Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Height can be used to the demolitions crew's advantage. It's the downward pressure that does most of the destruction.

Dont know the ins and outs of it

But I see your point of the speed that can be attained in an emergency situation

Kinda like where theres a will theres a way

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Height can be used to the demolitions crew's advantage. It's the downward pressure that does most of the destruction.

This is true, which is why I would admit that if they had rigged the bottom few floors with explosives and the rest collapsed via downward pressure, it would be more plausible. It would also negate the problem of the fires blowing the explosives upon impact of the plane.

However, as the buildings clearly begin to collapse around the point of impact from the planes and then the downward pressure of the upper floors collapsing the rest of the building from there down, the lowest point the explosives could have been placed would still be within a few floors of where the planes hit. And given that the planes hit different floors in each building, and how difficult it would have been to aim for a specific floor flying a plane, it can't be assumed that the explosives were placed with the intention of being low enough below where the planes were going to hit to prevent the impact setting off the explosives upon impact, but also being high enough to make it look like the point of collapse was where the planes hit.

sparxz

christmas2012 wrote: »

i dont believe in any conspriacy theories to this , it is just crazy,i seen one guy use a road runner as an argument on youtube it is just too much to take in as serious you have to laugh at some of these nutjobs going around trying to convince us 911 was an inside job,i cant imagine how infuriating it must be for the relatives of this attack to have to see this online..

Just a few hundred years ago the same problem was faced by, the people
who said the earth was not flat but round/spherical. They were laughed
at an derided, and called conspiracy theorists.

To understand this effect one has to look at Psychology, to find out
why a person faced with an obvious set of facts would prefer
to think and do the opposite, and seek false temporal comfort
in Conformity & Compliance !
There is large body of people who have been conditioned in such a way,
that inhibits them from looking at scientific fact and political analysis,
that a forensic psychologist would have to examine and report on.

Asch (1951) [see attached image of parallel image test]
We All (Think We) Are Non-Conformists

(Perceived) Conformity in the Self and Others
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201105/we-all-think-we-are-non-conformists



At the more serious and end of psychology, which showed up shocking
and even sinister results. Some of the subjects needed counseling afterwards, even though they they knew there was no possibility of anyone getting hurt(in retrospect).
It is the most famous experiment to prove how you can get trick people
into doing evil things like a pulling off a 9/11. Then look into:
"Stanley Milgram's experiments".

Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority
http://cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
& also
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/milgrams-progress


I believe many people who have been psychological damged either
deliberately(majority) or incidentally/indirectly(minority), can be helped.

Once the fear of truth as been met and conqured, and the unknowing victim is liberated, then the sky is the limit, and many go on to help
other afflicted with same condition, either through coaxing or challenging.

Penn

sparxz wrote: »

christmas2012 wrote: »

i dont believe in any conspriacy theories to this , it is just crazy,i seen one guy use a road runner as an argument on youtube it is just too much to take in as serious you have to laugh at some of these nutjobs going around trying to convince us 911 was an inside job,i cant imagine how infuriating it must be for the relatives of this attack to have to see this online..

Just a few hundred years ago the same problem was faced by, the people
who said the earth was not flat but round/spherical. They were laughed
at an derided, and called conspiracy theorists.

No they weren't.

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Dont know the ins and outs of it

But I see your point of the speed that can be attained in an emergency situation

Kinda like where theres a will theres a way

Yeah, and it needs to be remembered that it didn't have to be a controlled demolition, just a demolition, like blowing up an enemy bridge or something. It wouldn't have been a CD company who are required to work out everything down to the finest detail, hypothethically it would have been Special Op's/ Navy Seals / Sapper-types who have no concern for for building codes or regulations or even what happens to the surrounding buildings.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

This is true, which is why I would admit that if they had rigged the bottom few floors with explosives and the rest collapsed via downward pressure, it would be more plausible. It would also negate the problem of the fires blowing the explosives upon impact of the plane.

However, as the buildings clearly begin to collapse around the point of impact from the planes and then the downward pressure of the upper floors collapsing the rest of the building from there down, the lowest point the explosives could have been placed would still be within a few floors of where the planes hit. And given that the planes hit different floors in each building, and how difficult it would have been to aim for a specific floor flying a plane, it can't be assumed that the explosives were placed with the intention of being low enough below where the planes were going to hit to prevent the impact setting off the explosives upon impact, but also being high enough to make it look like the point of collapse was where the planes hit.

I should be clearer - I am not arguing that it would be a simple task or that it is the most likely scenario, just that I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible and therefore cannot be ruled out on this point alone.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I should be clearer - I am not arguing that it would be a simple task or that it is the most likely scenario, just that I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible and therefore cannot be ruled out on this point alone.

I'd agree in a way. I don't think it's impossible, just extremely implausible. I'd also consider it to be one of the worst things they could have done as the chances of someone noticing the explosives, or the explosives being set off early etc are just too high, not to mention the amount of people who would be required to do the work meaning greater chance of someone finding out about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the US or whoever wanted to stage planes crashing into the towers to bring them down, the simplest way would be to crash planes into the towers to bring them down. Hitting the towers at full force with those planes are something the buildings aren't designed for, as they're designed to withstand being hit by a plane flying slowly through fog and trying to avoid hitting the tower.

teddy_irish

A plane with subsonic speed cannot collapse the WTC towers. It's pure physics. If you hit with the tower the aluminium body of the plain what will happen? Will the plane penetrate the building? Nobody of you spent 4 hours to watch the interview with Dimitri Khalezow, do you?

The Untold Story of the Woolworth Building Incidents on 9-11-01

Quotes Relating to a Missile Firing Off the Roof of the Woolworth Building
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Inymedia
"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

"[About 50 yards from the Tower] There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that [Woolworth] building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

---

What about the melted cars all around the area???

The cars parked in the back suffered extensive damage. The car on the left and on the far right look like they have had their engines eaten. The cars in the foreground experienced less damage, but many windows are missing, however partial and whole windows also remain. Cause: EMP from underground nuclear explosion

Toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.

A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go? The bottom of the tire has turned to goo below a distinct horizontal line in the tire.
EMP from underground nuclear expolsion is evaporating the alluminium which is the engine made from.

Why doesn't the paper burn?

sparxz

Penn wrote: »

No they weren't.

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

AngryHippie

Does anyone know how to calculate the heat generated from the kinetic energy of the collapsing buildings ?

Penn

sparxz wrote: »

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

I think my previous posts on this thread show I'm not posting in order to boost my post count, I'm discussing the topic. I just think that hyperbole such as "People who thought the earth was round were called conspiracy theorists" is a completely unjustified statement. They weren't called conspiracy theorists because there wasn't a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the shape of the earth. There was never a conspiracy about it, and trying to associate modern conspiracy theorists with the first men to put forward the theory of the earth being spherical rather than flat is seriously removed from reality.

Even if your statement was true, that would not make modern conspiracy theories any more or less true. One conspiracy theory being proven does not mean they all are, and in this case, the one conspiracy theory you're talking about wasn't even a conspiracy theory.

Monty Burnz

sparxz wrote: »

Is this you response/effort, just so you can get to 10,000 posts ?
Lame !

Not quite as lame as trotting out this old canard - The Myth of the Flat Earth.

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1] The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching." [2]
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was nearly nonexistent. However, the exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

Border-Rat

Penn wrote: »

Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building and plant explosives for demolition purposes.

Did you even read what I said? I said in the three weekends leading up to 9/11, wireless detonators were applied to laid explosives. Adding the detonator is easy as pie. :rolleyes:

Penn

Border-Rat wrote: »

Did you even read what I said? I said in the three weekends leading up to 9/11, wireless detonators were applied to laid explosives. Adding the detonator is easy as pie. :rolleyes:

So when were the explosives laid? The three weekends are commonly put forth as the time where the explosives could have been set. If you're suggesting that the explosives were already there and just needed the detonators attached, when were the explosives laid.

If the explosives were laid well in advance, wouldn't that have been extremely risky given that a small fire could have set one of them off early?

Border-Rat

Penn wrote: »

So when were the explosives laid? The three weekends are commonly put forth as the time where the explosives could have been set. If you're suggesting that the explosives were already there and just needed the detonators attached, when were the explosives laid.

Kroll Associates, a Mossad linked security firm, owned the security contract since 1993. They had all the time in the world to prepare the three buildings. Explosives were planted in 2000 and Urban Moving Systems (Mossad demolitions team) prepared the charges in August/September 2001. The Brighton bomb was prepared weeks before its detonation and no-one noticed. For all intents and purposes, owning the building makes rigging very easy.

If the explosives were laid well in advance, wouldn't that have been extremely risky given that a small fire could have set one of them off early?

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible. The higher risk would've been the wireless detonators, which is why they were left untill the 11th hour. They're more likely to be detected and more vulnerable to interference. An explosive is useless without its detonator. The highest risk on 9/11 was remotely-commanded planes missing their targets, the two hits on WTC 1+2 are an extraordinary feat which is why Mossad made a spectacle of themselves in front of horrified New Jersey residents. They were surprised both connected.

Penn

Border-Rat wrote: »

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

No it's not. If a fire occurred and was not put out in time, the fire could set off one of the explosives. Just because the explosives would have been placed out of staff reach does not mean that fire or the resultant heat from the fire could not have set the explosives off. Then you also have to consider the fact that the earliest a building collapsed after being hit was just under an hour, which means that the enormous fires caused by the crash somehow did not set off any explosives for almost an hour. That's pretty implausible, and considering the point of collapse begins on the floors where the planes hit and where the fires were mainly located, coupled with the fact that the impact from the planes would have damaged any cover on the explosives, thereby exposing them further to the planes, makes the explosives theory highly unlikely.

There are so many risks to using explosives to simulate the towers being brought down by planes that it would make that option unfeasible. Explosives being set off early (whether months in advance due to office fire or as soon as the plane hit which would look more suspicious as the plane shouldn't cause such a quick collapse), detonation not working (meaning the building doesn't collapse and the explosives are later found and revealed), maintenance man or contractor discovering the planted explosives (unless they were all in on it, which would be a huge number of people to keep quiet and too great a risk of someone accidentally revealing the operation).

Again, if the US wanted to stage a huge terrorist attack to bring down the towers, the simplest way would be to have hijacked planes crash at full force into the towers. Why crash planes into the towers and bring the towers down by explosives, when the plane crash (plane flying at full force into the towers) could achieve the same thing?

Sixtus

Contrary to popular belief the job of a controlled demolition company does not just involve slapping chunks of semetex to supporting columns, and then clicking a detonator. Most of the work involved is labour intensive, cutting into the support columns (not work that can be done discretely) to place the explosives.

In addition if someone could explain to me how this work could be carried out without the buildings occupants from noticing when the design of the WTC towers was such that majority of the structural load bearing columns were on the exterior of the building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

That would be quite a feat accessing external load bearing columns without one of the largest scaffolding projects in the world. In secret. In broad daylight. In the busiest city in the world.

Finally the idea of wireless detonators is frankly absurd. Leaving aside the fact that the WTC complex would be filled with masses of cell phones from the thousands of phones in the building. The towers being the tallest building in NYC area were used as transmission aerials for much of the satellite and broadcast signals for the greater New York area. Several TV stations, radio stations etc had their signal interrupted when the planes hit the towers. The idea of getting a wireless signal free from interference for these imaginary explosives is patiently absurd.

The obvious final point is this. The towers collapse clearly started at the point of impact. Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or incapable of rational thought. These military grade explosives would have had to have been put in place in secret, and have survived intact the impact and subsequent fires from the airplanes hitting the building so this claim;

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

Is patiently absurd.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

The risk of a fire detonating military-grade explosives in areas out of staff reach is negligible.

According to this paper, the thermal ignition temperature of RDX (C4) is 260 degrees celsius, and for PETN (the explosive component in semtex) it's just 202 degrees.

Jet fuel burns in the open air at temperatures between 260-315 degrees celsius, per Wikipedia.

Brown Bomber

Insensitive Munitions (IM)

An insensitive munition is one that will not detonate under any conditions other than its intended mission to destroy a target. If it is struck by fragments from an explosion or hit by a bullet, it will not detonate. It also will not detonate if it is in close proximity to a target that is hit. In extreme temperatures, the missile will only burn (no detonation or explosion). This increased safety allows greater numbers of missiles to be packaged, handled, stored, and transported in smaller containers. Passing these requirements addresses higher levels of safety performance and means the system is safer to operate in any environment while maintaining its highly lethal performance. It also allows for cost saving opportunities for the government.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Insensitive Munitions (IM)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

LOL you reading my mind or my bookmarks

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

LOL you reading my mind or my bookmarks

Yeah, sorry, joined (alcoholics) anonymous they thought me all the hacking skillz. I see all.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Is patiently absurd.

My old man always said if your gonna be absurd be patient.

iguana

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My old man always said if your gonna be absurd be patient.

My old man said that empty vessels make the most noise.

If you are incapable of addressing the actual merits of the opposition arguments and be reduced to pedantry, well bless.

Perhaps you could discuss the fact that the supporting columns of the WTC were external columns making the idea that demolition charges could be placed internally on external columns I would entertain your position. Or the idea that wireless demolition charges could be effectively placed in the midst of building that acted as telecommunications hub of one the biggest cities in the world, without interference

In short your rebuttal lacks merit, dignity, or content. Unless you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion I would suggestion you walk away with whatever semblance of dignity you think your argument deserves.

Brown Bomber

iguana wrote: »

My old man said that empty vessels make the most noise.

He was a little hard on you so.

iguana wrote: »

Perhaps you could discuss the fact that the supporting columns of the WTC were external columns making the idea that demolition charges could be placed internally on external columns I would entertain your position.

My position???

Anyway, nothing to discuss. The main support was provided by the many, massive columns around the elevator shafts not from the perimeter so it's a moot point.

iguana wrote: »

Or the idea that wireless demolition charges could be effectively placed in the midst of building that acted as telecommunications hub of one the biggest cities in the world, without interference

I have no response to that. I never mentioned anything about "wireless demolition charges".

iguana wrote: »

In short your rebuttal lacks merit, dignity, or content. Unless you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion I would suggestion you walk away with whatever semblance of dignity you think your argument deserves.

Thanks for sparing me the long version

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Insensitive Munitions (IM)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

And here we reach the roundabout of logic you need to sustain a belief in the conspiracy.

You are presupposing that they are using explosives not typical of a demolition.
But you know it's a demolition because "it looks like a typical demolition."

And then even if we assume these explosives were used we still run into the other problems Penn mentioned and have yet to be addressed.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And here we reach the roundabout of logic you need to sustain a belief in the conspiracy.

You are presupposing that they are using explosives not typical of a demolition. .

No. You've pulled that out of your hat. I am stating that it is possible that these explosives were used which would explain their lack of reaction to the fires/impact.

King Mob wrote: »

But you know it's a demolition because "it looks like a typical demolition."

I don't "know" it's a demolition. Again you've pulled that out of your hat, must've been no room left for your head before.

King Mob wrote: »

And then even if we assume these explosives were used we still run into the other problems Penn mentioned and have yet to be addressed.

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. You've pulled that out of your hat. I am stating that it is possible that these explosives were used which would explain their lack of reaction to the fires/impact.

And it's "possible" that it was a nuclear explosive....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't "know" it's a demolition. Again you've pulled that out of your hat, must've been no room left for your head before.

So why are explosives coming up at all?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

The impact causing the means of detention to stop working.
The impact and fires could have simply destroyed or damaged the wires leaving the conspirators with a intact building littered with unexploded charges which would prove a conspiracy.
Similarly this new non reactant explosive could be safe and not be set off by fire, but then once exposed or damaged does not go off at all.
It makes no sense to risk that when they could just fly a plane into the building.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

The impact causing the means of detention to stop working.

They are designed to not be effected by impacts.

King Mob wrote: »

The impact and fires could have simply destroyed or damaged the wires leaving the conspirators with a intact building littered with unexploded charges which would prove a conspiracy.

Which could be blamed on Al Qaeda.

King Mob wrote: »

Similarly this new non reactant explosive could be safe and not be set off by fire, but then once exposed or damaged does not go off at all.
It makes no sense to risk that when they could just fly a plane into the building.

A plane was flown into the building.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They are designed to not be effected by impacts.

The explosives might be, but the detonators and the wires connecting them wouldn't be.
And the site you link to only states that the explosives are designed not to go off after impacts or fire, there's nothing about them being viable after that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which could be blamed on Al Qaeda.

But it's not possible for them to have been able to sneak in the explosives despite being able to control the security apparently. How would Al Qaeda have been able to?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A plane was flown into the building.

So they why were explosives needed.

The only reason they are presupposed to exist is because some sellers of conspiracy theories needed something convincing and dramatic sounding.
But the idea of them actually being there does not make any sense.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

Not all of my points hinged on that. It was simply one point.

Other points include:
How and when were these explosives and detonators installed?
How many people would have been involved in opening up the building fabric, cutting steel, planting explosives, covering it back up, making the room/office look like nothing happened? That's a lot of people who would have been involved?
What if someone had found the explosives like a maintenance man or contractor, or were they in on it too?
Preparation works for demolition normally involve cutting steel members partially. If they were going to do that, the impact from a plane would have done the rest without the need for explosives at all.
And most importantly, why use explosives at all when you knew you were going to be flying planes at full force into the buildings? It's a huge risk because there are a huge number of things which could easily go wrong? Why was the impact of the plane itself deemed to be insufficient?