aboard the planes we killed elsewhere

    If no planes were used why the need for this? It could have just been made up and actors used to give statements about deceased relatives. I wouldn’t put it past them rounding up random people and machine gunning them down or gassing planeloads of passengers if they really needed to but I think it would be easier to make up the missing passengers.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  58. dimples says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    “And if you notice, it is very clear that in one of the towers it starts to list and then falls apart before it tips over. If it were a gravitational collapse the top of the tower would have simply taken the path of least resistance and fallen off to the side.”

    At last a rational comment. The disappearing listing top of the tower is quite remarkable. You can just see it disappearing from the bottom up before it the view is obscured by dust. Here is the collection of collapse videos from David Chandler

    https://911speakout.org/david-chandler/#indiv

    Watch these carefully and you can see the corner of the building(s) still intact well below the collapse zone while blast ejections are occurring on the face of the buildings well below the collapse zone.

    • Replies: @Iris
  59. @bcos

    Mea culpa. I’m very intrigued by any discussion of a nuclear device used in the Manhattan attack. So excited that I commented before listening to or reading Mr. Barrett’s material. Having listened to the interview, I feel pretty dumb as Heinz Pommer is present and his theories linked, etc.

  60. glib says:
    @Sparkon

    Clearly the NYT is an unbiased source, and we ought to modify our models until it is consistent with all the articles in their web site.

  61. saggy says:
    @GeeBee

    Could the flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania have been intended for WT7?

    No, it was headed for DC. Also WT7 is not such a tall building, i.e. easy to fly a plane into.

    But, do you understand the argument in my previous post? I have another version …. a member of an outlaw gang is a crazed scientist, and he invents a suit that makes you invisible, and he produces two of these suits. So, two of the gang members decide to wear the suits and rob a bank, sounds like a good plan, right? They waltz in unseen, grab the money, and walk out unseen. But then one other guy wants to join them in the robbery, but he has no invisible suit, and they two original robbers say “Sure, no problem.” See, it doesn’t make sense. For the invisible suits to be effective all the robbers have to have them. Ditto, for the planes to camouflage the wired buildings they have to fly a plane into each one. This argument is air tight. The ‘truthers’ can’t acknowledge the argument because it is irrefutable.

    How did WT7 come down? Because of arguments #1 and #2 in my original post I regard the idea that it was wired as preposterous. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, but there has to be some real evidence. Given no evidence, real or otherwise, I’m not interested enough to study the subject.
    If I were I’d start by googling ….. here is the NIST report …. https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation. See also

    and

    Note: I also regard the idea that the NIST is part of the plot as preposterous and completely without evidence. In short, the truthers are just idiots.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @utu
    , @GeeBee
  62. @The Alarmist

    It’s curious all hijack pilots were well versed in how to use their aircraft’s computerized navigation systems. That would require exposure and training, I would think.
    This, to my knowledge, has never been acknowledged.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  63. @Iris

    Indeed the planning for 9/11 clearly preceded the Bush Administration. He was sworn in in January. This happened not even 10 months later. And he only became President because of Jeb Bush and Antonin Scalia. There was a real possibility Gore would be President.

    So the idea that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon cabal put this all together from January 2001 seems far fetched to me. But I suspect it was to go ahead whoever was in the WH, which lends credence to the postulate that there is only one state actor that could have pulled this off, that is immune from scrutiny or criticism, whoever sits in the Oval Office, and that place is the only place that has benefited from the death and destruction that has followed.
    Cui bono.

    • Replies: @Iris
  64. D. K. says:
    @Iris

    The camera that took the three consecutive snap shots that were included in my comment to which you were responding, Iris, was located in Brooklyn, not at Ground Zero:

    https://hyperallergic.com/458397/wolfgang-staehle-wtc-9-11/

    Your responding to me with a gag photograph is not a debunking of the genuineness of those three photographs. Feel welcome to try again, Iris; feel free, even, to ask for help from one or more of the attendants at your institution.

    Feel welcome, also, to try to debunk the crash videos taken by Jules Naudet and Pavel Hlava, and the eyewitness testimony of Fuji Bank executive Stanley Praimnath, all of which were included in my own earlier reply to you– a comment of mine which you strangely “overlooked,” before posting your gag photograph, in lieu of actually debunking Wolfgang Staehle’s inadvertent recording of the moments before and after the first crash, which were automatically recorded at four-second intervals.

  65. D. K. says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Where have ‘Berry’ Berenson– the widow of actor Anthony Perkins, and the younger sister of model and actress Marisa Berenson– and Barbara Olson– the wife of the then-Solicitor General of the United States, Theodore Olson– been hiding out, since the morning of September 11, 2001?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Berenson

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson

  66. j2 says:
    @Iris

    I agree that a small nuke could very well be used to take off the core pillars, which could be something like Pommer’s theory, though I think his theory is too complicated, but I do have a
    problem with Francois Roby’s conclusions in
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696v2/document

    Roby’s calculations seem completely correct all the way to the conclusions. Thus, his estimate
    that the energy is 7*10^14 J, equation (24), is correct. His estimation that from combustible
    material you only get of the order 10^7 J/kg, equation (28), is correct.

    But the problem I have is on page 23 when he states that there is not enough combustible
    material to give this energy. The issue is that WTC1 and WTC2 had the floor area
    325,279 m^2 and WTC7 had the floor area 156,181 m^2. Together it is 800,000 m^2.
    NIST estimated that there was 20 to 32 kg of combustible material on floor square meter.
    If so, there was 2*10^7 kg of combustible material in these three buildings. As
    2*10^7 kg=7* 10^14 J / (3.5*10^7 J/kg)
    we get the energy content as 3.5*10^7 J/kg. It may be a bit high, I would say it is two times
    too high for office material, but then again Roby’s calculations are estimates. There is no
    large impossibility here. It is quite possible that there was enough material to burn so long,
    but that would require some heat source to stop if from cooling too much so that it stops
    burning. Such a heat source can be e.g. a small nuke.

    Roby calculates that a large nuke is needed to give this energy by dividing in equation (38)
    the energy 7*10^14 J by TNT value 4.184*10^12 J getting 250 kTNT nuke. but this is
    wrong. The nuke can be much smaller as the energy is given by the combustible material
    quite well. We only need something to keep the material burning for 100 days.

    Best Regards, J2

  67. j2 says:

    The article asked for comments on the nuclear theory versus some other theory.

    1. Removing one floor, when the core pillars around the lift do not support the building, does lead to a collapse of all floors. This collapse does not stop when the upper part is destroyed by collapsing to the lower part because enough of the mass of the upper part does not escape in the dust cloud. The upper mass grows on each floor and each floor collapses.

    2. It most probably is necessary to remove the central core before the collapse. This is nicely done by a reasonably small explosion in the basement that removes the support of the central core. This may have been done some time before the claimed plane attack, which possibly was a missile attack, or maybe there was neither plane nor a missile.

    3. It is necessary to weaken the pillars of one floor with e.g fire or in other ways (cut charges etc.) in order to have the building collapse long after the claimed plane attack.

    4. Thermite was used somewhere as there are samples suggesting thermite. So, basically a nuke theory only adds a practical way to remove the core pillars.

    5. If an underground nuke was used, EMP went only directly up and was most probably not noticed. Radiation can be small if the explosion was underground, but there should be some detectable radiation. Unfortunately, it is not possible to believe all reports, so who knows. But this should be explained. Cancer cases have so far been attributed to a poisonous cloud.

    6. Total energy that cooled in 100 days does not need a nuclear explosive. It can be explained with combustible material in the buildings.

    7. Planes were not real, but missiles may have been used.

    8. There are issues that support cut-charges on each level, like pang-pang-pang sound, if there was such a sound.

    9. WTC7 looks like a classical demolition. No need to have a nuke there.

    So, a small nuke could be, but it does not change the demolition theory much. A nuke theory should show that there was radiation. I find Pommer’s theory too complicated. The correct solution is some relatively simple mechanism, in my opinion.

  68. glib says:
    @D. K.

    Yes, that night the South tower approach was the only one photoshopped. And wikipedia is just about the only purveyor of truth in the world. These sources truly represent excellence in reporting.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  69. Iris says:
    @saggy

    Note: I also regard the idea that the NIST is part of the plot as preposterous and completely without evidence. In short, the truthers are just idiots.

    The collapse of WTC7 has been the object of a 4-year long study carried out at the University of Alaska- Fairbanks, under the direction of Pr Hulsey, who is an American and an emeritus academic.
    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

    The study utilised state-of-the-art civil engineering tools, SAP2000, Abaqus and Solid Works, which are used in 2021 to successfully design and build modern high-rise buildings infinitely more complex than the 47-storey WTC7.

    The study proved that the only way WTC7 could have collapsed the way it did, as recorded in the 9/11 videos, was by “global failure” mode, in layman terms controlled demolition.

    The UA-F report has been released in Sept 2019, for peer and public review, and comment period. No significant flaw was found, and the final version came out in 2020.

    Science proves without possible discussion that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition.
    Only retards and shills would challenges science, so WTC7 is an excellent indicator to identify those belonging to either categories.

    • Thanks: GeeBee, Mefobills
    • Replies: @saggy
  70. Rahan says:
    @polistra

    No. The buildings were destroyed by Saudi pilots driving jet planes. That’s a simple unarguable fact.

    You have a very firm and commanding way with words.
    My nipples explode with delight.

  71. Iris says:
    @Kit Walker

    But I suspect it was to go ahead whoever was in the WH, which lends credence to the postulate that there is only one state actor that could have pulled this off,

    The main “state” actor of 9/11 was Israel.

    Some “non-Israeli” Americans were of course part of an initial false flag plot, destined at causing a shock in the public and provide a justification to launch the “War on Terror”.

    But the initial plot involved something limited, possibly just an attack on the Pentagon.

    The Israelis gave it another dimension, with the “Art Students” rigging the Twin Towers with explosives so as to simulate a “plane” attack, Mossad claiming that the “planes” might have carried nuclear charges, and Silverstein invoking a secret demolition procedure put in place after the 1993 WTC attack.

    The WTC always was fitted with an embedded nuclear demolition scheme, from construction, and so was the Sears Tower in Chicago.

    When the 1993 WTC attack took place, the security protocols were revisited for improvement. Somebody came up with the idea that, should a new attack occur with nuclear explosives in the upper floors, it would be safer to detonate the underground nuclear charge, to absorb the building into the ground and avoid the incomparably more devastating effect of an aerial nuclear explosion. This view was translated into a mandatory procedure.

    Just before 9/11, the entire, knowledgeable, specialist Nuclear Emergency Support Team NEST was purposely sent to Europe, who could have avoided the disaster.

    When the “planes” struck, i.e. when the nanothermite planted by the Art Students exploded, Mossad informed that the “planes” had been carrying nuclear charges that could explode any moment. Somebody (Silverstein) invoked the procedure put in place to protect NYC , and the safety officers in place, without support from NEST, made the fatal decision mandated by procedure to detonate the underground nuclear charges.

    Some Americans were part of an initial plot of limited dimension. They were double-crossed by their Israelis “partners”, who leveraged an ill-conceived procedure into forcing otherwise decent civil servants to commit a crime against their own population.
    By doing so, the Israelis got a formidable protection insurance, the guarantee of endless state cover-up, as well as a joker card to direct future US foreign policy decisions.

    • Replies: @j2
  72. utu says:
    @saggy

    At this point the questions about the WTC7 should be closed. Prof. J. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks released the results of extensive computer modelinling study of the collapse of WTC7 that proves that the collapse of the WTC7 could not result from fires.

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-3rd-towers-collapse-on-911-300911896.html

    “The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) following a four-year computer modeling study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

    “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,” said Professor Hulsey. “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”

    This means that the explosive charges were placed in WTC7 on 9/11. But demolition experts would say it would be impossible to wire a building of this size for demolition within 6 hours. So, we are left with the conclusion that WTC7 was wired before 9/11. From this everything else follows which is that WTC1 and WTC2 were also wired.

    Objections about planes will be raised but they are just minor distractions.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Thanks: GeeBee
  73. dimples says:

    “Could the flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania have been intended for WT7?
    No, it was headed for DC. Also WT7 is not such a tall building, i.e. easy to fly a plane into.”

    If so,

    Why delay the hijack? The whole rationale/master plan of the supposed Arab hijackers is to fly all the planes into all the buildings at approximately the same time. That way they cannot be shot down by the jet interceptors that they think will be there. They don’t know that the almighty US air force is as usual asleep at the wheel or compromised from within. The delayed hijack is the elephant in the room which tells you that something has gone wrong with the plot. Bizarrely this question is never asked and the unusual nature of Flight 93’s movements never rings a bell.

    If the target is DC, why is the plane flying towards Cleveland, Ohio, where the actual hijack takes place? The plane now has no chance of reaching DC with interceptors in the air and Dick Cheney in the target area. Why not just dump the plane on Cleveland which is their best chance for glory? As expected the plane never makes it to DC and, how surprisingly, the lives of the ‘hijackers’ are wasted.

  74. @Iris

    Where did the energy come from?

    You must have skipped science classes in high school. There was plenty of potential energy in the mass & gravitation balance already in play at the WTC complex, and taking out the floors holding up the top twenty or so converted one fifth of that potential energy into kinetic energy to pulverise the floors below. As each successive floor was crushed, it’s potential energy was also converted into kinetic energy to take out the ones below.

    To paraphrase your question and throw it back at you, where was the EMP that would have resulted from three nuke blasts?

    • Replies: @Iris
  75. @Kit Walker

    Let’s just say that the Florida flight school aspect of the official story might be dubious. Who knows where they got their familiarisation training: MS flight Sim? Maybe someone should check the training logs at Flight Safety International.

  76. j2 says:
    @Iris

    “Mossad informed that the “planes” had been carrying nuclear charges that could explode any moment. Somebody (Silverstein) invoked the procedure put in place to protect NYC , and the safety officers in place, without support from NEST, made the fatal decision mandated by procedure to detonate the underground nuclear charges.”

    Where is this information from, or is it deduction?

    • Replies: @Iris
  77. GeeBee says:
    @saggy

    Your remark that Flight 93 was ‘headed for DC’, and that ‘WT7 is not such a tall building, i.e. easy to fly a plane into’ very conveniently leads me to ask how, then, did ‘an aeroplane’ manage to fly straight into the merely twelve-foot-high first floor of the Pentagon (without even damaging the lawn beneath it)? Not only is the configuration of a Boeing 757 too large to enter such a low structure without touching the ground, but the pressure wave beneath it when travelling at the alleged speed has prompted pilots who are experienced in flying those 757s to remark that ‘I couldn’t have done it’.

    I was extremely critical of so-called ‘9-11 Truthers’ until a couple of years ago. Then I watched footage of the first strike on the twin towers. The aeroplane, when the video of impact is viewed in freeze-frame, simply disappears into the body of the building. An aluminium tube plus a 175-foot aluminium wingspan would have to have gone through around sixty fourteen-inch solid steel vertical girders like a knife through hot butter. No way does anyone with any grasp of physics buy that one. It had to be some sort of video manipulation.

    The second strike is shown careering out of the sky at a crazy angle before impact. Again, experienced pilots have said they couldn’t have done it. It’s impossible to get a 757 or any other commercial airliner to make that manoeuvre. Add that to the WTC7 nonsense (for which I am grateful for learning of the most recent report from replies to this same comment of yours by Iris and utu) and I – albeit reluctantly – began to realise there was far more to the subject than that which was told by the media.

    Add also things like the ‘dancing Israelis’ who claimed they were there ‘to film the event’, plus the warnings given to every Jew who worked in the WTC not to go to work on September 11th and many another astonishing feature of the whole event, and I have to say that while I do not profess to know exactly what happened, much less who was behind it, I am convinced that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

    What is not at all helpful in the search for the truth, however, are articles such as this one which, as has already been pointed out, reflect badly not merely on the credulous fool that Kevin (‘I believe in every conspiracy theory out there’) Barrett clearly is, but also on the excellent Unz site.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @bcos
  78. 911 was done by Israel and the ZUS and no planes were used and the demolition was done as Dr. Judy Wood said, and the purpose was to sucker America into attacking Iraq for Israels greater Israel agenda.

  79. Iris says:
    @GeeBee

    The aeroplane, when the video of impact is viewed in freeze-frame, simply disappears into the body of the building. An aluminium tube plus a 175-foot aluminium wingspan would have to have gone through around sixty fourteen-inch solid steel vertical girders like a knife through hot butter. No way does anyone with any grasp of physics buy that one. It had to be some sort of video manipulation.

    Here is a practical illustration of what you are describing.

    The thickness of the steel girder’s wall was in the same order as the thickness of an armoured tank.

    To pierce a armoured tank with a rocket or missile, two things at least are required:
    – Extreme speed for high momentum: the missile must travel at Mach 2 or Mach 3, so 1500 to 2300 mile per hour.
    – Hardness superior to the target’s material: this is why missile heads have nose cones made of tungsten, or of the infamous depleted uranium, which are both harder than armours’ alloys.

    The “WTC planes” were made of aluminium, one of the softest metals used in industry, and allegedly “flying” at 500 mph.

    If the official 9/11 story were true, the Afghan Talibans would be routinely destroying US armoured vehicles by throwing CocaCola cans petrol bombs at them.
    This is how ridiculous the Israeli 9/11 “plane” cock-and-bull story is.

    • Replies: @dimples
  80. Wouldn’t there have been some radiation?

    • Replies: @Iris
  81. Iris says:
    @j2

    Where is this information from, or is it deduction?

    Hi J2. This information was provided by Dmitri Khalezov, after he got interrogated by the FBI with regard to his 9/11 insider knowledge, and had his fellow Russian arm trafficker Victor Bout arrested for it.

    Victor Bout was indicted for undisclosed charges; it is alleged that he was framed for having provided the missile that struck the Pentagon.

    Khalezov remained in contact with the FBI investigators, some of whom, in disgust, tipped him about how the Americans were double-crossed by the Israelis, misled by Mossad false information that nuclear charges were present atop the Twin Towers, and betrayed into authorising the fatal decision to demolish them.

    The WTC7 was demolished much later, for a completely different reason: it bore incriminating traces of explosion collateral damage.

    • Replies: @bcos
    , @DaveE
  82. No. It was Roswell escapee space aliens aided by malignant poltergeists. Why don’t people admit this?

  83. Iris says:
    @The Alarmist

    To paraphrase your question and throw it back at you, where was the EMP that would have resulted from three nuke blasts?

    It is a total waste of time replying to your question, since it proves that you haven’t even bothered looking neither at the article, nor at the comments, nor watched the explanatory video posted in comment 20, nor glanced through the US DD/DE nuclear engineering document posted in 47.

    The underground nuclear explosion occurred inside the bedrock. The Electromagnetic Pulse was therefore almost entirely contained by the rock and soil surrounding the underground explosion chamber. Just like people working in radiology cabinets are protected against X-Rays, another form of electromagnetic wave, by wearing lead aprons.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @j2
  84. saggy says:
    @Iris

    The UA-F report has been released in Sept 2019, for peer and public review, and comment period. No significant flaw was found, and the final version came out in 2020.

    The ‘research’ was entirely funded by the AE911 truthers. The report was not published in a reputable journal and was not subjected to any formal peer review. I wasn’t aware of it, but it’s been lurking since 2015 …. here we have the skeptics response ….
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311698

    Note that my previous post linked to a recent sim showing the collapse confirming NIST, and I imagine there are many others, so that UA-F was able to produce a sim refuting NIST doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, And, neither you nor I can evaluate the sims.

    Here is the skeptics view …. from the link ….

    This Is a Turning Point

    We at AE911Truth believe the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
    Not only will the UAF study add credible, cutting-edge research to the existing body of evidence and analysis regarding the destruction of WTC 7, it will also generate an unprecedented level of awareness and willingness to look seriously at how this building was destroyed.

    Hmmm, it’s hard to have confidence in a study where the results are announced in advance.

  85. bcos says:
    @GeeBee

    “Add also things like the ‘dancing Israelis’ who claimed they were there ‘to film the event’, plus the warnings given to every Jew who worked in the WTC not to go to work on September 11th and many another astonishing feature of the whole event, and I have to say that while I do not profess to know exactly what happened, much less who was behind it, I am convinced that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.”

    It’s not a far stretch to say that Israel had an enormous hand in the day’s events. The dots can be connected. But to say that “articles such as this one…reflect badly not merely on the credulous fool that Kevin [Barrett] clearly is, but also on the excellent Unz site” is terribly disingenuous. This qualified approval, saying that “there is more to it than meets the eye” is completely undermined by then slamming the author with authoritative mockery and smears. Your qualified approval now reeks of an attempt to say “Nothing to see here! These people are nutjobs!” Elementary school playground tactics are seen as childish by many of the intellects commenting here. Especially when, clearly, a building instantaneously turning into microscopic dust is an unusual phenomenon in this world. However, it is plausibly explained by considering the nuclear angle. And the name, Ground Zero, has always been the name of the place where nuclear explosions occur.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  86. bcos says:
    @Iris

    Thanks Iris for mentioning Dmitri Khalezov! Between him and Simonshack (September Clues) we have the biggest peek behind the curtain – the “how.” The technical nuts & bolts of how the magical operation was actually conducted.

    • Thanks: Iris
  87. DaveE says:
    @Iris

    Thanks Iris for your great comments. Veterans Today published a lot of Khalezovs’ disclosures several years ago. Although it’s now clear that VT is a limited-hangout propaganda rag, they did, years ago, publish some actual truth. That’s how liars work – they gain an audience by publishing a few facts, then slowly twist the truth into their preferred “version” hoping we won’t notice. The “boiling frogs” theory of propaganda.

    Anyway, one of the disclosures made by Khalezov was that there is no such thing as a “critical mass” required for the nuclear detonation of plutonium or U235 and that nuclear “catalysts” can be added to speed up production of neutrons and convert otherwise wasted isotopes into useful energy. In other words, newer nukes can be made very efficient, leaving no trace radiation / isotopes and can be made as small as a Coke can.

    I believe it was Gordon Duff, in one of his “truth-crumbs” moments, who said that nukes were made in the Trade Towers disguised as fire extinguishers and detonated sequentially.

    Anyway, I don’t have time to research further, but I’m pretty sure VT / Khalezov disclosed this stuff several years ago.

    Thanks Iris and Mr. Barrett and all the great commenters here.

    We’re gonna nail these bastards, yet.

  88. D. K. says:
    @glib

    Asserting that an image was photoshopped is not evidence, let alone a refutation. Just like your fellow traveller, Iris, you strangely chose to reply to my comment containing three consecutive images from an around-the-clock observation, during which snap shots were automatically recorded at four-second intervals, while strangely “overlooking” my previous comment containing three videos– one of the first crash, another of both crashes, and a third offering an eyewitness account from a World Trade Center survivor of the second crash, as well as a partial corroboration of that account by a fellow survivor– and links to Wikipedia entries on the two French brothers who were making a documentary about a young firefighter, one of whom captured the first crash on video, and the Fuji Bank executive who saw the second plane approaching, before it crashed into several floors, destroying his office.

  89. @Iris

    You seem to have confused non-ionising radiation with ionising radiation. If nukes had been used, even under bedrock and to the extent it could displace enough bedrock, the bedrock would not significantly affect the disruption of the local magnetic fields from the SREMP, and the huge amount of wiring and ducting criss-crossing lower Manhattan would have acted as long antennae to carry the pulse into several PSTN swiches in the area, and the so-called command centres with “heros” like Rudy Guiliani would have gone dark despite being hardened for HEMP, not to mention incapacitation of the power grid of lower Manhattan, which also didn’t happen.

    • Replies: @glib
  90. GeeBee says:
    @bcos

    My comment regarding Kevin Barrett was made after reading a great deal of his work and forming the conclusion that he appears to have very little discretion, nor any working critical faculty, when he encounters the ‘far out’ element. I am sure that you are aware that ‘our’ movement is carefully monitored and infiltrated by our enemies, and that one of their tactics in attempting to discredit what we believe and say is to link it to ideas that are so ludicrously extreme that we end up ‘tarred with the same brush’ as they. I am not saying that I suspect Mr Barrett of being such an infiltrator, but that never the less he ‘doth assist the storm’ in this regard.

    Nuclear weapons are just not necessary for carrying out a demolition job. They also present such enormous difficulties, and they would also leave behind enormous evidence, that would preclude any rational ‘plotter’ from choosing such a path. This much I should have thought was self-evident.

    That said, I take on board your strictures regarding my style and strategy in making my remarks. It is unlike me – I was tired and irritable at that moment, but that is not an excuse. My apologies in this regard.

    • Replies: @bcos
  91. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Thanks Iris for the Dmitri Khalezov name, and you are quite correct of the EMP.

    And you are correct, the EMP pulse is absorbed by sufficient amount of stone or concrete.
    Some radiation still should have be detectable, but maybe there was some, hard to say.

    About who did something evil is never a real question on this particular website,
    though strangely, I did not find the usual suspect from looking at who could have created
    SARS-CoV-2. That was a refreshening surprise, but maybe I overlooked something.

  92. Sparkon says:
    @j2

    Yes, perhaps there are such devices, but the questions about 9/11 concern destruction of the Twin Towers not the Twin Bunkers, so it’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Briefly, I see no rationale, justification or sense in blowing out the foundations or low supporting members of the Twin Towers without corresponding explosions to chop up the entire structure into pieces, else the whole shebang is going to topple over.

    But the photographs show nothing like that. Instead, below the zones of destruction, the lower portions of the Twin Towers continued standing straight and tall and firm even as their upper floors were being blown to pieces.

    Richard Drew, AP photo

    Nor do the photographs show any disruption, destruction, movement, displacement or anything else going on in either building below of the zones of destruction, let alone any kind of nuclear detonation, directed or not.

    However, some point to what look like squibs, and also the streams of molten metal photographed pouring out of WTC 2 in the moments before its destruction, and certainly this needs to be explained, but I think by now most serious 9/11 researchers and skeptics accept that the buildings 1, 2, and 7 at the WTC were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

    If the destruction of the Twin Towers had been any kind of prototypical controlled demolition where gravity is the controlling force once the building’s supports are severed and pushed aside, one would expect there would have been two big piles of debris and rubble where the two 110-story skyscrapers had stood.

    Again, the photos show nothing like that. But isn’t it peculiar that a multi-floor, ground-level corner section of each building was left standing in the aftermath of the disaster?

    Image: BBC

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48689783

    Finally, if there is any truth at all to this idea of the 9/11 caper having a sub-plot to steal a enormous amount of gold bars and other valuables stashed beneath the WTC, then I’d think the plotters would take great pains to avoid destroying or irradiating their booty.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  93. bcos says:
    @GeeBee

    “Nuclear weapons are just not necessary for carrying out a demolition job. They also present such enormous difficulties, and they would also leave behind enormous evidence, that would preclude any rational ‘plotter’ from choosing such a path. This much I should have thought was self-evident.”

    A “rational” plotter… “I should have thought was self evident…” Why must you insist on presenting arguments that are framed in such a way that any disagreement with you must be because a person is irrational, or brain-dead? Just present your ideas and let the chips land where they may. No need to name-call any potential disagree-ers. Maybe people will agree, maybe they won’t.

    However, I never used the phrase “demolition job.” They towers were annihilated, pulverized to microscopic DUST. In order to do THAT, I do believe that only a nuclear bomb could do THAT. Plus, the 3 months of intense heat… And, it also fulfilled the aspect of the event which the rabbis used in conceiving the event. They were compiling tons of destructive images from the Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament), and they were harnessing the Power of God to “utterly destroy.” “Blot out the rememberance of Amalek [rabbinical code for Israel’s enemy].” In the Kabbalistic work The Book Bahir, at the end it quotes from Isaiah 24:21, “On that day the Lord will punish the host of heights of high.” All the mentionings of Edom/Esau (Jacob/Israel’s brother, whom Jacob/Israel considers an eternal enemy), are reinterpreted in Kabbalah as referring to the Christian world (see Gershom Scholem, “Edom = Jewish code word, since the Middle Ages, for Christianity”), which had reconquered Jerusalem and the Holy Land during the Crusades. The goal was to UTTERLY DESTROY. Pulverizing 2 towers, symbolizing the Christian world (also phrased in dualistic language as the male & female “gods” of the Christians, Samael & Lilith) into microscopic dust was the desire from the get-go. Alchemy developed from Kabbalah, which blossomed into Chemistry, but there were many along the way who knew the purpose of what they were searching for. The Power of God, to utterly destroy matter, and generate the power of the upcoming Grand Event, the death/rebirth of the World.

    Eliphas Levi knew what was coming, and wrote in 1861 (way before nuclear discoveries) in The Key of the Mysteries, Part III, “There is no solid body which would not immediately be pulverized, vanish in smoke, and become invisible if the equilibrium of its molecules were to cease suddenly. To direct the magnetic forces is then to destroy or create forms; to produce to all appearance, or to destroy bodies; it is to exercise the almighty power of Nature.”

    Notice how many Freemasons and Jews were involved in the creation of the atomic bomb. It wasn’t just to win WW2. They knew they needed the power for the upcoming Event.

    • Replies: @Iris
  94. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    I have heard of gold bars, but I do not know if it is true. Could they not have been stolen without blowing up the building?

    The outside walls standing firmly may not be so odd if only the central core support was removed.

    Debris on ground depends on how much went finally up as dust. Difficult to say, it is
    a lot of energy released even if gravity was the force to pull the building down. Gravity would
    collapse the building if one floor collapses. It would make the demolition easier. But maybe,
    if so, central core pillars must be cut or at least their support to the ground removed.

    Certainly WTC1 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions, only the question is what type exactly. It
    is not an important issue. It is basically a question how much effort was put to installing explosives.
    Maybe a small nuke (or non-nuclear explosive) in the basement would have lessened the work.
    I do not see any other special reason why there would be any nuke. The long time of cooling does
    not need a nuke to explain it. Molten steel can be explained with thermite. So, it is only good if
    it is easier to set up. My problems with the nuke theory were 1) the radiation that has not
    been demonstrated and 2) where is the hole filled with lava or something else where the hot
    nuclear kernel is supposed to have sunken. But these problems may not be fatal. The theory
    is possible, I do not see how it can be directly refuted. I do know that there are weapons that
    can destroy underground command bunkers that can take a direct hit by an atomic bomb,
    but I know only one basic method: hit a bomb very precisely to a lift shaft, staircase etc to the bunker, the pressure wave will go down all the way and kill all, but that is not all there is.

  95. hillaire says:
    @R2b

    possibly judy woods is a state agent, one of many employed to spin and distract, to play to the gallery of fools and reprobates, weaving improbable yarns that might seem probable to the dull and hard of thinking…

    all the while the obvious is ignored and maligned in favour of more distinctly ‘hollywood’ solutions crafted specifically for the conspiratorially minded and internet afflicted.

    for men who think they are much ‘cleverer’ than they really are…..

    ‘for real chumps’……

  96. Iris says:
    @bcos

    They towers were annihilated, pulverized to microscopic DUST. In order to do THAT, I do believe that only a nuclear bomb could do THAT. Plus, the 3 months of intense heat…

    The dustification of the Twin Towers occurred because an underground nuclear detonation underneath would have generated a tremendous pressure in the order of 10^9 Atm (one thousand million times the atmospheric pressure).

    This pressure generates a shock wave which travels at supersonic speed and shatters all matter around the explosion point, long before heat can diffuse. This shockwave, in the case of an aerial explosion, is called the “blast” in layman terms.

    A nuclear shockwave is the only type of “blast” powerful enough to dustify rock.

    This is why the photos and videos of underground nuclear explosion experiments resemble so much the collapse of the Twin Towers : in either cases, extremely hard materials, namely rock, steel and concrete were reduced to a state of powder, so as to flow fluidly like flour would.

    • Thanks: bcos
  97. Iris says:
    @dimples

    Watch these carefully and you can see the corner of the building(s) still intact well below the collapse zone while blast ejections are occurring on the face of the buildings well below the collapse zone.

    This drawing helps understanding why:

    Each Tower would stood vertically aligned on top of a detonation cavity.

    The detonation produced a tremendous supersonic pressure wave that shattered the rock, as well as the Tower above.

    Just like a stone thrown in water causes a ripple decreasing in amplitude as it drifts from the centre, a shockwave loses energy as it travels away from the centre that produced it.

    WTC7, which was short, was entirely “dustified” by the shock wave and fell almost in free fall

    The Twin Towers, which were 4 times longer, were “disintegrated” only up to a certain height. The top of the South Tower did not undergo the same level of destruction as the lower floors, and tipped almost as one piece when the structure underneath gave up.

    • Replies: @dimples
  98. Abbybwood says:
    @saggy

    Perhaps the plane that crashed in Shanksville was supposed to hit WTC 7 and the hit was aborted?

    But the building was already wired to explode and go down. It HAD to come down, plane or no plane.

    As far as the events of 9/11, I think we skip ahead of ourselves with the “who” part of the event when most cannot seem to even agree on “what”.

    The US government naturally becomes a potential “who” when Bush refused to even conduct a bullshit “investigation”. Then he finally agreed to the Commission to be headed up by the globalist war criminal Kissinger.

    The “Jersey Girls” protested and Kissinger was dumped for Zelikow. When Bush and Cheney demanded to be interviewed their stipulations were: not under oath, only one hour, only together, no recording devices allowed and no paper or pens or any note taking allowed. If that wasn’t a tell!

    The 9/11 Commission was a joke and even Hamilton and Keene? complained.

    So much evidence has been gathered independently, from Tarpley and the 40 plus war games that morning to Griffin’s well-researched books.

    But as a nation, we still cannot agree on WHAT happened. Nukes, media CGI’s, directed energy weapons or nano-thermite? Terrorists who turned up alive? Passports of terrorists found intact on a NYC street? No plane in Shanksville? Ted Olson lying his ass off about a phone call with his wife that lasted “less than a second”? The list is endless.

    Where’s Colombo when we need him??

  99. JamesinNM says:
    @bayviking

    Israel has and will continue to do anything they believe is necessary to control the U.S. government: FACT.

  100. glib says:
    @The Alarmist

    If you have a power distribution (as a function of wavelength) of the EMP, I can probably estimate this for you. I really don’t expect wires to carry much. Are you thinking of TEM modes (TM specifically) in pipes?

  101. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    Sparkon, of course there is the small problem of the building ground level to have sunken after
    the collapse, and that the debris on the ground is gone. This is easily explained by the old demolition
    method with a big nuke that Iris proposes. Let us give it a try.

    The problem with the suggested way of a big nuke underground is that it probably would not
    look like what we see in the videos. But the planes probably were not like we see in the videos.
    So, what we see in the videos is tampered. Maybe the building lower part did not stay stable
    and the buildings did fall to the cavity. It is only not seen in the tampered videos, but these
    videos could not be tampered so much as to remove the eruption as too many people saw them.
    So, could some small modification to these videos make them agree with a large nuke underground,
    an original demolition method from 1960s? It would explain why the ground level sinks. It should
    not sink with gravitation fall, nor with thermite demolition.

  102. dimples says:
    @Iris

    Unfortunately the tower isn’t ‘shattered’ as you claim and as the convenient pics posted by yourself of atomic blasts show. The tower doesn’t even have its windows broken, yet the ‘nuke’ has ‘dustified’ the building, according to you.

    Why does the South Tower crack in the middle where the plane hit if a ‘nuke’ went off in the basement yet the tower underneath is fine and undustified?

    It is well known that large amounts of still active thermitic material was found in the dust, which explains the great heat of the dust and the long length of time the rubble pile at ground zero was hot. What more explanation is required? What is the obsession with nukes?

    A nuke in the basement is the last explanation any rational person needs to explain this picture. Only if nothing else made sense would any sane person go down this road. Sadly it appears you are the victim of another of the plotters’ psychological operations teams.

    Thermite and gravitational collapse are perfectly adequate to cause the much obsessed about dustification. The floor pans were lightweight concrete easily broken up.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @utu
  103. dimples says:
    @Iris

    As I recollect, the columns of the top section of the buildings were only about 5/16″ thick. The buildings were divided into 3 sections. Thick at the bottom, not so thick in the middle and thin at the top for reasons of weight.

    If that’s wrong please quote source for your statement that the walls were as thick as tank armour where the planes hit.

  104. j2 says:
    @dimples

    Can we trust the videos to give the correct picture of how the towers collapsed?

  105. utu says:
    @dimples

    Unfortunately the tower isn’t ‘shattered’ as you claim and as the convenient pics posted by yourself of atomic blasts show. The tower doesn’t even have its windows broken, yet the ‘nuke’ has ‘dustified’ the building, according to you.

    Iris has a mind of a doctrinaire impervious to critical thinking. She keeps promoting Khalezov nonsense for years using the same specious arguments and illustrations. No doubt or critical thought succeed to permeate her protective armor of obscurantism for years.

    According to Khalezov a shock wave went through the tower and dustified it. Then the dustified tower hesitated to collapse at every point it was dustified and did not obey the pull of gravity but instead it was waiting until the upper part comes dow to it. The windows and beams in the lower part that appeared to be intact according to Khalezov were already dustified and the only reason they did not began falling right away was because they hesitated and opted to not obey the gravity pull until later just like Wile E. Coyote.

    • Replies: @Iris
  106. Iris says:
    @utu

    According to Khalezov a shock wave went through the tower and dustified it.

    I appreciate that your ever-glaringly obvious loyalty to Israel, ethnical, ideological or otherwise, is deeply hurt by every word myself and others post on articles pertaining to 9/11.

    But believe it or not, it is not out of “Anti-Semitism” that I drew my conclusions; the objective observation of the facts and of the decisive actors involved show that “Israel did 9/11“.

    On another note, your cognitive standards are even more impaired than usual.
    It is not Khalezov who describes the pressure shockwave. If you had taken the time to do any homework for your trolling, you would have known that he is not Physics-trained, and never mentions the concept of “pressure shockwave”, neither in his 1000+page opus “911thology”, nor in his long interviews.

    Equally, if you had taken the pain to read the ridiculously short article above, you would have been aware that it is Professor Roby, PhD and Physics academic, who described the shockwave and its effect in destroying the Towers in his article. His demonstration is impeccable, and has been out for two years, open to any rebuttal that never came, because there is no error in his scientific proof that the WTC controlled demolition was of nuclear nature.
    See page 35 in Pr Roby’s study for description of the pressure shockwave, as part of the general mechanism of underground nuclear detonations;

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696

    As a matter of fact, and no matter the explosive used, there can exist no explosion without a pressure shockwave. The pressure shockwave is always a mandatory effect of any explosion.
    This only shows how stupid you are, since you yourself posted a comment about the UAF study proving the controlled demolition of WTC7, an thesis that mandates explosives.
    But you would not know a pressure shockwave even if it hit you in the proverbial, so no point wasting my time.

    Finally, try to cut the grotesque emotional psycho-babble which composes over 50% of your “replies” to me. It makes you look like a physically-ugly old gay man who hates women, which you probably are, and is not a flaw in itself, but unbearably adds up to the rest of your considerable unpleasantness.

    • Replies: @j2
  107. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Yes, utu is not one of the good guys. But you I like, Iris. You are the only person who put several
    comments on my blog and I could not locate you to some physical location, and because you are
    the only person who has all the time been right, even though your claim seemed obviously wrong
    at the start, like this claim of a big 1960 nuke. So, I salute you, Iris, though I do not know if you
    are a man or a woman, or where you live. You have excellent sources, and indeed, it may have been
    this big nuke from 1960s.

    • Replies: @Iris
  108. Iris says:
    @j2

    Hi J2; thanks for your kind words.

    Whether we like it or not, we find ourselves caught in the ideological war of our time, and are obliged to take sides.

    I am not an American, but l have been sincerely horrified ever since I realised that 3000 civilians were sacrificed in a nuclear Holocaust, on their own soil, during peace time, just to advance the delusion of grandeurs of a foreign country, Israel.

    Others, like Utu, find it funny to compare the nuclear massacre of these people, their literal dustification and disintegration while alive, to a comics E. Wiley Cartoon.

    It is a reflection of the values of the civilisation he belongs to, just like my remote but fraternal indignation is only a reflection of my own’s.

    Discussing with these trolls the existence of nuclear engineering methods, utilised in the 1960’s but now obsolete, and including a demolition feature embedded in the WTC Towers, is a complete waste of time.

    The subject is not even censored on the Internet, and any search comes up with dozens of pieces of information.

    Below, a 1966 video of how the USSR put out a fire at a gas well in Urta-Bulak, Uzbekistan, by the means of an underground nuclear detonation. At the time, the Twin Towers were under construction. Best regards.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @j2
  109. profnasty says:
    @Iris

    9/11 corresponded to 23 Eluil(?), which Jews celebrate as the day Noah learned, by return of a dove, land had reappeared. It was literally the beginning of our New Earth.
    Go figure.

  110. Sparkon says:
    @Iris

    Below, a 1966 video of how the USSR put out a fire at a gas well in Urta-Bulak, Uzbekistan, by the means of an underground nuclear detonation. At the time, the Twin Towers were under construction. Best regards.

    Extinguising a fire at a gas well with an underground nuclear detonation has precisely nothing to do with the top-down demolition of the WTC’s Twin Towers, which were constructed beginning in August 1968, not 1966, so typically, you can’t even get basic facts right, nor do you even bother to check, but at least you know you’re not an American, so we can be thankful for that.

    • Replies: @Iris
  111. j2 says:
    @Iris

    I mean it Iris. Maybe you are correct with this 1960 nuclear demolition method. I did first
    discard it, but now I do not know. If we cannot believe in the planes (I accept that much,
    planes do not merge into a building as the video shows), though we see the plane
    in the video, why should we believe that the collapse was just as the video shows? And if not,
    it could be an old fashioned 1960s nuclear demolition. All that contradicts it is the video.

  112. Iris says:
    @Sparkon

    I will try to explain something IMMENSELY difficult and FAR TOO conceptual for a debile’s mind ; please do your best and try to concentrate.

    A sky-scrapper is a structure so complex that its design phase is completed months, and often years before construction starts.

    An underground embedded demolition feature, in practice an additional borehole similar to the dozens dug up in the bedrock to anchor the future building, must be planned for at the design phase. People don’t go around improvising demolition methods; they design them in advance as part of the whole structure.

    The design of the WTC was completed in 1962, and presented to the public in January 1964.
    Ergo, the nuclear demolition feature was already designed in January 1964.
    Back then, nuclear engineering for construction purposes was considered so promising that in September 1963, a proposal was submitted to President JFK to dig up a second Panama Canal by the means of nuclear detonations, no less.
    This last fact is recorded in ” JFK’s Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President” by journalist Thurston Clarke .

    A final tip, as you may not work that out: year 1964 happened before year 1966.

    • Replies: @j2
  113. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Your theory has the beauty of simplicity. All that was needed in 2001 was to press the red button
    and fake some videos. Everything for demolition was ready. It is a possible theory.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Commentator Mike
  114. R2b says:
    @Iris

    Thanks!
    But just a question.
    When I watch Towers 1 and 2 fall, it seems like they fall downwards, by a successive series of explosions, from top to bottom.
    It’s doesen’t resonate with an explosion from the bottom, methinks.

    • Replies: @Iris
  115. Iris says:
    @R2b

    When I watch Towers 1 and 2 fall, it seems like they fall downwards, by a successive series of explosions, from top to bottom.

    Hey. I would rather not talk about our subjective “impressions”, since they all differ from one another.

    But as a matter of fact, your impression that the collapse occurred “from top to bottom” actually perfectly tallies up with the underground nuclear demolition scheme proposed by Pr Roby.

    The supersonic shockwave generated inside the underground nuclear chamber spread in all spatial directions, but its power weakened as it crossed ever thicker sections of matter, as a function of 1/r^2. In layman terms, at any given point, the shockwave would be inversely proportional to the square root of r, r being the distance to the centre of explosion.

    The further you go, the weaker the amplitude of the shockwave, and the lesser the level of disintegration of the structure.

    WTC7 being much shorter was highly “disintegrated” and fell almost in free fall.
    The Twin Towers being about 4 times higher saw a lesser-acieved disintegration of the top floors, compared to the more thoroughly “dustified” lower floors. Hence the very real “impression” that the top of the South Tower was pressing on its lower part when collapsing.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  116. Iris says:
    @j2

    Everything for demolition was ready. It is a possible theory.

    9/11 is like the JFK assassination, J2.

    The problem is not understanding the real events, anybody can do that.

    The problem is extracting the real events from the smokescreen.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  117. Iris says:
    @I do want to live forever

    Wouldn’t there have been some radiation?

    A very important question.

    Radioactive fallout, after a nuclear detonation, is made of matter and high-energy electromagnetic waves.

    When the nuclear explosion is aerial, like Hiroshima’s , nothing stops the nuclear fallout: it goes everywhere around.

    Conversely, when a nuclear detonation occurs inside the bedrock, the solid, inert rock surrounding the detonation chamber, although now shattered by the explosion, acts as a shield, and to a considerable extent, stops the nuclear fallout from moving towards the surface.

    But because this rock has bee shattered by the explosion, it is now full of cracks and crevices that will some radioactivity particles and waves to travel, and will slowly but inexorably release a small fraction of the radioactive fallout to the surface.
    These deadly particles filtrating from the ground affected the WTC first responders, who saw 10000+ of them affected by many different types of cancers, including rare cancers.
    Asbestos mainly causes 4 types of cancer affecting lungs and oesophagus; those marring WTC first responders were clearly radiation-related.
    https://www.napolilaw.com/article/rare-cancers-connected-to-exposure-during-9-11-attacks/

    These 10,000 cancer victims, of which about 2000 have already died, must be added to the WTC attack death toll.
    https://nycfirewire.net/deaths-from-9-11-diseases-will-soon-outnumber-those-lost-on-that-fateful-day/

  118. Sparkon says:
    @Iris

    WTC7 being much shorter was highly “disintegrated” and fell almost in free fall.
    The Twin Towers being about 4 times higher saw a lesser-acieved disintegration of the top floors,

    No, that’s complete nonsense. WTC 7 wasn’t “highly disintegrated” at all, and there was a rubble pile where the building had stood containing identifiable parts of the structure, including windows.

    In fact the Twin Towers individually were just a little more than twice as tall as WTC 7, which stood at 610 feet, while World Trade One was 1,368 feet and World Trade Two 1,362 feet, or about 2.24x as tall, so once again you’re playing fast and loose with the facts, or maybe you’re just innumerate.

    World Trade One and World Trade Two were blown apart from the top down, and that destruction was fully achieved. By contrast, WTC 7 fell into a concentrated rubble heap, but it had a conventional steel-framed construction where the Twin Towers had a novel tube within a tube design that probably required a different approach to their demolition.

    Severing the structural support of a very tall building near its foundation will result in the entire structure toppling over, like cutting down a tree, so there was some method to the madness of demolishing those very tall buildings from the top down, which is what the videos show and what the debris patterns and damage to surrounding structures attest.

    • Replies: @j2
  119. Anon[182] • Disclaimer says:

    Mossad’s execution of 9-11 should have been a wake up call.
    You guys subscribed to the phony WMD and coyote planes dissapearing into the babylonian twin towers whilst your intuition should have kicked in and told you something is not right.
    9-11 should have been the litmus test for truth but you conveniently ignored it. You looked the other way due to cognitive dissonance.
    You followed Bush’s order to go on a spending spree with more credit card debt jacked up with high interest to feed the satanic cabal instead.
    With all these bogus wars on terror and non-ending hoaxes you have unwittingly supported the Zionist Satanic push for one world disorder.
    At this point, all you can do is repent for your sins and start fighting back the criminal enterprize who are in charge of orchestrating all these bogus war on terror, creating these monstrous, diabolical, sinister ISISraHELL with the help of al-CIA-da and MOSSAD.
    Alternate would be to sit back and enjoy bigger fireworks than 9-11 coming near you whilst they prepare greater IzraHELL for the coming of their Yahweh, The Anti-Christ dajjal who will globalize his reign of terror from Jerusalem.
    Either way buckle up for a roller coaster ride with some of these demonic, totally psychopathic, diabolical, sinister, pathological liars and corrupters of mother earth. You reap what you sow.

    There is a lie. Then there is a BIG LIE. Then there is 911. Santa Claus is beyond a LIE. Tel LIE vised 911 EvangeLIED are being taken for a ride by way of Deception to think Jesus Christ died for their Evils. Everyone shall have to account for deeds, either good or evil to enter Paradise or eternal abode in Hell fire.

    The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney “war on terror” it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of “emergency” while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful public. – See more at:Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11

    19 hijackers were “involved” in the 9 /11 false flag. Covid-19 has the number 19. This Covid thing comes 19 years after 9/11.

  120. @St-Germain

    There were always 2 aspects of things that struck me right away: how did so many thousands of folks who usually worked in the Towers manage to stay home that day; what was behind the seemingly immediate removal of all rubble — especially the steel framework — and its shipment to china?

  121. @j2

    It’s not a pleasant thought to know that you’re sitting on top of a nuke installed at construction if you work or live in a high rise.

    As you mentioned that a building can be collapsed by taking out just one floor then placing conventional explosives in Building 7, or the others, could have been done a lot quicker. In an earlier debate on UR someone calculated how long it would take to wire up the building for demolition and from what I vaguely remember it would have taken too long, but if all that was needed was to take out one floor it could have been done fairly quickly, as in an emergency.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @j2
  122. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    “Severing the structural support of a very tall building near its foundation will result in the entire structure toppling over, like cutting down a tree,”

    The idea in Iris’proposal, if I understand it, is that the ground sinks in the middle of the building after the cavity has erupted. So, first there is the nuclear explosion underground and the building stands it, then after some time the cavity top breaks. There comes an eruption, but after that what might happen is that the central core falls down, but the outer support pillars stay. The upper floors, being further away from the explosion, suffer little or no damage. The upper floors block falls down and breaks everything below, actually by gravity, but the debris largely disappears to the cavity and that is why there is no huge heap. Is this what she means? If so, the building does not need to fall like a tree as the outer support is still there. Iris seems to say that the videos show the fall correctly, but if there is any impossibility, I suggest not to assume that the videos show correctly (if some videos are tampered (planes), then no videos can be necessarily trusted). There should be some radiation, but Iris suggests that there was and it caused cancers. This is hard to verify as all data is questionable. There should also be the cavity and a tunnel to the place where the nuclear core finally sunk. Was it there?

    Is this the theory? It seems possible, simple, elegant, but like other theories there are some open issues. But it is not needed because of total released energy or because there is no other way to explain the collapses.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Sparkon
  123. Iris says:
    @Commentator Mike

    It’s not a pleasant thought to know that you’re sitting on top of a nuke installed at construction if you work or live in a high rise.

    Sorry to interject, Mike. It is only an educated speculation, but based on rational deductions and indirect evidence.

    People working at the Twin Towers were never sitting atop of nukes. The nuclear charges were all permanently stored at Building 7/WTC7, for security and control of course, but also for mandatory maintenance.

    Nuclear charges need regular maintenance, so for that as well it was more rational to keep them all in one single location, under WTC7, which was a government’s building with stricter access.

    The standard way of delivery for such weapons is rail tracks, which minimise shocks and vibrations.
    WTC7 was linked to the Twin Towers by rail tracks running in underground tunnel.

    When the explosions disguised as “plane crashes” occurred, the demolition scheme was activated and the nuclear charges were moved on their respective rail tracks, from WTC7 to each Twin Tower.

    There is physical evidence that the demolition scheme was activated, and that is the odd alarm signal that can be heard inside WTC7 after the “plane attack”.

  124. Iris says:
    @j2

    The idea in Iris’ proposal, if I understand it, is that the ground sinks in the middle of the building after the cavity has erupted

    Hi J2. I think that it does not help getting to the truth by saying that this is anybody’s idea, Roby Pommer, or Khalezov’s.

    It is nobody’s idea, but a scientific reality which has been known for decades now.

    This reality was observed in real-life nuclear experiments, and profusely described in nuclear engineering documents.

    See from point 2.102 in this official American document:

    https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf

    Only the Israel trolls do reject reality over and over again; the collapse of the WTC perfectly matches the known mechanism of underground nuclear explosions.

    • Replies: @j2
  125. skrik says:

    Sorry for this ‘late entry.’

    This ‘debate’ seems endless, and has been ‘done to death’ many times; for a start kindly try this from me, 1st post of my 94 out of a current total of 2,385 comments. Read the lot, get informed, if you *still* need such. [It’s now been nearly 20 lo-o-ong years. Those who cannot ‘accept’ controlled-demolition as fact are ‘lost’ to the rational world. Oh! Only and as always, IMHO.]

    So, just a single repeat: No nukes, no dustify, no sense, no feeling; to which add: No DEW. rgds

  126. j2 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I went through a calculation (not by me) showing that taking off one floor does make the building collapse by gravitation. The calculation was not difficult and seemed correct. I would still put a reservation to the need to take off the central core pillar support to the ground, especially as the antenna fell first and there apparently was some basement explosion. But I think wiring one floor and placing explosives to the basement would not take too long. There is only the question if there should be a high heap of material, or if it would fit to the existing basement floors of the buildings, as they also crashed. I prefer this simple theory. It is almost like the official explanation, only the collapse did not start from fire and planes, but was mainly by gravitation. Then most of combustible material fell to the basement floors and could burn 100 days with some thermite giving enough heat to melt steel and keep the fires burning. But not huge amounts of thermite. There can be a mininuke in this theory, or not, and there can be missiles, or not. But there is thermite and controlled demolition of some kind.

    There are some problems with the nuke in the basement theory. If the video of the collapse is falsified, then there is one problem less, but if it is authentic, then why should the collapse start from the floors where the “planes” were supposed to have hit (whether they did or not)? It should start at some random floor, if the hit floor has no role in the collapse. Then there is the problem of people cleaning ground zero of a nuclear bomb and not dying immediately, even if the nuclear core is some 30 meters down, there must be radiation if there was an eruption as the video seems to show. Then there is the problem where the nuclear core might be now. Surely, it was not cleaned off by unprotected workers. So, this theory is possible, but as the other theories, it has some problems.

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
  127. Sparkon says:
    @j2

    is that the ground sinks in the middle of the building after the cavity has erupted…The upper floors block falls down and breaks everything below, actually by gravity,…

    It’s an interesting idea, but there is little to support it beyond all the hot air here.

    In some of the overhead photographs of the WTC site taken in the days after 9/11, skeletal remnants of at least the outlines and some intact members of the central cores of both buildings can be perceived sticking up from the debris near ground level.

    Also visible in some of those photos are any number of long, straight, unbent sections lying about in fairly close proximity to the footprints of both buildings that I suggest must be surviving columns, or steel beams from the central cores.

    The random positioning of these unbent structural elements is consistent with the scenario where those columns were kicked aside during the demolitions, and entirely inconsistent with the notion that the central core was dropped into a cavity created by a nuke detonation.

    The upper floors, being further away from the explosion, suffer little or no damage.

    But there is no tangible support for this false notion as all the images show the destruction beginning toward the tops of the Twin Towers, near where the airplanes were purported to have crashed, and those images also show that the upper portions of both buildings were gone, destroyed, vaporized, or perhaps special effected away by the time the zones of destruction had progressed very far down the structures, as can be seen clearly in the first photograph I posted above in my comment #95:

    https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_9-11-physics-debate-were-the-three-world-trade-center-buildings-demolished-with-nuclear-devices/#comment-4538701

    That photograph also shows debris ejected from WTC 1 pelting both Three World Financial Center and the Verizon Building. Just visible on the far left at the 9 o’clock position is the top of WTC 7.

    Every structure on properties immediately adjacent to the WTC suffered moderate to major damage amounting in all to over \$4 billion. During destruction of the Twin Towers, some of the external box column sections were hurled 100s of feet, and at least a couple of these so-called “chex sections” pierced the glass arcade of the Winter Garden Atrium at a distance of several hundred feet from WTC 1. Other chex sections ejected like shrapnel ended up embedded in the facades of WFC 3 and the Deutsche Bank Building.

    Yes, it is conceivable that all the images broadcast on 9/11 were fake, although it is very much easier to fake an airplane crashing into a building, than it is to fake the destruction of the entire building itself, although Hollywood had proven itself up to the task already before Sept. 11, 2001.

    This is the general theory of Simon Shack of September Clues fame, who also thinks all the 9/11 live images were fake, and the Twin Towers were destroyed by so-called conventional controlled demolitions conducted behind a smoke screen. See Shack’s Clues forum for a good collection of pertinent information, but as I’ve been arguing, the wide debris patterns and damage to surrounding structures rule out the idea that these demolitions were very conventional or controlled at all, so perhaps it’s better to refer to them as planned demolitions.

    But all this hot air serves mostly to distract from more interesting and perhaps pertinent questions about 9/11, like for example why did purported 9/11 AA11 stew Betty Ong have that additional Chinese name of Deng Yuewei (鄧月薇)?

    As an interesting aside, it also turns out that the reporter who first broke news of 9/11 to the American public was CNN anchor Carol Lin, also of Chinese ancestry, and born to Hsi Chuan Chen and Po Chen Lin.

    The guy she interviewed at the very start of her sensational broadcast, Sean Murtagh, seemingly was promoted from mere humble producer to CNN’s Vice-president for Finance even as he claimed to see an airliner fly past his position and crash into the World Trade Center, while “teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip” as he put it, which would be a remarkable feat indeed for an airliner traveling near 500 mph at 1000 feet altitude.

    LIN: Where were you when you saw this?

    MURTAGH: I am on the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza.

    LIN: Did it appear that the plane was having any difficulty flying?

    MURTAGH: Yes, it did. It was teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip, and it looks like it crashed into, probably, 20 stories from the top of the World Trade Center, maybe the 80th to 85th floor. There is smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center.

    LIN: Sean, what happened next? Does it appear to you that the plane is still inside the World Trade Center?

    MURTAGH: From my angle — I’m viewing south towards the Statue of Liberty and the World Trade Center. It looks like it has embedded in the building. I can’t see, from my vantage point whether it has come out the other side.

    It’s worth reading the CNN transcript in its entirety to take note that, other than Murtaugh, the first few witnesses did not see any airplane at the World Trade Center, just the explosions.

    • Replies: @j2
  128. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Hi Iris. I did not mean idea in a derogatory sense but as a special case of the theory/idea of a nuclear bomb as the demolition devise. There are at least two different versions: Khalezov and Pommer. Roby actually does not give the scenario, or I did not read it. Khalezov I read and it was not convincing. Of Pommer I only looked at the slides here. I think you give quite many details, so I think it is fair to call it your scenario or theory. Theory can be a fact, but before being accepted it is a theory. I do not know if I have understood your idea/scenario/theory/solution/proposal correctly.

    What is your answer to three questions/problems that I saw earlier and have not settled yet: They are probably not fatal, but I would like to know your answer to them: 1) If the collapse videos are authentic, then why the collapse starts at the floors that were either hit by something or made to look like they were hit by something? If the building collapses because of a reason that is not associated with any hit, why should it start from some floor? (One easy answer is that the videos may not be authentic) 2) How much radiation there should be and why was it not too much for the clean-up people? (The answer that only little radiation came up is not enough) 3) A nuclear bomb was somewhere deep in the bedrock and then sunk deeper, but there was a chimney to it from up. Is there evidence of such a chimney, i.e., if the cavity erupted, there should be signs in the bedrock as it would be too radioactive to have been cleaned away. It should be deep down now, but I would imagine that the place where it went can be detected. (The answer that it is full of rubble and now under concrete is not very convincing)

    • Replies: @Iris
  129. j2 says:
    @Sparkon

    If by hot air you mean that the exact method how the buildings collapsed is not so important
    as it is clear that the official theory is false, then I agree. But if some researchers have developed
    a theory, like Roby, Pommer, Khalezov, and arrange a seminar and get no feedback, and then
    somebody posts an article in order to get some feedback, then I think one should give some
    feedback, that is, not only to state that the theory is wrong and not worth commenting.

  130. Nuclear explosive magnitude seismic activity?

    https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismology-911

    • Replies: @j2
  131. j2 says:
    @Joe Stalin

    Collapse in this graph corresponds to an earthquake of 2.3 Richter scale, 150 kt nuclear explosion to 5-6 Richter magnitude, so 1000 times smaller. A big underground nuke excluded. Hard to say of
    a mininuke as it would put the pressure wave up along weakest resistance and not to the surrounding stone.

  132. On November 12, 2001 I heard an architect interviewed on CBC radio, here in Canada. The guy was in Japan and had witnessed the WTC tragedy on TV. He had some connection or familiarity with the design of the towers.

    Watching things unfold, he said that he was freaking out because he knew what would happen. But, being half way round the world, he couldn’t readily contact anyone to warn of an imminent collapse.

    Simply put: Enough heat was present to soften/weaken the supporting structure and then a “pancake” collapse would occur. My takeaway from the interview was that there was some major planning behind the attacks, by some people who were familiar with the vulnerabilities of modern architectural design and knew how to exploit them.

    • Replies: @j2
  133. j2 says:
    @Mister Blaine

    Yes, it would also collapse if all pillars are heated to a sufficient temperature. But that is
    not quite how it happened. There is dropping molten steel and there is thermite spectrum
    in dust and steel microspheres, so something hotter than kerosin was burning there.
    Some people who know how to do it brought those buildings down. If WTC7 did not
    fall from fire, then it was a demolation, therefore all were demolations. Details are
    more difficult to find out, probably many ways would give the same visual signs.

  134. Mulegino1 says:
    @Iris

    The problem is not understanding the real events, anybody can do that.

    The problem is extracting the real events from the smokescreen.

    Exactly!

    Unfortunately, a critical mass of Americans have a seriously deformed epistemology with respect to official narratives. So much so, that they conflate the smokescreen, as you put it, with the real event.

    Anyone (other than the bought and paid for shills) who has studied the events of 9/11 long, objectively and diligently enough, must know for a fact that that the official narrative is virtually impossible. It is a farrago which consists of the manipulation of emotion, the appeal to authority, cognitive anchoring and the implicit and false equation of true patriotism with culpable ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity.

    As Allen Dulles remarked upon the publication of the Warren Report: “The American people don’t read.”

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Thanks: Iris
  135. Iris says:
    @j2

    I think you give quite many details, so I think it is fair to call it your scenario or theory.

    Hi J2. I see where you are coming from: how to reconcile those sometimes differing views.

    It is important to separate facts on one hand, from insider information, hypothesis, opinions and speculations from the other.

    a) Pr Roby completed a study demonstrating that the energy used for the controlled demolition of the WTC was of nuclear nature. The demonstration is based on universal Physics laws, correctly applied, so the result is a fact.

    b) Real-life nuclear engineering experiments in granitic soil prove that, provided the depth of burial and yield had been adequately calculated , an underground nuclear detonation will create a chimney full of shattered rocks, seconds to hours after the explosion. This is an established fact.

    c) Khalezov provides insider knowledge from his time spent working in a Soviet military nuclear agency, his social association with a Thailand-based Mossad circle heavily involved in the organisation of 9/11, his probable acquaintances in Russian nuclear forces, and his interactions with the FBI agents who interrogated him in 2007. He was the first person to blow up the WTC nuclear sectret.

    d) Heinz Pommer is a Physics graduate, who has the great merit to be the first person to popularise Khalezov’s obscure revelations to a larger public. He further makes supposition and hypothesis as to how exactly the nuclear demolition could have been executed. His visual and pedagogic presentation approach seems to be much enjoyed by the non-Physicists within the 9/11 Truth community.

    a) and b) are facts and can only be accepted at 100%.
    c) is insider knowledge, not facts, but without which we would possibly have never understood what happened at the WTC. So both a big pinch of salt and an extreme attention are required.
    d) is opinions, sincere and honest, but just opinions, nothing more.

    The answer to your questions are as follows:

    1) Everything on the videos of the Twin Towers is genuine, the explosion, the smoke, the collapse, everything except the planes which were computer-generated and added later.

    When collapsing, the South Tower gave the impression that” its collapse started from one floor” because the shockwave performed advanced disintegration of the structure up to that floor, but did not dustify so efficiently the section above it, as its power decreases as per the square root of the distance to the explosion chamber.

    This is, by the way, also what was witnessed on the North Tower.
    Why did the antenna collapse before the top of the North tower did? Because although both were at the same height, the antenna was much more fragile than the structural steel, and therefore incurred a more complete disintegration by the same dampened shockwave.

    2) The radioactive fallout, which sneaked slowly through the cracks of the shattered rock accumulated in the chimney and up to the surface over weeks, was considerably hindered by this pile of rock. It however harmed an extremely large number of first responders: 10000+ had radiation-induced cancer, of which 2000 have died.

    3) The chimney was underground, filled with shattered matter and rock, with only a subsidence crater above it, a dip that was plainly obvious in the LIDAR 3-D survey of Ground Zero.
    It is similar to the figure below: the chimney was full of shattered rock, not empty.

    Nobody could have seen the underground chimneys which stood now underneath the Towers’ footprints, as they were almost completely filled up. This result was achieved by design: the engineers who conceived the demolition scheme deliberately chose the adequate depth of detonation and explosive’s yield .

    Nobody would have tried to make a sampling borehole in these chimneys, as the place was covered in molten metal, as well as remains from the victims.
    The borehole sampling, if done, would have melt the drill and returned highly-radioactive material.

    • Replies: @j2
  136. @saggy

    WTC-7 was supposed to come down in the morning, under cover of the pyroclastic dust clouds that used to be the Twin Towers, but apparently something went wrong. Huge explosions went off around 10 a.m., decimating the interior of WTC-7, according to whistleblower Barry Jennings, who was inside and barely survived. Maybe the Towers’ demolitions messed up the wiring in WTC-7? In any case, you are right that the plan was obviously not to blow up WTC-7 around 5:20 pm in broad daylight, after announcing the impending demolition on local radio and broadcasting the 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 countdown to demolition on police radio.

    The perps scrambled to explain what happened to WTC-7 and weren’t on the same page, hence Larry Silverstein’s famous confession that he was in on “pulling it.”

    • Replies: @Iris
  137. gnbRC says:

    I’m surprised the 911 WTC demolition procedure is still under discussion. It’s pretty obvious at this stage that the the building was pre-set up as a normal demolition with support column shearing, using conventional explosives to break the building up into large chunks, then using depleted uranium ‘bombs’ to ‘dustify’ the larger chunks (and everything else, as well). The demolition technology was just a matter of computerized ‘timing’ which made the entire sequence look pretty ‘liquid’ (the ‘dancing Israeli’s’ weren’t celebrating the disaster, just the result of a planned demolition that went spectacularly well – you know, like “Wow, it worked! Did you see that?”). Using depleted uranium wouldn’t leave a huge radioactive footprint/hole, but enough radiation to require immediate debris removal [offshore], with residual radiation showing up at the site and reports of radiation sickness symptoms/deaths blamed on inhalation of asbestos insulation fines. (Judy Wood? – meh.) Still, people died …

    • Replies: @R2b
  138. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Thank Iris,

    I have two objections.

    A) In comment 69 I gave the problem in Roby’s calculation: he calculates that 7*10^14 J was produced and that combustible material only produces of the order 10^7 J/kg. Then he concludes that combustible material could not produce the needed energy. But this is not so. There was 800,000 m^2 of floor space in the three towers. There was 20 to 32 kg combustible material per floor square meter (according to NIST, I think it is reasonable). Thus, there was 2*10^7 kg combustible material in the three buildings. Kerosine gives 3.4*10^7 J/kg, so office material gives maybe 2*10^7 J/kg. Then we get 4*10^14 J, which ís so close to the estimate 7*10^14 J that we cannot conclude that it is impossible. The estimate 7*10^14 J can be off by some factor, though Roby’s calculation seems correct. There is uncertainty about the cooling efficiency as it depends on geometry of the surface. It is not always that a more rugged surface cools more effectively. For cooling you put many wings, not a mesh. You want to keep the air flow going. So, the total energy is not a proof that only a nuclear bomb could be causing the collapses.

    B) In comment 134 there is a problem of the seismic signal. It seems to rule out a large underground nuke. It does not rule out a mininuke because we have no precise knowledge of what kind of mininukes there are. Possibly there are mininukes that do not give a strong surface wave and do not appear as a medium level earthquake in seismic data. That would require a construction that shapes the pressure wave direction to go up and down but not to the sides. I do not know if it is possible, but it cannot be ruled out. But an old atomic bomb from 1960s is ruled out.

    As said, your theory is possible, simple and elegant, and worthy of commenting, but it also has some problems. It is not enough for a theory to be possible, simple and elegant. It must not have a single fatal problem. I have written in my life several very clever and convincing proofs and nobody pointed out to an error, but after a long time I found a single very small unclarity and it turned out to be a fatal error. Every small issue can be a fatal problem. All issues must be addressed and solved.

    The problem with insider information is that there are organizations that have as their work spreading disinformation. I suggest distrusting anybody who has any connections with any intelligence, including your own intelligence. Those people are professional liers. It is their job. They may tell the insider truth, or they may mislead you, or they may be wrong just like all of us.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  139. Iris says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    WTC-7 was supposed to come down in the morning, under cover of the pyroclastic dust clouds that used to be the Twin Towers, but apparently something went wrong.

    You have almost everything right, but this point is wrong.

    The perpetrators did not initially plan to demolish WTC7, which was too low to pretend it could be hit by a CGI “plane”.

    Underneath WTC7 was a central command room where the nuclear charges were stored for years.
    When the demolition order was issued, the charges were dispatched, loaded onto rail track carriages, and through underground tunnels, towards each respective Twin Tower.

    Delivering land-based nuclear charges on rail-tracks through tunnels is THE standard military delivery method.

    The tunnels linking WTC7 to the Twin Towers would have had some form of interfacing protection, armoured doors probably, to protect WTC7 from the blast.

    But the blast was too powerful. The tunnels offered a path of less resistance to the blast, and allowed this destructive pressure wave to reach WTC7, and completely destroy its lobby, collapse its internal staircase as reported by Barry Jennings, et blow its glass cladding outwards.

    All this destructive effects can be seen in WTC7 internal videos, filmed just after the South Tower collapse. Even the cars outside WTC7 were blown up and burnt by the escaping nuclear blast (from 4:30 in the video).
    As expected, the destruction was almost instantaneous du to the blast being supersonic. Listen to the SS agent stating how suddenly everything blew up (’12:30):

    No opinion on WTC7 has value if it ignores reality: WTC7 was, unexpectedly to the perpetrators, irreparably damaged by controlled demolition collateral damage.

    Incidentally, it had also unwillingly become a conduit to channel endless radioactive fallout.

    As such, it was a giant smoking gun screaming ” controlled demolition”, as well as a major radioactive hazard. This is why Silverstein and his bosses had to make the decision to “pull it”, a fatal decision that later became the blatant proof of insider job.

    WTC7 was not in the plan: it was the Almighty God’s instantaneous punishment to the perpetrators, that revealed that action and will sully their names for the times to come.

  140. R2b says:
    @gnbRC

    I tend to agree with that.
    The visual is very important.
    Not the only ting.
    There is a mystery in disappearing matter, it seems.

    • Replies: @utu
  141. TheMoon says:
    @peterike

    Your kitchen oven does not have 50 floors resting on it.

  142. Sparkon says:

    Just to set the record straight and flesh it out a little for those who may not be familiar with the entire scope of Dmiriti Khalezov’s original, far-fetched theory about nukes in the basement at the WTC, here it is from his interview in 2011 by Dr. Kevin Barrett:

    Khalezov:

    “…the missile that was fired into the Pentagon was used as a pretext to demolish the World Trade Center […] when the missile was fired into the Pentagon and found unexploded there, it was with a nuclear warhead, okay, and the fact that the missile found in the middle of the Pentagon was a nuclear missile was used by some people to convince the American officials in New York that the planes that hit the Twin Towers also had similar nuclear warheads inside the planes, and that this warhead stuck inside the Tower, I mean on the upper floors of the Twin Towers, and the warhead would produce atmospheric nuclear explosions over the high yield […] that would be enough to incinerate the entire New York. So the American officials took this information very seriously, because the missile in the Pentagon was a very convincing argument, and they decided to demolish the Twin Towers to prevent that atmospheric nuclear explosions by those alleged warheads on top of the Towers.”

    –Kevin Barrett interviews Dimitri Khalezov and Gordon Duff ¹

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brQqRLCxJew&feature=player_embedded#at=33

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-2538688

    Or course, April Gallop saw nothing of the sort, and she worked at the Pentagon in the immediate area where the bomb went off, and walked out of her office through the hole in the wall.

    Here’s my previous paraphase of Khalezov’s pulp fiction fantasy:

    Psst. The terrorists acquired Granit missiles from the sunken submarine Kursk. One of these hit the Pentagon but failed to detonate. Nevertheless, its distinctive remains convinced our leaders that two more of the Granits had smashed into the WTC earlier, and were poised to explode real soon now. To neutralize these powerful nukes before they exploded, other nukes hidden in the basements of the towers were detonated preemptively to prevent the Granits from exploding and destroying NYC, and that’s how the WTC was destroyed, but the Big Apple itself was saved.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-2548935

    Yeah, right.

    • Thanks: utu
  143. People really overthink things like this that are pretty easy to understand. No need for any nuclear bombs or star wars deathstar beams to do what conventional demolition charges and gravity do just fine.

    I think anyone who watches the videos of the towers being brought down that day can easily see the charges going off floor by floor as the weight of the debris falling from above finished what the explosives in the core could not. Building 7 makes it obvious that it was a pretty typical demolition job. No need to complicate things.

    Good thing about the wild theories, lets you know who the idiots and disinformation peddlers are. Hard to believe people still try to sell the Judy Wood death ray stuff. Hahaha Just watch the videos of the towers closely, its really not that complicated. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth got it right.

    • Replies: @j2
  144. utu says:
    @R2b

    “There is a mystery in disappearing matter, it seems.” – No!

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-2567747
    Often we hear that there is not enough debris. That it evaporated or it was sucked into the black hole or crater made by the nuclear device. Some asked “where did the towers go?”. Let us try to find out.

    Let’s estimate the debris volume. First start with what we know:

    Tower dimension (above the ground)= 1362ft x 208 ft x 208 ft.

    Tower above the ground volume: 1.66859e+06 m^3

    Steel per tower (estimates vary): 90,000 tons
    Concrete per tower (estimates vary*): 200,000 tons.

    (*) some of this concrete was used for structures underground.

    Density of steel: 8050 kg/m^3
    Density of concrete: 2400 kg/m^3

    Volume of steel: 11180.1 m^3
    Volume of steel as fractions of tower volume: 0.67%
    How much is 0.67%? It is less than volume of one floor which is 0.96%.

    Volume of concrete: 83333 m^3
    Volume of concrete as fractions of tower volume: 4.99%
    How much is 4.99%? It is a volume of 5 floors.
    ________________________________________________

    We also know that there were 6 levels underground. The underground levels constitute more than 6% of tower volume because the levels had taller ceilings than the office floors in the building.

    We have just calculated that total steel and concrete constituted 0.67%+4.99%<6% of tower volume.

    In theory with compact packing it would be possible to store all the materials used to build the tower in its 6 underground levels.

    Compact packing do not occur but instead we observed the spread of debris beyond 208 ft x 208 ft footprint. If the footprint of debris was increased by 50% on each side the footprint area increased by factor of 2.25. Let suppose that 25% of debris ended up in the underground levels. Let assume that 25% of concrete turned to dust and floated away. How thick layer of debris we should expect on 208*1.5 ft x 208*1.5 ft footprint?

    Steel layer thickness: 0.92 m (100% packing factor)
    Concrete layer thickness: 5.18 m (100% packing factor)

    Total thickness: 6 meters (100% packing)

    Many assumption went into these calculations and they can be refined. Particularly the packing factor and how much concrete was "dustified" and perhaps that more debris ended up in the underground 6 levels space and that the footprint spread was larger than 50% on each side. But the numbers are in the ball park? Do we have to invoke nuclear bomb crater or unknown death ray machine? Absolutely not!

    • Replies: @gnbRC
  145. gnbRC says:
    @utu

    Really top-shelf comment! Many thanks.

  146. j2 says:
    @redmudhooch

    “I think anyone who watches the videos of the towers being brought down that day can easily see the charges going off floor by floor as the weight of the debris falling from above finished what the explosives in the core could not. Building 7 makes it obvious that it was a pretty typical demolition job. No need to complicate things.”

    It may not be so clear. Firstly from the video: in a typical demolition job probably steel beams
    do not fly vertically and hit other buildings. This job seems to be done with some explosives.
    It was not a clean controlled demolition, this was a messy demolition, maybe pioneer work.
    There is also the eruption-like photo that looks like some kind of explosion. It is also not so
    clear that the puffs visible in the videos are explosions. They can be air puffs of the official story.

    The seismic data in the comment 133 has an enlargement of the signals
    during the fists collapse. There is a 10 second signal. It does not fit to a typical demolition job
    with cut-charges that give a bang but are rather small. But it maybe does not fit to small explosives going off for 10 second starting from top and continuing down as at least I would expect that
    the signals get stronger at low floors as they are closer to the ground, but it is slightly the
    opposite: the signal seems to get a bit smaller from second T1 to second T10. The signal
    could be a single explosion at time T0 and the rest are oscillations, like when the “plane” hits (which probably was a single explosion).

    I do not think the details are yet clear. Maybe it was demolition of the central core pillars with
    explosives and demolition of all pillars from one floor. This would be the explosion at T1
    and the rest done with gravity.
    A large underground nuke is not possible and no nuke is needed for explaining anything, but
    wiring the whole building and not only the core pillars around the lift in a building where
    people work seems too complicated.

    Thanks to utu for calculating that there is no need for a high heap.

  147. Stephane says:

    I see another serious problem with that underground nuke theory.

    When the whole area was excavated and cleared of the rubbles to make room for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, I strongly doubt that two deep chimneys of fracturated and broken bedrock seeping radioactivity would have gone unnoticed…

    • Replies: @Iris
  148. Iris says:
    @Stephane

    I strongly doubt that two deep chimneys of fractured and broken bedrock seeping radioactivity would have gone unnoticed…

    Take the time to read more carefully the description and mechanism of real-life experimental underground nuclear detonations, as well as informing yourself of what was actually done at Ground Zero after 9/11.

    The whole area was indeed cleared at the Bath Tub (slurry wall) floor level, but was never excavated under the footprints of Twin Towers.

    The last support beam from the South Tower was removed during a ceremony on 30th May 2002. This marked the official end of the WTC recovery operation, and that was it. No deeper digging was done where at the places where the detonations took place.

    The foundations of the Twin Towers, each sitting like a lid atop the chimneys filled of piles of rock shattered by the nuclear detonations, were left intact, never drilled through. Publicly, it was out of respect for the dead, in reality to leave in place a (repaired) reinforced-concrete sarcophagus above the pile of radioactive rock.

    Later, an even more radical solution was devised; the Twin Towers foundation structures were reinforced by creating fresh “memorial” concrete pools.

    These concrete pools were finally turned into water basins, water being an additional protection, as the most common shield against radioactivity, always used in industrial nuclear reactor installations.

    • Replies: @j2
  149. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Iris, if this is true, you surprise me again. But I am used to it already. How about the
    seismic signal?

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Iris
  150. Iris says:
    @j2

    Well, I am surprised that people don’t already know what I am posting, since the information is available on the Internet, and accessible to any ordinary member of the public like myself.

    The only potentially hazardous excavation work performed was for rebuilding WTC7.
    But WTC7 was smaller and therefore required building shorter foundation piles, which means they were much further away from the underground detonation cavity, source of radioactivity.

    Under the excuse that rebuilding of the WTC had been delayed for too long and needed to be sped up, an expeditious digging method was devised that would eliminate direct human intervention and minimise exposure to radioactivity by disposing quickly of the rubble. This process was followed for WTC7, as well as for the new One Trade Centre;

    The process involved burying explosives as deep as 85 feet and then detonating the charges. The loose rock was then excavated and lifted out by crane to expose the bedrock underneath. This use of explosives continued for two months and helped speed up the construction process.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/rebuilding-after-terror-178540

  151. Iris says:
    @j2

    How about the seismic signal?

    On this topic, a very important fact must reminded. On different videos of the North Tower collapsing, filmed by different people stood in different locations, the footages shows each camera shaking exactly 12 seconds before the Tower collapsed.

    So what was the likelihood of unrelated cameramen all trembling simultaneously just 12 seconds before the collapse? The answer is of course none.

    The people filming trembled when the nuclear charge was detonated; the detonation almost instantaneously shattered the rock as well as the Tower thanks to its supersonic pressure shockwave.

    Exactly 12 seconds afterwards,, the internal pressure of gases within the deep underground nuclear cavity dropped, and the shattered rock collapsed within the nuclear chimney, engulfing the North Tower. Every camera recorded this 12-second gap, which occurrence is predicted in nuclear engineering theoretical model and proven by experimentations.

    As for the magnitude of resulting seismic waves, they are only approached by predictive models.
    (See Teller et al. “The constructive Uses of Nuclear Explosives” ).

    It is true that the officially-recorded seismic magnitude seems too low. But the laboratory which provided these values allegedly recorded seismic shocks caused by the crash of two light aluminium “aircrafts”, but did not record anything for the 100,000+ tons WTC7 collapsing. Draw your conclusions.

    • Replies: @j2
  152. j2 says:
    @Iris

    OK, so, as I understand, your answers to the arguments I have against the nuke as as follows:

    1. The announced seismic signal may be false, else the seismic signal does overrule a large nuclear explosion on the range calculated by Roby, but it does not exclude a mininuke. But there was a relatively large underground/basement explosion 12 second before the collapse.

    2. There was no investigation if there is a chimney to the explosion cavity for WTC1 and 2. WTC7 may in any case have been a different demolition job, so it does not count here.

    3. The argument that the nuke had to be large is from Roby, but it is not necessary that the nuke had to be large because the energy from combustible material does give sufficient energy, provided that it all burns.

    4. Radiation issue is not clear, but it may be so that radiation was small and the cancer cases are a sign of radiation. Especially this can be if the nuke was small, but maybe also if it was large.

    5. I did not quite accept your explanation why the collapse seems to start from the floors where the “planes” hit, but this can be explained for instance by Potter’s scenario: if there came a pressure wave along the lift shaft, which would explain the explosion photo where the top looks like an erupting volcano, then, if the doors of the lifts were damaged on the floors where the “planes”hit, then maybe the pillars on those floor were damaged by the pressure wave and this is the reason why the collapse started on those floors.

    So, you have satisfactory answers to all my questions, but the answers fit better to a mininuke. Accepting that there was a 1960s demolition plan for these buildings, but the nukes were not installed in 1960s, then why could the nukes used be more modern and smaller?

    About this that I do not actively study this topic, or many other topics, from the web, this is true. I have been doing something else recently. Your theory is, as I said, possible, simple and elegant. It only has to have an answer to all objections. I think you gave answers to my objections. But still, I do not think this is the only possible theory, but one of them.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @j2
  153. Iris says:
    @j2

    So, you have satisfactory answers to all my questions, but the answers fit better to a mininuke.

    Hi J2 , thanks for your detailed reply.

    I don’t know exactly what the proponents of the “mininuke” theory are proposing.

    Miniaturised nuclear charges certainly existed back in 2001. Is the idea that they would have been placed at critical nodes along the structure, and detonated in a synchronised sequence? Like a conventional demolition, just using nuclear instead of chemical explosives?

    Well, people with genuine intentions should stop preponing this idea, as it is utterly foolish and badly (deliberately?) harms the search for 9/11 truth.

    Nuclear charges cannot explode in an aerial, open environment, without producing highly-visible fireballs, that no witness and no camera could have missed.
    The fireball is a mandatory visible consequence of an aerial (as in not underground) nuclear detonation. No fireball, no aerial “mini-nukes”. Period.

    This bombing by the Saudi/UAE/Israel coalition against Yemen very much looks as a nuclear charge going off; no matter the size of the fireball, the visual effect is impossible to hide.

    It is very possible however, that the initial 1993 WTC attack was indeed caused by “mini-nukes”: the explosions were hidden as they took place in the basement, and any CCTV camera footage would have been destroyed. Best.

  154. j2 says:
    @j2

    Iris, so I only question this big nuke rather than mininuke choice in your scenario.

    One would imagine that the seismograph network that there is and that is able
    and willing to locate underground nuclear explosions would have detected a big
    nuke, or even better, three big nukes, in 9/11/2001. So, even if this one seismic
    data is false, why the other sites have not recorded a nuke? If we change the
    big nuke to a small nuke, this problem may disappear.

    You need the big nuke only because of Roby’s calculations. His calculations are
    correct, but his conclusion is not. It is possible to get the energy from burning
    material. Then the nuke can be any size, it can also be quite small.

    A nuke may be useful in explaining the erupting volcano type photo, so the
    nuke theory may be correct, but a small nuke is enough.

  155. j2 says:

    Your scenario with a small nuke.

    • Replies: @j2
  156. j2 says:
    @j2

    Like this. There was the original demolition plan with a big nuke. It was known to the terrorists in 1993 and they tried to blow up the building with a fertilizer bomb as that was the biggest they could get. The building did not collapse, but maybe some damage was done in the basement to core pillars. Then in 2001 somebody figured out that we need a bigger bomb in the basement, a mininuke, but alone it will not cause the building to collapse, so we have to take off pillars from one floor. And that is it.

  157. Sparkon says:

    Reviewing some of the early and subsequent news articles about the WTC and 9/11 reminds me that, in the beginning, there were reports of a substantial rubble heap or heaps where the Twin Towers had stood, and those stories appeared in major news sources like the Chicago Tribune, this by Richard Pyle, AP, from Sept. 17, 2001:

    […] Working behind the machines digging into layers of debris, hard-hat workers, firefighters, police officers and volunteers proceed cautiously to avoid collapsing gaps in the 150-foot heap of rubble where survivors might be trapped.
    […]
    The debris is being moved at a rate of about 3,000 cubic yards a day. How long it would take to clear the estimated 2 million cubic yards covering 16 acres of lower Manhattan is unknown.
    […]
    Several building experts have said the towers collapsed because blazing jet fuel melted steel braces, causing outer walls to peel away in a shower of steel pillars and glass. The floors — unsupported by internal pillars — “pancaked” downward, gaining momentum from ever-increasing weight.

    The towers were built to withstand a strike by a Boeing 707 — the largest aircraft at the time, but much smaller than the jets that struck Tuesday.

    Within hours after the mortally wounded monoliths vanished in vast, opaque clouds of cement dust, bulldozers, excavators and other heavy-duty construction machines were converging on the scene.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/sns-worldtrade-cleanup-story.html

    However, it must be said that the presence of obvious disinformation about blazing jet fuel melting steel braces, and the Boeing 707 being much smaller than a Boeing 767, when the two aircraft are comparable in size, casts doubt on the entire article. Did they ever find that stack of pancakes — collapsed floors — in the rubble?

    What about this article from Wired? It appeared on 9-12-2001:

    The sirens that wailed all day Tuesday were silent. The streets of this busiest of cities were virtually deserted. The only signs of life were the hundreds of rescue workers climbing over the heaps of rubble where two 110-story towers once stood.

    Lit by flickering flames and bright-white searchlights, the towers lay in a huge tangle of twisted cables, metal, concrete and shattered glass.

    Thousands of people are believed to be buried under the mountainous rubble, some still alive.

    Parts of the planes that downed the towers can be glimpsed through the rubble. A wing peeks out in one area; what appears to be an engine was visible in what used to be the plaza between the two towers.

    A completely gutted five-story fa?e [sic] — all that remains intact of one of the towers — is poised on top of the northern side of the rubble heap. The 1,728-foot [sic] communications antenna that once capped the taller of the two towers stands upright in a pit about 50-feet below ground.
    […]
    Earlier, at around 1 a.m., another police officer was pulled out. He told his rescuers he had been on the 82nd floor of one of the towers when it collapsed, and “rode the building down to the ground.”

    https://www.wired.com/2001/09/searching-for-life-amid-rubble/

    Talk about tall tales…

    Anyway, my past comments about the lack of any apparent rubble piles over the footprints of the Twin Towers are based on the available photographs, where I’ve seen no convincing images of any substantial rubble piles for WTC 1 or WTC 2, but I have seen numerous images of a nice, well-defined rubble pile for WTC 7.

    ABC News from Jan. 7, 2006:

    […] As recovery workers at Ground Zero focused on finding as many victims as they could among the 1.8 million tons of rubble left when the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed, they hardly ever talked about the day their efforts would come to an end.
    […]
    But for many, there has been a building feeling of the inevitability of the end, as what was once known as “the pile” — an eight- or nine-story heap of ash and debris — turned into “the pit.” There is just nothing more to sift through, looking for remains.
    […]
    The beginning of the end of the effort was marked Tuesday evening, when the 36-foot, 58-ton girder that survived the collapse and has since been covered in memorials to the fallen was finally cut down, loaded onto a flatbed truck and then draped with an American flag.[…]

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91609&page=1

    So, were there significant rubble heaps where WTC 1 & 2 had stood, or not? Was the rubble tightly compacted, or was it full of gaps and voids?

  158. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    This is all disinformation. The buildings were rigged with detcord and gelingite; thermite was one small aspect. No nukes involved. We can clearly see when one slows down the demolition of the north and south towers an explosive sequence skipping every floor streamlining down the core of the towers on each side.

    Secondly, the planes were remote guided into beacons. Both planes flew over Stewart Airport, the 1st privitsed airport in the US in 1999, which was pushed through by 5 Zionist Jews, including Eliot Spitzer and Lauder. It was likely where the planes transponders were switched with Rabbo Dov Zakheims passenger jet drones.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @j2
  159. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    Remote control or not, no mostly aluminum airliner can or could fly through steel box columns, but at least you prefaced your comment appropriately.

  160. j2 says:
    @Anon

    “The buildings were rigged with detcord and gelingite; thermite was one small aspect.”

    You have to cut the steel pillars. In a normal demolition this is done by cut charges, that
    give a characteristic pang-pang-pang sound. Was there such a sound? And why could those
    puffs not come from the floors falling a bit ahead?

    Explosives have to be quite big to cut steel pillars. They could kick them down, maybe.
    Apart from that it was a demolition of some kind, I do not think the exact method is clear yet.

    Nice that the heap on ground is not a problem.
    The total energy is also not an issue, and seismic data around the world excludes a big nuke.
    Slowly this can be put together.

  161. Ridiculous because

    1. No damage to the lowest (B6) basement level slab.
    2. 14 people survived inside a fourth floor stairwell (B) in the core of WTC1.
    3. How does a rising damage wave cause no windows to be blown out bottom to top?
    4. How does a rising damage wave know to stop at the impact zone (@ 94 WTC1) (@ 80 WTC2) and MIRACULOUSLY REVERSE DIRECTION !! and then only show evidence of destruction from the top down?
    5. Nuke proponents often cite evidence of “melted granite”, but these are not even within the bathtub walls, are an ancient geologic formation in Manhattan Schist rock, underneath WTC4.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS