D. A. Khalezov
9/11thology:
The “third” truth about 9/11
or
Defending the US Government,
which has only the first two…
Free 11-Chapters Edition v.2 - July 2010.
1
11 free chapters from the 9/11thology book dealing with the
nuclear demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC-7 and
its after effects.
(Version 2. Modified 14 July, 2010)
2
Copyright © 2008 by Dimitri A. Khalezov
dkalezov@fromru.com
All rights reserved.
3
About author
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
About author:
Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called
“military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief
Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the
Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting
of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former
USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties
related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov
undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center
as well as its building 7 were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions –
which earned the very name “ground zero” to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he
knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers
as long ago as back in the ‘80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.
4
Contents page
Introductory Part:
Foreword to the 11-chapters free edition of my book..………………….…………………..…...7
Copyright notice…………………………………………………………………………………..8
About this book………………………………………………………………….…….…….…....9
The 9/11thology, its difference from a conspiracy theory, and the list of the most difficult 9/11
questions answered by this new exact science………………………………………….…….….12
My testimony………………………………………………………………….……………...…17
The Book:
Prologue. The largest “non-nuclear” blast ever... …………….……………………….……..19
John Walcott, FBI agents, and haz-mat suits. (Or why this book appeared) .......................23
About “ground zero”, “Ground Zero”: pre-9/11 and post-9/11 meanings (incomplete)…...25
Why there are two “truths” about 9/11. Plebeians and Patricians………...…..……………xx
Reminding about the exact events at September the 11, for those who might have already
forgotten them. …………………………………………………………….…………………..xx
Part 1. Official claims and 9/11 events in short ………………..…….……….…….…...……...xx
Part 2. Real events in chronological order ………………….….……………………………….xx
Suspicious facts about the 9/11 and “nuclear card” from the sleeve of the US
Government.(only an excerpt with explanation in regard to holes made by the “planes”)..32
Conspiracy theories about the 9/11 in a sense: “How did they manage to fake
planes?”………………………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Brief introduction to nuclear weapons. Destructive factors of nuclear explosions…….....xxx
“Mini-nukes”. Brief introduction……………………….………………………….….……..xxx
Conspiracy theories about 9/11 in a sense: “How did they demolish the World Trade
Center?” and disproving these conspiracy theories………………………………...……......39
Explosives theory…………….……………………………………………...…………………...39
Thermite theory…………………………………………………………………………….…….43
So-called “nano-thermite” theory……………………………………………………………......44
Kerosene pancake collapse theory…………………...………………………….…………….....45
5
Laser beams/Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory……….……..…….……………………47
Mini-nukes theory……………………………………………………………...………………...48
Clandestine reactors theory or the first introduction to Nuclear Madness…..………………......61
Meet the main culprit of 9/11: Xxxx Xxxxxx.…………...…………………………………..xxx
Barbarian truth: the WTC nuclear demolition scheme and what benefits could have been
extracted out of it……………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Bangkok. Before and after 9/11………………..………………………………………..……xxx
Barbarian truth: Nuclear Coup de Grâce or the H-Hour of the World Trade Center.
Technicalities of the Twin Towers collapse from the “nuclear” point of view……………..65
Barbarian truth: technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse from the “nuclear” point of
view………………………………………………………………………………………….…..73
Technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse and the rest of the WTC collapses from the logical
point of view. Unproven suspicions……………………..……………………………..………78
Nuclear Madness 1……………………………………………………..………………………...87
Explaining Unexplainable: the alleged “absence of damages” to “the bathtub” and to PATH.....97
Some interesting testimonies of the 9/11 witnesses……………………………………...…..101
Barbarian truth: legal aspects of the Twin Towers collapse from the “nuclear” point of
view. Legal “Nuclear Madness”……………………………………. ……………..………...xxx
Levels of radiation and personal radiation doses received at “Ground Zero”…….……...111
More information about radiation sickness: why not too many cases of acute radiation
sickness were noticed among “Ground Zero” responders?...................................................114
Comparing the 1986 Chernobyl “nuclear disaster” with the 2001 Manhattan thermonuclear
catastrophe (this chapter is also available in a free version separately)……......…….xxx
Powerful “ultra-violet absorbers” and the longest-burning “structural fire” in history…122
Bio-terrorism – anthrax attacks following 9/11…………..………………...……..….……..299
Modern mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as “car-bombings”……………..….…….308
2002 Bali nightclub nuclear bombing …………………...……….………………...…………..309
1995 Oklahoma nuclear bombing………...………...…………….………………...…………..326
Bangkok. After September 11………………………………………………………...………333
6
Operation “Black Magic” – “Hambali” and others…………………………………….…..334
French secret services and the 9/11 Vendetta ……………...………….……………………356
Secret services of Thailand and their role in 9/11………………..…...…………….………370
The Pentagon attack. Disproving “conspiracy theories”…….………….………………….373
Barbarian truth: the Pentagon attack; introducing the true “attacker”...….…………….382
Barbarian truth: the “Kursk” submarine. One year before the Pentagon attack……..…391
“Nuclear Madness 2” (or “Nuclear Madness à la Russian”).….…………….………..……401
Few more mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as “car-bombings”………………...…..418
.
Nuclear hysteria of the US Government and some reasons behind it..................................443
Study Details Catastrophic Impact of Nuclear Attack on US Cities……………………….…..443
Instruction on actions during an atomic strike………………………………………….………445
Viktor Bout – the so-called “Merchant of Death” and the so-called “Lord of War”, and the
true causes of the post-9/11 persecution against him……………………………….……….451
“Nuclear Madness 3”. The first 1993 WTC bombing and the last 9/11 conspiracy
theory…………………………………………………………………………………….…….472
The first mini-nuclear bombing of the WTC also known as the 1993 WTC “car-bombing”…..473
“Nuclear Madness 4” (or “Nuclear Madness à la Spanish”). Maxi-nuclear bombings
masquerading as “car-bombings”, and other strange nuclear events in Spain…….……..482
2006 Madrid Barajas International Airport “car” bombing…………………………………….482
Spanair Flight JK 5022 nuclear “crash”………………………………………………………..486
First official reactions to this book. Fake “mini-nuclear” car-bombings………………….495
Covert-Labs Red Button: Party Music pre-9/11 prediction and post-9/11 controversy….500
Who wanted to “pulverize” Ostankino Tower in August 2000 and why…………………..504
How to properly sue the US Government for 9/11 and what to demand back………..…..512
Appendix. History: a chain of people who introduced me to Xxxx Xxxxxx, photos, etc.....516
Contacts/Donation info…………………………………………………..……………....……124
7
Foreword to the 11-chapters free edition of my book.
After my 9/11 video presentation appeared on the Internet in March, 2010, it was welcomed by
the absolute majority of the innocent people. However, it was not so with the “professional” 9/11
auditorium. Those “professional” 9/11 conspiracy theorists (who spent at least 8 years on their
alleged “9/11 research” but who did not even bother to open a pre-9/11 dictionary and to check
the only pre-9/11 meaning of “ground zero”) were not happy at all with my presentation which
they promptly dubbed a “theory”. In addition, series of the most spiteful accusations were hurled
at me on various Internet forums by governmental shills who accused me of allegedly “making
money on the 9/11 tragedy” by refusing to release my information free of charge.
Apparently, they did not bother to notice that my actual video presentation that lasts well over 4
hours was released totally free of charge and it successfully covers nearly all aspects of 9/11 and
explains them even better than the book. But I understand them. They receive their monthly pay
from the US Government for trolling on the 9/11-related Internet forums and for ostracizing and
ridiculing all 9/11 discussions dangerous to their masters. That is why they have to work off their
monthly salaries. Perhaps, the majority of the innocent people do not even suspect that almost
99% of so-called “9/11 truthers” and full-time 9/11conspiracy theorists are merely government
appointed shills that receive their monthly subsistence at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Unlike the professional, full-time 9/11 folks, who are being secretly paid by the US Government
on the monthly basis, I receive no salary… I have no job, no business, no country, and no
prospect of the retirement pension. To sell my book is the only means for me to survive and to
save some money for my old age. But not too many people seem to realize it. My free video
presentation was seen by several thousands of people 95% of whom have positive feelings about
it. My web sites that provide detailed explanation about 9/11 were read by thousands of people
either. Do you think I really made much money out of it? Ha! You are badly mistaken if you
think so. Despite accusations that I allegedly “make money on the 9/11 tragedy” I received (as
on 8 of July, 2010) the following donations: 100 Euro – 1 time; 600 Euro – 1 time; 250 USD – 1
time; 500 USD – 1 time; 25 USD – 1 time (the last three I did not actually receive, because the
“good guys” from PayPal promptly blocked my PayPal account and froze the money). As you
could see despite the donation sums were quite large only 5 persons out of several thousands
who liked my research actually donated anything to support it. But, to tell you honestly, I spent
several hundred thousands USD of my own money on this research that led to creation of the
book and of the video. Add here that I spent several years of my precious time entirely on this
unpaid work instead of making some profitable business or doing some well-paid professional
work like many of you. This is just to clarify how much I actually “earned” on the 9/11 tragedy.
Now, at last, I hope you realize why I don’t want to distribute my book totally free of charge and
want to earn at least something from it? It is because out of every 10.000 people who will read
my book for free and appreciate my explanations may be only one or two will render their
appreciation in cash and send me a hundred dollars... By the way – how many writers do you
know who give their books away for free? Well. Now you know one. Following all those spiteful
assaults, I decided to make freely available these 11 most important chapters of my book that
explain nearly everything about 9/11 – in addition to one chapter about the Chernobyl so-called
“disaster” which I made freely available a few days earlier. These 11 chapters really explain
almost everything you need to know about the WTC demolition and its aftereffects; and this is
really a lot – 122 A4 pages – the size of a real book. From now on nobody can accuse me of
hiding the truth from the public because of “greediness”. My consciousness is now as clean as
my purse is. I hope you will appreciate this step of mine and express your gratitude accordingly.
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
8
Copyright notice:
As the owner of the copyright, I allow everyone to freely re-distribute electronically, or in a
printed form on a non-commercial basis these 11 (eleven) separate chapters named:
- “Prologue. The largest “non-nuclear” blast ever...”
- “About “ground zero”, “Ground Zero”, and this book’s author. Introduction to Orwellian
“newspeak”: pre-9/11 and post-9/11 meanings of ‘ground zero’” (only the first part of the
Chapter).
- “Conspiracy theories about 9/11 in a sense: “How did they demolish the World Trade
Center?” and disproving these conspiracy theories”.
- “Barbarian truth: Nuclear Coup de Grâce or the H-Hour of the World Trade Center.
Technicalities of the Twin Towers collapse from the “nuclear” point of view”.
- “Barbarian truth: technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse from the “nuclear” point of view”.
- “Technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse and the rest of the WTC collapse from the logical
point of view. Unproven suspicions”.
- “Some interesting testimonies of the 9/11 witnesses”.
- “Levels of radiation and personal radiation doses received at “Ground Zero””.
- “More information about radiation sickness: why not too many cases of acute radiation
sickness were noticed among “Ground Zero” responders?”
- “Powerful “ultra-violet absorbers” and the longest-burning “structural fire” in history.”
from my book named “V for Vendetta and R for Reality. The “third” truth about 9/11, or
Defending the US Government, which has only the first two…” otherwise known as
“9/11thology” or, simply, “The Third Truth”. This allowance is applicable not to the entire
abovementioned book of mine, but only to these particular 11 chapters covering the WTC
nuclear demolition + all chapters mentioned in the preliminary section of the Contents. Feel free
to re-distribute this pdf file “as is” without modifying it or to use the text of these Chapters in
any way you want on a non-commercial basis providing that you always refer to me as its author
and to the abovementioned book of mine as its original source. Should you desire to use these
materials in a way that involves making a profit of any type, you should obtain my permission
first. No modifying of contents of these Chapters and no translation of them into other languages
that involves modification of their meaning are allowed in any case.
My latest contact details could be always found
here: www.dkhalezov.com
here: www.dkhalezov.fromru.su
here: www.911thology.cn
here: www.911thology.com
here: www.3truth911.com
Secured way of communicating using CipherWall Network (see details on the abovementioned
web site) is preferred, since this is the only way that ensures not only encrypted letters exchange,
but also 100% guaranteed delivery of any messages sent to either party which no ordinary e-mail
could provide, especially in my particular case.
Thank you very much for your kind understanding.
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
14 of July, 2010.
Bangkok.
9
About this book.
There are many books and other researches undertaken on this general topic: “9/11; who carried it out,
and why they did it; how the US Government lies to us, etc.” Most of these sources claim not more and
not less but the “final truth” in the last instance. Who did it? Of course, it was G.W. Bush and his clique.
Why did they do it? Of course, they did it because they wanted to attack Iraq and lay their hands on Iraqi
oil and looked for a beautiful pretext to do so. How did they manage to collapse the Twin Towers? Of
course, by TNT (or C4) charges pre-positioned on each floor and simultaneously detonated. Why then
temperatures on “Ground Zero” were so high that boots of firefighters used to completely melt in a few
hours even after a few weeks has passed from the actual Towers collapse? Of course, it is because
“Bush and his clique” used thermite, in addition to the TNT and C4 charges. How did these “Bush and his
clique” manage to strike the Pentagon? Of course, they did it by a “Tomahawk” missile of their own. Why
then did they rung an atomic alert in that case, hid themselves in anti-atomic bunkers, and even managed
to scramble their “doomsday plane”, which until now they scarcely admit to the general public? Oh,
really? This I did not know… May be they did that just to enhance an overall picture…
And you, serious reader, do you really believe that all was as simple as claimed above? Do you seriously
believe that an aluminum-made “Tomahawk” would be capable of penetrating 6 (six!) capital walls of the
Pentagon, simultaneously causing the most serious atomic alert known in the entire US history? Don’t
you think that a “Tomahawk” would simply smash itself flat on the very first wall? Do you seriously believe
that charges of TNT or C4 would be really capable of reducing double-walled steel columns of the Twin
Towers (each wall being as thick as a tank’s armor) to complete microscopic dust and thus causing the
Towers collapse with near a speed of free fall? Do you really believe that thermite (that is indeed capable
of causing effect seen by everybody in an event of electric welding) is capable of continuing to melt boots
of the firefighters for as long as few weeks after September the 11th? And do you really believe that
“Bush” and his alleged “clique” were indeed capable of instantly causing such unprecedented damage
using the abovementioned cheap stuff as C4, TNT, Thermit, and a “Tomahawk”? And, at last, do you
seriously believe that such a malicious “clique” might really exist in a transparent democratic society, such
as The United States of America, and feel free to perform so many miracles in order to impress their
gullible fellow citizens?
Oh, we almost forgot about so-called “initiated” guys – senators, congressmen, top judges, military brass,
foreign prime-ministers, and other dignitaries who did not even question those ridiculous conclusions of
the infamous “9/11 Commission” and seem to be fully satisfied with its “findings”. I mean we almost forgot
about those high-ranking guys who did not hesitate to name the former WTC site by the strangest nuclear
name “Ground Zero” and who in the same time pretended “to believe” that it was an aviation fuel, namely
“kerosene”, that allegedly “completely melted” steel core and steel perimeter columns of the Twin Towers
into fluffy microscopic dust and then continued to melt boots of the “Ground Zero” responders for another
4 (four) months. What about those high-ranking guys? Are they really that much stupid? No, they are not.
At least not to the extent they appear to be. They have some extenuating circumstances. They believe
that it was indeed Saddam Hussein who supplied Osama bin Laden and Co. with certain portable nuclear
weapons, possibly stolen Soviet-made “suit-case nukes” – similar to those that destroyed the US
Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on an anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing – and these tiny nuclear
munitions were allegedly the true cause of the Twin Towers disasters (hence the name “Ground Zero”).
And you, serious reader, do you really believe that such a laughable 1 (one) kiloton in TNT yield mininuclear
charge would be really capable of instantly reducing over 350 meters long and extremely robust
steel Towers structure into complete microscopic dust? Or you would rather believe that such a “mininuke”
(if any) would, instead, cause the Tower to be undercut and toppled to a side?
Strangely enough, while almost everybody is in a hurry to answer these relatively unimportant questions:
“Who did this” and “Why they did this”, no one has ever been able to satisfactorily answer this seemingly
reasonable question: “How did they manage to do it from the merely technical point of view and so to
achieve those incredible results that everyone saw on his/her TV?” I guess it is clear to everybody that an
answer “TNT/C4/Thermite and Tomahawk” is not a satisfactory answer to this question. It is by no means
better than the well-known answer “Kerosene and the Boeing 757”. Unfortunately, “stolen Soviet-made
suit-case nukes of 1 kiloton in TNT yield!” is not a valid answer either – despite common misconception.
This book will satisfactorily answer this question in regard to all 9/11 “victims” – WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-7,
and the Pentagon.
No, it was not two stolen Soviet “suit-case nukes” that instantly transformed the WTC1, 2 and 7 into piles
of microscopic dust. It was something else; many times more powerful than that those laughable one- or
10
two kiloton “mini-nukes”. You will know what it really was after reading this book. No, it was not two mininuclear
explosions on Manhattan that determined the strangest “Ground Zero” name promptly awarded
by ABC specialists to the WTC demolition site. It was three nuclear explosions that did the job and neither
of the three was “mini”. Moreover, these three were not just “nuclear”, but “thermo-nuclear”. No, it was not
an aluminum-made “Tomahawk” that managed to penetrate six capital walls of the Pentagon and to
cause the most serious atomic alert during the entire history of The United States. It was something much
stronger and faster; much more expensive, and much more awful than a “Tomahawk”. Not only will you
know from this book what really struck the Pentagon on 9/11; you will even be able to see a picture of that
strange thing. No, it was neither George W. Bush, nor his alleged “clique”, who stood behind this most
heinous and the most incredible 9/11 perpetration. It was another person and another “clique”; and what
is the most important, this “another person” is not as mysterious as you might guess. He has his exact
name, his date of birth, his country of origin, his color photograph, and even a photocopy of his diplomatic
passport. And, unlike mysterious Osama bin Laden, that real person is still available (at least so it was as
on June 2008).
As I have mentioned, the most of existing books on this topic would attempt to somehow answer the two
questions: “Who did it?” and “Why they did it?” leaving practically without any answer the most interesting
question “How they did it?” In the current book you will encounter a totally different approach. This book
answers questions: “Who did it?” and “How he did it?” Both of these questions will be answered precisely,
in exact detail. You will have the exact name of the chief perpetrator and the exact technical details of the
actual perpetration. After reading of this book the simple people who were fed with the “findings” of the
9/11 Commission will no longer wonder how someone could achieve a feat of reducing thick steel
columns into microscopic dust using TNT, C4, thermite, or so-called “nano-thermite”. And the prominent
people (confidentially fed with the “mini-nukes” theory) will no longer wonder how someone could use a
seemingly uncontrollable nuclear explosion so precisely as to cause rigid 415 meters long structures to
fall straightly down in disintegrated condition, rather than causing them to simply fall to a side as whole
pieces. Of course, some unfortunate people will, at last, understand that they now suffer from leukemia
and from various kinds of cancer not because of alleged “asbestos dust” but because of entirely different
reason. No major question of technical nature should remain unanswered after you finish reading this
book neither in regard to the WTC-1, -2 and -7, nor in regard to the Pentagon.
However, I will unlikely answer precisely the question “Why they did it?” I leave it up to you to answer it to
yourself. If you wish to think they did it in order to receive an insurance for the WTC, or if you wish to think
that they did it to curtail the last remaining civil freedoms, or because of Iraqi oil, or if you prefer to think
that they did it in order to improve “anti-terrorist” stance of Israel, or if you think that it was a combination
of the four, or if you believe in any other reason – this is entirely up to you. Think whatever you want and I
wish you will be right in thinking so. However, for many people it is pretty obvious that a certain
supranational elite wants to build a global concentration camp on this Planet. Therefore for any observant
person all of its actions whether political, military, economical, ecological, educational, social, cultural, or
other seem to be driven by only one desire: to make everyone a slave that in the near future will have no
right to possess a gun or a knife, and not even a right to have a wife or a child of his own. Perhaps even
the free Internet which now many seem to take for granted will be abolished soon. This elite wish to rule
this global concentration camp known as the “New World Order”, in what they call the “New Age”, and
there they will control more than just guns, knives, bank accounts, and whether or not you spank your
children. They will control the freedom of information as well, and the Internet will probably be the first
victim of the “New Age”.
I don’t think that 9/11 was planned with a desire to lay hands on Iraqi oil by so-called “neo-cons” or by the
“evil Bush-Cheney clique” as claimed by many simpletons. Neither was it planned by so-called “Zionists”
nor by the Mossad, despite the fact that due to the unprecedented participation of the Mossad in 9/11 it
indeed appears that 9/11 was planned by this relatively small organization with limited capabilities. I hope
you agree that the participation in the commission of the offence is not a proof of the participation in its
planning. You don’t have to perceive things too simplistically. Yes, indeed, the Mossad did a big part of
the 9/11 job, but the actual 9/11 project was conceived not by the Mossad. 9/11 was planned by those
behind the curtains who wished to create police states out of remnants of the former democracies.
Because in short time after they want to proceed to the next step – to push all former members of the
democracies to the global concentration camp which will no longer resemble any former “democracy”
whatsoever. For this reason the supranational elite needed some globalized supranational police force
that would guard the concentration camp and its inhabitants and would quash any resistance by those
who don’t want it. As a result of 9/11 such a global supranational police force has been indeed created
under the pretext of fighting the so-called “terror”. This is the matter of fact. This is probably the answer to
the question “Why they did it?” They did it not because of the alleged Iraqi oil. Those, who print green
papers with portraits of dead presidents freely, can print these papers as many as necessary to either buy
11
Iraqi oil or to drill for their own oil somewhere offshore. Apparently, the oil is not the true cause. They do
not need to actually fight for the oil, because they could simply buy it. But they want to fight for something
else which is not so easy to buy with their green papers: your human rights and your freedoms. They
wanted you to become a slave and to remain a slave forever in the “New World Order” that would reign in
the so-called “New Age”. However, this is quite a generalized answer, without any exact details. I don’t
want to go into details any deeper. Many people began to notice that something wrong is going on in this
society, so, perhaps, if you search the Internet you could find a lot of scary predictions regarding your
future as a member of the global concentration camp that would have nothing to do with either the former
capitalism or the former democracy. Therefore I am not going to guide anyone in that particular direction
when explaining technicalities of 9/11. I believe that to satisfactorily answer “Who?” and “How?” which are
indeed the most difficult questions that so far remain unanswered, is more than enough to expect from
this book on 9/11 and from its humble author. I simply do not wish to go into high politics and prefer to
operate on merely technical and personal levels – as any police or FBI inquirer would do in case of any
crime being entrusted to him to investigate.
P.S. Since I have neither time, nor money to arrange the proper proofing process of the text of my book,
you are going to read the text that may contain accidental grammatical and stylistic errors, that are due to
English being not my native language. I would like to apologize for it in advance. The finally edited version
of my book will, perhaps, contain fewer errors than this one.
------------------------
Note to the free edition of the book: something in this book is called “Barbarian” – for example, “Barbarian
truth”, “Barbarians”, etc. You might miss the point, because it is not the full version of the book where it is
explained why this book is intended for the “Barbarians”. It is because the first “truth” about 9/11 (alias the
infamous “9/11 Commission Report”) is the “truth” for the plebeians. While an awful and confidential 9/11
“truth” which claims that the WTC was allegedly demolished by suit-case nukes belonging to the alleged
“Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Muss Murder Inc.” is apparently the “truth” for the “patricians”.
Since the readers of this book are neither “plebeians” (because they do not want to believe the Report of
the 9/11 Commission intended for plebs), nor the “patricians” (because the US Government did not bother
to acquaint them with the confidential version of the “truth”), it is logical to presume that the readers of this
book are “Barbarians”.
Therefore from time to time in this book you may accidentally encounter this allusion – such as the truth
seekers are called “Barbarians” and the truth without quotation marks – the “Barbarian version of the
truth”. It does not constitute any offense, because the Barbarians, after all, were the first people who
embraced the Christianity in the ancient times – when the teaching of Jesus Christ was rejected by both –
the Plebeians and the Patricians of the ancient Roman Empire (shortly before the collapse of the latter).
12
The 9/11thology; its difference from a conspiracy theory, and
the list of the most difficult 9/11 questions answered by this
new exact science.
After thinking for a while, I decided that 9/11 events were meaningful and important enough to name a
science after them. We still have a so-called “Sovietology”, for example, even though there is nothing else
to study about the “Soviets” that became extinct like dinosaurs. There are pseudo-sciences that purport to
undertake some “serious” studies on non-existent things such as so-called “terrorism”, for example, or on
obviously artificial things that would never ever come into the existence if not joint efforts of the American
CIA and the Israeli Mossad – such as the so-called “Islamism”. In this respect it would be really unfair if
such an important event as 9/11 would miss having its own special science intended to undertake a
serious dedicated study on all 9/11 actual events, their chronology, their causes, their consequences,
their technical details, publicity in regard to them, public opinions in regard to them, legal matters in
regard to them, political matters in regard to them, linguistic matters in regard to them, and so on.
9/11 was such an important milestone in history, that without any doubt it deserves having a special
science dedicated to its study. Therefore I made it so bold to found this new science, and, since no one
else have bothered to do it before me I take an honor to claim to be its founder. Moreover, since I am its
founder, I have an apparent right to find out an appropriate name for this new science.
After some considerations I decided to name this new science “9/11thology”. It sounds strange, but it has
its apparent meaning – and in any case the “Sovietology”, “Egyptology” or “Archaeology” sounded initially
as strange, but eventually people got used to these words and they began to sound OK to the listeners.
Besides, since the word “9/11thology” itself is quite unique, it would always be easy to find anything
related to it on the wilderness of the Internet using typical search-engines – because unlikely this strange
word could be mistaken with anything else. Here it is: we have a new science named “9/11thology” and I
sincerely hope the new word “9/11thology” would find its way to dictionaries one day and would become a
commonly spoken word. Of course, as any new science this one is still incomplete, but I would say that I
have made quite a few first important steps in establishing this new exact science, so that with our
common efforts in the future we could develop it into a full-fledged scientific discipline that one day might
be even taught in some university.
What is the “9/11thology”? There are quite a few questions in regard to the actual 9/11 perpetration, to its
cover-up, and to consecutive turn of events (such as the US-initiated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and
the so-called “War against Terror”). Practically, no commonly known 9/11 conspiracy theory could answer
any of these important questions. Some of these questions are not answered at all, while some others
answered, but the answers are far from being satisfactory.
The most 9/11 conspiracy theories will offer you only these answers:
1. Q. Who was the chief 9/11 perpetrator? A. the US Government/US secret services/US military
(or, as a variety – The Israeli Mossad in collaboration with its US colleagues).
2. Q. What struck the Pentagon? A. A certain cruise missile (or, as a variety “a small plane loaded
with explosives”).
3. Q. Why the US Government does not admit it honestly? A. Because it was the owner of this
missile and the actual perpetrator of the Pentagon strike.
4. Q. Why the Twin Towers collapsed? A. Because they demolished them in a process known as a
“controlled demolition”.
5. Q. Still the question remains: how it was technically possible to bring them down? A. They used
numerous charges of conventional explosives attached to every core- and perimeter- column on
every floor of the Twins and detonated them synchronously as it is a technology known to be
used in a demolition industry (or, as a variety – they used thermite, or so-called “nano-thermite”,
or thermite in addition to explosives, to additionally melt those steel core- and perimeter- columns
of the Twin Towers).
Basically, all commonly known conspiracy theories (except only a “mini-nukes conspiracy theory” and a
“clandestine nuclear reactors conspiracy theory”) in regard to the September 11 offer nothing more than
is mentioned above. The “mini-nukes-“ and “clandestine nuclear reactors-“ conspiracy theories offer a
little bit more than that – they attempt to somehow explain technicalities of the unexplainable collapse of
the WTC Twin Towers at near freefall speed, and a strange “ground zero” name strangely awarded to the
13
World Trade Center demolition grounds. However, neither of these two additional “nuclear” conspiracy
theories could offer any satisfactory explanation neither in regard to the WTC Twins’ pulverizations, nor in
regard to the WTC-7 collapse; and neither of them could offer any explanation whatsoever in regard to
the Pentagon attack.
Let’s disregard for a while these two additional “nuclear” conspiracy theories and concentrate mostly on
the explosives/thermite/so-called “nano-thermite”/explosives+thermite conspiracy theories, since they are
the most widespread. I intentionally failed to mention here any argumentation in regard to either existent
or non-existent passenger planes that allegedly struck the WTC Twin Towers, since their existence/nonexistence
is irrelevant to our current topic and arguing over it would only distract our attention from
important points. Let’s imagine, that the 5 questions above have been answered satisfactorily. Still, there
are some seemingly logical questions available, which no one of conspiracy theorists has ever bothered
to answer. Note, that some of these questions could only be perceived by advanced 9/11 students, who
are familiar with the subject at least a little bit. If you are a novice, you might need to educate yourself first
by studying some basic details of the 9/11affair and taking a look first at at least some commonly known
conspiracy theories.
Anyhow, these are the questions that are seemingly logical, but so far remain unanswered:
1. Why the US high-ranking officials (including also those belonging to the opposition of the Bush
Administration) so easily agreed with ridiculous “findings” of the infamous 9/11 Commission in
regard to the WTC destruction? If there were any argument among them it was not about
practicability of the ridiculous “kerosene theory” but exclusively on a quality of the US military
preparedness and on a quality of the American secret services’ response to an alleged terrorism
threat. Why the “kerosene theory” itself has not been challenged by those high-ranking guys and
gals?
2. Why all foreign high-ranking officials (also from those countries that traditionally oppose the US
policies) so easily agreed with these ridiculous “findings” of the 9/11 Commission and challenged
neither its ridiculous “kerosene theory” coupled with its ridiculous interpretation of the Pentagon
strike, nor its unsubstantiated claims in regard to the alleged “hijackings”?
3. Why insurance companies were unable to effectively defend their positions in courts while being
sued for insurance payments by new owners of the WTC property, when it was pretty obvious for
everybody (lawyers and judges including) that controlled demolitions were used to bring down all
3 buildings – particularly the WTC-7, which did not suffer any “plane’s” impact?
4. Why an apparent missile attack on the Pentagon took place whatsoever? According to many
conspiracy theories who claim it was the US Government behind aerial attacks on the WTC and
its consequent demolitions, it was also the US Government who allegedly organized the attack
against the Pentagon. But it is pretty obvious that the 9/11 Pentagon strike (which was indeed the
hardest thing to be covered up) was nothing else than a profanation of successful “aerial” attacks
on the Twins and their destruction. There should not be even a slightest doubt that the WTC
strike alone, without any additional and unnecessary attack on the Pentagon would look much
more beautiful and much more believable and it would achieve absolutely all its alleged goals –
an unprecedented public outrage directed against Muslims, as well as much needed sympathies
from various simpletons from all around the world. Still, the ridiculous attack on the Pentagon
took place, seemingly despite any logic. Why?
5. What was the name and origins of that mysterious missile that struck the Pentagon on 9/11?
6. Why the US government could not admit honestly to the public that it was a missile, not AA Flight
77 – the Boeing-757, that struck the Pentagon in reality? It appears that it would be much easier
to say the awful truth once and forever than to say beautiful lie many times for many years ahead,
isn’t it? Moreover, it is pretty obvious that the US Government “confidentially” admitted to all local
and foreign high-ranking politicians that the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not by an airplane.
At least two high-ranking US officials afforded Freudian slips of the tongue accidentally saying
that the Pentagon was struck by a missile. At least once such a slip of the tongue was afforded
by Donald Rumsfled and at least once – by Tim Roemer, a former 9/11 Commissioner. This
means that among the high-ranking US politicians the missile that struck the Pentagon is the
matter of fact. There should not be any doubt either that this missile which struck the Pentagon
was honestly reported as such to all high-ranking foreign politicians as well, otherwise they would
never accept any of seemingly insane military actions by the United States in the 9/11 aftermath.
Still, the main question remains: why the US officials do not want to admit the Pentagon missile
attack honestly to general the public?
7. Almost everybody who is interested in 9/11 knows that a so-called “doomsday plane” (a/k/a
“strategic airborne command post” earmarked to conduct retaliatory nuclear strike against the
Soviet Union in case of the USSR strikes first) was scrambled during 9/11 events and was seen
14
by many making slow circles over the White House. It was shown on various TV footage by
various news channels and it is impossible to deny this obvious fact now. Nonetheless, the US
Government stubbornly refuses to admit it until today that the “doomsday plane” was indeed
engaged. Why the US Government is so stubborn on this particular issue?
8. Why F-15 and F-16 jet fighters scrambled in response to the Pentagon attack were promptly
directed over the Atlantic Ocean and what it had to do with the alleged “passenger planes”?
9. Why some other bunch of the US Air Force jet fighters was also directed over the Atlantic Ocean
and it happened even before the Pentagon strike, thus representing a totally different event than
described in the above question?
10. Why all three buildings – the WTC-1, -2 and -7 – collapsed with near speed free-fall? If they were
demolished by ordinary explosives, as claimed, or by combination of explosives + thermite, or by
thermite alone, or even by so-called “nano-thermite” – it would apparently take at least 55
seconds (giving only half-a-second per floor) for upper parts of the Towers to reach the ground.
Because even damaged by explosives/incendiaries remnants of floors and steel columns would
still provide some considerable resistance and would delay their collapse. Still, the question
remains: why the Towers’ tops fell down in a manner if under them were not any remnants of
allegedly “blown-up” concrete floors and thick steel columns, but only air alone?
11. Why alleged thermite (as claimed by many conspiracy theorists) that was allegedly used by 9/11
culprits to “melt” thick steel core- and perimeter columns, “melted” them, instead, into that wellknown
fluffy microscopic dust that was extremely volatile, rather than liquid?
12. Why this dust was microscopic? Why an approximate particle of it did not exceed the diameter of
an average human hair? The existence of such a finely ground material can not be explained by
alleged TNT or C4 explosive charges – you simply can not reduce a thick steel into dust using
explosives, irrespectively of their distribution and quantity. Try to reduce a tank to dust using TNT
or C4, or try to reduce to such dust a rail way truck using these explosives. You would find out
that it is simply impossible. Any specialist in explosives would confirm it – you don’t actually need
to experiment with TNT and steel bars in order to establish this self-evident truth (much in the
same sense that you don’t actually need to experiment with planes’ impacts in order to establish
another self-evident truth: steel targets can not be penetrated by aluminum projectiles
irrespectively of the latter’s speeds). Still, the above question remains: why the Twin Towers were
reduced to that fluffy microscopic dust, which allowed the Towers’ tops to reach the ground with
near freefall speed? Re-phrasing this question, we could put it this way: why the dust to which
were reduced not only concrete floors, but also thick steel perimeter- and core columns was so
fine that it offered no resistance whatsoever – as if it was not thick dust, but thin air?
13. Why when the “chief hijacker” – Mohammed Atta – was found to be an agent of the Pakistani ISI
no action was undertaken by the American law enforcement agencies against their Pakistani
colleagues? And why none of the US Senators has ever insisted on taking such an action against
the Pakistanis who were apparently caught “red-handed” with their infamous money transfer to
Atta and thus evidently proved their complicity with 9/11 perpetrators?
14. Why when the majority of alleged “suicidal” 9/11 “hijackers” were found alive and kicking in only a
couple of weeks following accusations published against them, this fact did not prompt any
prominent US- or foreign official to openly challenge the FBI’s 9/11 conspiracy theory which lost
its entire credibility at once?
15. Why demolition grounds of the World Trade Center were strangely dubbed by the strangest
nuclear name “ground zero” and even this more than transparent hint did not arise suspicions of
either the US high-ranking officials or their foreign counterparts to conclusions of the 9/11
Commission and to its ridiculous “kerosene/pancake-collapse” theory? Were all of these highranking
officials – both domestic and foreign ones – uneducated enough as not to know that
“ground zero” was nothing else than a standard ABC designation of a spot of a nuclear or a
thermo-nuclear explosion and that it had not other meaning prior to that day? Still, the question
remains: why neither of these high-ranking officials raised his or her objections to the officially
approved “kerosene/pancake-collapse” theory?
16. Why there were high-temperatures a/k/a the “longest-lasting underground fires” persisting deep
underground on “Ground Zero” for as long as the end of December 2001? Did it have anything to
do with thermite that usually cools down in a maximum of 10-15 minutes; or it had anything to do
with alleged “kerosene” that cools down even faster than thermite?
17. Why almost all ground zero responders now suffer from leukemia and from various types of
cancers typical to those evolving as a result of chronic radiation sickness?
18. Why the North Tower (that was struck first, but collapsed second, seemingly against any logic)
could not have been demolished by 9/11 perpetrators before the South Tower?
19. Why in only a few minutes after the South Tower collapsed, the Sears Tower in Chicago was
ordered to be immediately evacuated, but the Empire State Building in New York did not get such
an order?
15
20. Why the most top-ranking in a demolition industry (and the most expensive of all demolition
companies) “Controlled Demolition Inc.” was appointed to remove debris from “Ground Zero”,
considering that the actual World Trade Center has been already demolished by others and no
highly-paid qualified demolition works were required any longer?
21. Why the Salomon Brothers Building (the WTC-7) had to be demolished afterwards? Why its
demolition was so necessary, despite the fact that it terribly spoiled an overall positive impression
created by the 9/11 “atrocity” and also attracted a lot of unnecessary suspicions?
22. How it was possible to explain the WTC-7 collapse to various domestic and foreign high-ranking
officials in a satisfactory manner? And how it was possible to explain it to judges in law courts
who decided insurance compensation cases in favor to the new owners of the WTC property,
rather than in favor of insurance companies, who were evidently defrauded?
23. Why the US courts that decided insurance claims in favor of Larry Silverstein and Co. awarded
insurance payment to Larry Silverstein even despite the fact that Silverstein back in 2002 has
publicly stated that it was him, Mr. Larry Silverstein, who gave his personal permission (if not his
personal order) to “pull” the WTC-7 in a process known as “controlled demolition”? And why the
insurance companies were not able to successfully use that admission of Mr. Silverstein’s to
defend their cause – while his unprecedented admission, shown worldwide on TV, was recorded
by many and was freely available even on YouTube?
24. Why the FBI and the US Government which refused to publish lists of alleged passengers of
“hijacked flights” (at least for the first 6 years after 9/11), nonetheless, allowed the Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades to openly display their seditious
seismograms showing two underground mini-nuclear explosions (which are so “nuclear” that
could not be mistaken with anything else) that corresponded with the Twin Towers’ collapse?
These unprecedented seismic “evidence” that blatantly contradicts the official “kerosene/pancake
collapse theory” is openly published on their website
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html - right within the US jurisdiction, and
no FBI wanted to remove it. Is this merely an excess of an alleged “freedom of speech” or of a
“freedom of expression” in the United States? Where then the lists of the passengers? Why they
do not exist on the Internet within the frames of the same alleged excess? Why United Airlines
and American Airlines did not publish those seditious passenger lists with the same ease and
impunity the Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory published its “seditious”
seismograms? And why no one has so easily published any videos that recorded details of the
9/11 Pentagon strike? The question remains: why this utterly seditious “seismic evidence” is not
removed by the FBI from the US-based Internet site with the same zeal they confiscated the
Pentagon videos and the lists of passengers?
25. Why in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks the US Government ventured into a ridiculous war against
Iraq, allegedly “in search of weapons of mass destruction” while according to the official 9/11
conspiracy theory (“Al-Qaeda”->”hijackers”->”planes’ strikes” -> ”kerosene”->”pancake
collapse”->”ground zero”) neither Iraq, nor “weapons of mass destructions” had anything to do
with the World Trade Center destruction and with the Pentagon attack and it was exclusively “Al-
Qaeda” and “kerosene” who were to be blamed?
26. Why this ridiculous war against Iraq and its ridiculous pretext were, nevertheless, accepted, and,
moreover, approved by majority of the US own- and foreign politicians who even sent their armies
to participate in the Iraqi adventure? Were all those local and foreign politicians as naïve as to
believe that Saddam Hussein was really responsible for 9/11 hijackings and for the “kerosene
initiated pancake collapse”? Still, the question remains: why all these high-ranking officials,
especially the foreign ones, so readily accepted and approved the US-initiated war against Iraq in
connection with the 9/11 events?
27. Why Saddam Hussein, who was known as the most ruthless secular dictator who wore a neck-tie
and whose regime used to suppressed Islamic religion much more harshly than any other regime
in the world, had to be linked to the allegedly religious “Al-Qaeda” and thus – to the actual 9/11
perpetration?
28. Why even after no alleged “weapons of mass destruction” were found in Iraq, this senseless war
against the innocent Iraqis has continued with nearly as same amount of seemingly idiotic zeal as
it had in its beginning in 2003?
29. Why the US Government, who was apparently involved in the most incredible and the most
awkward cover-up in regard to the entire 9/11 affair, nonetheless, enjoys a lot of sympathies and
even support in all its future ridiculous undertakings from among various high-ranking foreign and
domestic officials? Are they not annoyed with that ridiculous 9/11 cover-up?
30. How the US Government was able to compile several relatively populous 9/11 commissions
tasked with the hiding details of the 9/11 perpetration and that of the buildings’ collapse and how
the US Government managed to convince all members of these commissions to lie to the US
citizens so shamelessly? Are the US indeed populated by such shameless liars who appear to
16
occupy all high positions in the Senate, Congress, Justice system, police, military, the FBI, the
CIA, and even in engineering science? Is this picture indeed so grim?
31. If to presume that the 9/11 perpetrator was the US Government (or the so-called Bush-Cheney
clique) as alleged by many, and their main goal was allegedly to lay their hands on Iraqi oil, why
would they need to collapse the Twin Towers whatsoever? Wouldn’t it be enough to only direct a
couple of electronically “hijacked” passenger planes filled with carefully arranged corpses from a
morgue (or with live citizens as a variety) flown on autopilot into the Twin Towers and blame this
action on very carefully selected “suicidal Muslim hijackers” - those who would not be found alive
by the very next week? Even if such aluminum planes would not be able to successfully cut
through thick double-walled steel perimeters of the Twins and would simply smash themselves
flat and fall back to sidewalks without actually causing any “kerosene initiated pancake collapse”
at near free-fall speed wouldn’t such a desperate act of the so-called “terrorism” reach all alleged
goals in regard to the “Iraqi oil”? Wouldn’t such an action be enough to cause an unprecedented
public outrage directed against “evil Muslims”? Wouldn’t it be enough to win sympathies of all
simpletons inside and outside the U.S. who would approve of any military action against oil-rich
Muslims states? Apparently, such a realistic scenario as described above would serve all alleged
causes and achieve all alleged goals, however, without making the US Government look stupid
and without driving it into the most ridiculous cover-up as a result of which it badly lost its face
both home and abroad. Isn’t it? It is very clear that if the so-called “Bush-Cheney clique” or the
entire evil US Government were real 9/11 culprits they WOULD NOT NEED to actually collapse
the Twin Towers. Even if they were in need to get rid of the Twins for some additional mercantile
reasons, they still would not need to demolish them in such an awful manner. They could simply
claim that the Twin Towers’ structural integrity was damaged as a result of the aluminum planes’
strikes and specialists judged that the Towers were no longer safe to stand and had to be lawfully
demolished (or disassembled) – giving way to some new grandiose project in Lower Manhattan.
As any logical person friendly with common sense could see neither the US Government, nor the
alleged “Bush-Cheney clique” needed to actually demolish the WTC Twin Towers in such a
spectacular manner thus attracting suspicions and even accusations of the 9/11 culpability. They
could easily achieve all the alleged goals without demolishing the WTC and this fact is pretty selfevident.
It is clear that the US Government was not the 9/11 culprit and it did not plan to demolish
the Twin Towers, simply because it did not need such an action in reality and could benefit from it
under no circumstances. Still, as everyone could see, the US Government demolished the WTC,
seemingly despite any logic. The question is – why?
32. And, at last, if it were not the US Government who organized the attacks on the WTC and on the
Pentagon (and apparently it was NOT the US Government, whether you like it or not), who was
then the actual 9/11 perpetrator? What was his name and what was his nationality? Osama bin
Laden apparently had an alibi – being a modest person with a moderate income he was unlikely
capable to perform all those 9/11 miracles, including forcing the US Government into demolishing
the WTC and driving it into such a desperate post-9/11 cover-up… Still, the question remains –
Who? Name? Nationality? Age? Address? Proof?
The new science – the “9/11thology” – answers all these questions without any exception. It answers
them precisely and in an exact detail. You will have more than exhaustive answers to all above questions
and to many other questions, in addition. Practically, no question of either technical- or conspiratorialnature
in regard to 9/11 would remain unanswered after you finish reading the first studying book ever
available on this new exact science.
This ability to answer questions precisely is the very thing that makes from a science an “exact science”.
For example, no one could call mathematics a “theory” because it is able to answer precisely to a
question: “how much will be two plus two?”. Its answer “four” is verifiable – all you need to verify it is to
have four apples and to be able to count till four. However, some other sciences – like Darwin’s theory of
alleged “evolution” are not called exact sciences; they are called “theories”, because no one in This World
has ever been able to verify them and no one has ever been able to come back from the Next World to
either confirm or to disprove them. Its ability to answer precisely such questions in regard to 9/11 makes
the very difference between the 9/11thology and an ordinary 9/11 conspiracy theory. The 9/11thology is
able to answer all these 32 questions mentioned above, while a conspiracy theory is not.
Just go ahead – read this book from the beginning to the end and you will have satisfactory answers to
every one of the abovementioned 32 questions.
Note to the current free edition of this book: perhaps, in its free edition you will be able to find only some
answers from among those promised above; to get all of them you might need the full edition of this book.
17
My testimony.
As I have already mentioned, there is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a witness. The
difference is that a conspiracy theorist claims what he thinks/guesses/concludes, while a witness states
what he knows. They also enjoy a very different legal status. The testimony of a conspiracy theorist is not
admissible in legal proceedings. While the testimony of a witness is not only admissible in the court-room,
but it is the primary evidence which is technically far more valuable than any documentary evidence.
There is a very big difference in approach to the claims of a conspiracy theorist and to those of an eyewitness,
which many people unfamiliar with law seem not to comprehend. The difference is this. While a
conspiracy theorist could be “right” or “wrong” in what he claims, a witness could not be “right” or “wrong”.
A witness could only be a truthful witness, who says the truth, or a false witness who intentionally lies. In
the first case he performs his citizen’s duties. In the second case he commits a crime punishable with the
imprisonment. Hope now, at last, you understood what the difference is and from now on you will no
longer call this book a “conspiracy theory”?
The difference between the humble author of these lines and other people who advanced their claims in
regard to 9/11 like Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Prof. James H. Fetzer, Prof. Morgan
Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, so-called “Anonymous Physicist”, and other well-known and less-known 9/11
scholars is that not even one of them could testify under oath that he knows the truth and promises to say
the truth, the only truth and nothing by the truth, primarily because they do not know the truth and are only
guessing, while the humble author of these lines could testify under oath, because he knows the truth and
does not need to guess.
Since many people attempted to claim that my video presentation (that first appeared on the Internet in
March, 2010) and, consecutively, my book, were allegedly a new, although a “very plausible” 9/11
“conspiracy theory”, I am obliged to disprove this dangerous accusation in an official manner. My version
is not a “conspiracy theory”, dear accusers, because by calling it a “conspiracy theory” you intentionally,
again, intentionally, try to diminish my legal status from being an important 9/11 witness, whose testimony
is admissible in the court of law – to being a meager 9/11 conspiracy theorist, whose suggestions have no
legal value. But, please, be informed, dear accusers, that this kind of cheap trick does not work with the
humble author of these lines. I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a witness, who testifies as follows:
(see my testimony on the next page)
18
I, Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, swear to The God Almighty that I say the truth, the only truth, and nothing but
the truth and if I lie let The God punish me in This World and in the World to Come, and testify as follows:
1) I indeed used to serve as a commissioned officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, which was the codename
of the Soviet Special Control Service – an organization primarily responsible for detecting nuclear
explosions (underground or otherwise) everywhere in the world.
2) I indeed knew from the time of my former military service mentioned above about the existence of a socalled
“emergency nuclear demolition scheme” of the World Trade Center in the city of New York, in the
United States of America; and I knew about the existence of this so-called “emergency nuclear demolition
scheme” of the World Trade Center in New York City during not less than ten years prior to the eleventh
day of September, year 2001 AD.
3) I indeed used to know personally a very high-ranking and the very-well known official from the Israeli
secret service who was using a bogus Arabic identity and a diplomatic cover for setting up various bogus
Muslim terrorist networks in South East Asia and elsewhere and for organizing various false-flag terror
actions, including those directly connected to the 9/11 perpetration and to the 2002 Bali bombing, at least.
A photograph of this person appears below:
(His actual name is withheld in this particular edition of the book, but is available in the full one).
4) I was indeed invited by the abovementioned Israeli intelligence official to his celebratory breakfast early
morning, 12 of September, 2001, Bangkok time (still evening of 11 of September in the United States).
This celebratory breakfast took place in his diplomatic residence at: 15A, Bangkapi Mansion, 89, Soi 12,
Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok, Thailand. And I indeed discussed with this Israeli intelligence official various
proceeds of the 9/11 perpetration during this breakfast which was indeed the celebratory one.
5) I indeed honestly informed the US authorities at the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, of all of the
abovementioned facts providing them in a form of a detailed testimony and I could confirm that the US
authorities definitely know about all the four abovementioned facts at least from my testimony.
6) I could confirm that the US authorities knew about terrorism-related activities of the abovementioned
high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, as well as about my and his close relationship, even without me
informing them as mentioned in the clause 5) above, and they US officials indeed attempted to prosecute
him. However, they abandoned all prosecution attempts against the abovementioned Israeli intelligence
official and let him escape the prosecution by using another bogus identity. This particular fact that the US
officials knowingly let the abovementioned person escape the justice is duly documented in several Thai
law courts and I know the corresponding criminal cases’ numbers and could provide them if necessary.
Anyone could use the text of the abovementioned testimony of mine in any legal proceedings, without
modifying any word of mine and without taking any word of mine out of the entire context of the said.
I could repeat the above testimony of mine in front of the court of law of any country.
Dimitri A. Khalezov,
the witness.
19
Prologue. The largest “non-nuclear” blast ever...
"The car bomb is the nuclear weapon of guerrilla warfare."
-- Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer
It is not so, dear Mr. Krauthammer. It is vice-versa.
It happened a long time ago – that time no one has ever complained yet that those notorious “suit-case
nukes” have been allegedly stolen from Soviet nuclear arsenals, no politician has come up with any public
claim yet that “evil Iran” allegedly pursues its “clandestine nuclear weapons program” and even “evil North
Korea” has not been accused of developing its alleged nuclear weapons yet. It happened in remote 1983.
This largely forgotten today nuclear perpetration was, indeed, the best of early “car-bombings” that
became nothing than a “golden standard” for the future nuclear terrorism. Ironically, despite the fact that it
was not performed by any “conventional” Muslim terrorists, it indeed inspired many of them and continues
to inspire them even up to this day. Even though the true Muslim terrorists could not obtain any “suit-case
nuke” (and majority of those poor guys did not even suspect that such thing did exist in This World), they
all, nevertheless, were greatly encouraged by that particular event. The event itself was cunningly timed
by its actual perpetrators to the greatest political mistake of the then US leadership – which at that time,
after the first US Beirut Embassy bombing, has decided to participate in the Lebanese Civil War and
ordered the US Navy to bombard Lebanese guerillas storming positions of Lebanese Government forces.
This is on official photograph (alias “file-photograph”) of 1983 Beirut barracks bombing – it is from an official
site of US Department of Defense, thanks to its courtesy. This is indeed the file-photograph of that event. It
shall be known: conventional explosions do not feature any mushroom cloud. If you see anything like this all
you have to do is to believe your eyes because you are not mistaken: you see a very nuclear explosion…
20
Official information on this bombing, at least as provided by Wikipedia (comments in square brackets
added by me): the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the
Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck separate buildings in Beirut housing US and French
members of the Multinational [peacekeeping] Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the
majority being US Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from
Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. [The so-called]
"Islamic Jihad" [organization hitherto unheard of] [allegedly] took responsibility for the bombing, but that
organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah receiving help from the Islamic
Republic of Iran. On around 6:20 AM, a yellow Mercedes-Benz truck drove to Beirut International Airport,
where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the US 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps,
had set up its local headquarters. The truck had been substituted for a hijacked water delivery truck. The
truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver
then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two
sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. By the time
the two sentries had locked, loaded, and shouldered their weapons, the truck was already inside the
building's entry way. The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were [allegedly] equivalent to
12,000 pounds (about 5,400 kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block
building into rubble, crushing many inside. It is said by a US federal district court judge in his ruling to
have been the largest non-nuclear blast ever (deliberately) detonated on the face of the earth. [Do
not believe this claim, because it was a deliberate lie. When there were standard 10-ton aviation bombs
available and, moreover, widely used – even during World War II, to claim that laughable 5.4 metric tons
of TNT was “the largest” blast was nothing, but ridiculous. This blast was, of course, larger than any
known non-nuclear blast, because this particular blast was the nuclear one.] According to Eric Hammel in
his history of the Marine landing force, "The force of the explosion initially lifted the entire four-story
structure, shearing the bases of the concrete support columns, each measuring fifteen feet in
circumference and reinforced by numerous one and three quarter inch steel rods. The airborne
building then fell in upon itself. A massive shock wave and ball of flaming gas was hurled in all
directions." In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220
Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured [and unlikely they had
any chance to survive, because of received doses of radiation exceeding nominally “lethal” ones by
several times]. This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the 243
killed on 31st January 1968 — the first day of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam war [meaning that one
suicide bomber with 5.4 metric tons of the TNT could instantly inflict casualties on the same rate as those
inflicted during a full day of heavy fighting by the entire regular North Vietnamese army at its strategic fullscale
offensive…]. About 2 minutes later, a similar attack occurred against the barracks of the French La
3ème Compagnie, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes (3rd Company of the 1st Parachute Infantry
Regiment), 6 km away in the Ramlet al Baida area of West Beirut. Another suicide bomber drove his truck
down a ramp into the 'Drakkar' building's underground parking garage and detonated his bomb, leveling
the eight-story building. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured,
in the single worst military loss for the French since the end of the Algerian war. In addition, the elderly
Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. The wife and four children of a
Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed. Many of the French soldiers had gathered on
their balconies moments earlier to see what was happening at the airport [where their American
colleagues have been just nuked]. End of the Wikipedia quote here.
The unfortunate French soldiers have apparently seen a strange picture similar to that captured by the
above photograph when they had gathered on their balconies moments earlier to see what was
happening at the airport …
Probably, if one would make a competition for the best picture of a mushroom cloud of an atomic
explosion, this photo would undoubtedly win the first prize – it is the ideal one: an atomic mushroom cloud
should look exactly like this one – vapor and dust separately... This particular photo, of course, was not
made by those poor French paratroopers, because unlikely their photo-cameras could survive the second
nuclear blast; it was taken by someone else. But, probably, from their balconies the French soldiers could
see something like that before the second “truck” with alleged “TNT load” has “arrived” to their own
barracks. It is suspected, however, that there were no any trucks at all. The two “mini-nukes” were simply
planted inside the both premises by “someone” whose visit was not suspicious to either French or
American servicemen. It shall be suspected as being a truly “inside job”. The man, who installed both
“mini-nukes” in both premises, must have been well-known to both – the French and the Americans – and
must have been above any suspicion…
Culprits: despite an apparent “success” of the attack (I guess that it is clear to everybody that to instantly
send to Hell several hundreds of infidels is an apparent success – at least judging from the point of view
21
of any true Muslim warrior), nobody claimed responsibility for it. This was the strangest feature of this
particular act of alleged “terror”: no “terrorists” were in a hurry to come up to claim their laurels… It
became even stranger when one hitherto unheard of organization bearing exceptionally idiotic name
“Islamic Jihad” has eventually stepped forward to claim responsibility for this bombing in an anonymous
telephone call.
It is probably known that “Jihad” itself is a typically Koranic term – meaning “Holy War against unbelievers
who suppress Muslims”. Logically, “Jihad” is “Islamic” by default, and no Muslim would ever name any
organization “Islamic Jihad”, since the “Jihad” itself can’t by anything, but “Islamic”. Such a name could
have only been invented by some non-Muslims, moreover, by those non-Muslims, who were in a real
hurry. If they only had time to use their brains a little bit longer, they would choose some other name. Just
to illustrate how strange it sounds to real Muslims, try to imagine, that, let’s say after some despicable act
of terror in North Korea the next day all North Korean newspapers would publish information that an
organization named “Imperialistic Capitalism” claimed responsibility for that act of terror. Now, please, try
to imagine that combination of these two words: “Islamic Jihad” indeed sounds about as idiotic as in the
above example. Moreover, the circumstances in general surrounding this nuclear bombing and the
eventual appearance of hitherto unheard of “Islamic Jihad” with its claims looked exactly as idiotic as in
the above example too. Up to this day it is not known anything at all about that mysterious “Islamic Jihad”.
Neither address of its headquarters, nor names of its leaders, nor any if its political agenda has ever been
known. All what was known about this strange organization is that from time to time someone telephoned
to mass media and claimed that this “Islamic Jihad” was responsible for such and such nuclear bombing.
This so-called “Islamic Jihad”, in fact, became so much associated with nuclear bombings that for some
security officials words “nuclear” and “Islamic Jihad” began to sound like synonyms. It was not surprising
than that even on 9/11 the very first responsibility was claimed by the very same organization, at least so
it was reported by many TV channels about noon time September 11, 2001…
Later it was claimed that “Islamic Jihad” was allegedly nothing else, than a nom de guerre for Hezbollah
(which was a Shi’a Revolutionary organization, inspired by teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini) – at least so
the Wikipedia article claims citing various official sources.
It shall be known, however, that Hezbollah in Lebanon was officially inaugurated 2 years later after the
Beirut barracks bombing occurred. Hezbollah has come into the existence only in 1985. Despite that the
US investigators several years later attempted to claim that Hezbollah had organized the 23 of October,
1983, bombing while still being “underground”, nobody took their bizarre claims seriously. Hezbollah has
never existed “underground” and it is well-known fact. Once it has been created it immediately proclaimed
itself publicly. Anyhow, in response to the belated claims of the US investigators, Hezbollah, as well as
Iran and Syria (neither of whom could have any nuclear, not even to say about mini-nuclear weapons
back to the ‘80s), have firmly denied any involvement in that despicable double nuclear bombing of
American and French peacekeepers.
Possible motives: “someone”, who initially instigated the civil war in Lebanon, needed that war to go on,
implementing a well-known principle: “divide and rule”. Those American and French peacekeepers were
apparently unwanted. That is why they were “politely” hinted that they were not really welcome. The
peacekeepers had to leave. They left and the civil war in Lebanon continued.
However, this was not all. The United States Government was caught by that development virtually with
their pants down. For some reasons it did not dare to admit it publicly that the American peacekeepers
were unwelcome in Lebanon to the extent that it has been decided to show them the door by annihilating
some of them using an atomic bomb...
Actually, it was the biggest strategic mistake of the US Government. Would the US administration admit it
honestly then, in 1983, that both – the First US Embassy Bombing, and the Marines Barracks Bombing –
were indeed nuclear events, the US officials would not need to lie continuously about all those “suicidal”
and “non-suicidal” “truck-“, “van-“ and “car-bombings” for the next 25 years to come. Moreover, there
would be a pretty good chance that due to a broad public interest in regard to possible origins of “mininukes”
in hands of so-called “terrorists”, these “terrorists” would not dare to use their “mini-nukes” again,
and neither 1995 Oklahoma-, nor 1993 WTC-, nor 1996 Khobar Towers-, nor 1998 US Embassies-, nor
any other nuclear bombings would ever occur. If subjected to a public scrutiny from the very beginning,
these nuclear bombings would never be blamed on “Iran”, “Iraq”, “Hezbollah”, “Sendero Luminoso”,
“Tamil Tigers”, “Al-Qaeda” or Colombian “FARC”. The discerning public would quickly figure it out who
was really capable of manufacturing such precise mini-nuclear devices and would quickly draw right
conclusions. Perhaps, even 9/11 could have been avoided in such a case… As one of the Beirut barracks
bombing’s eye-witness – the then “embedded” with the Marines NBC News Correspondent Jim Maceda
22
would put it 25 years later: “…a ground zero that would, inexorably, lead to the Ground Zero, a
generation later1…” He was 100% right, this perspicacious Mr. Maseda: it was indeed the very Beirut’s
ground zero in lower case letters that led to the Manhattan’s Ground Zero in the Capital Ones… And it
happened due to that apparently wrong decision of the Reagan’s Administration – which elected not to
explain to the gullible public what the term “ground zero” really meant in the then English language...
Still, the US Government which decided to lie rather than to say the awful truth had to respond somehow
to an intense public outcry that followed the bombing. Thus the Reagan Administration ventured on an
adequately unprecedented measure in response to the unprecedented Beirut barracks bombing. Only a
day later the US army launched a totally unexplainable and unprepared surprise Grenada Invasion,
which attracted understandable international criticism and eventually cost the United States much more
damage than the very “non-nuclear” blast in Beirut it was intended to distract attention from. If the US
marines in Lebanon by 23 of October 1983 were still considered as being true peacekeepers by almost
every nation (including Arabs and other Muslims), the US marines that landed on Grenada shore on 25 of
October 1983 were condemned as true aggressors by almost everyone, including the Americans
themselves. Still, it was only a chance for the US Government to distract the undue public attention from
the true physical nature of the mysterious Beirut blast a/k/a “the largest non-nuclear blast ever
(deliberately) detonated on the face of the earth”… And apparently that timely “small victorious war”
against small Grenada worked out. Exactly as another “small victorious war” would do later in similar
circumstances in a popular 1997 Hollywood movie “Wag the dog”…
It is good to remember this story, because it will be helpful in understanding a true position of the US
Government in its unprecedented 9/11 cover-up and in its infamous “war” against the so-called “terror”
that followed those apocalyptic events…
1 Full article by Jim Maceda is available here: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/23/1584456.aspx
23
John Walcott, FBI agents, and haz-mat suits.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)
To begin with, I would like to quote here some statement concerning one of 9/11 heroes – Detective John
Walcott, a “Ground Zero” responder, who spent a considerable amount of time in the WTC site cleaning
the rubble of the World Trade Center. He spent there enough time to develop a strange disease: acute
myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form. Only two paragraphs of this statement from a scary article
“Death by Dust”2 managed to contain and to reveal to us practically all those “unexplainable” strange
things – which the reader will need as basic premises to understand the main point of this book:
“…Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground
Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the
Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen - desks, lights, computers.
But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of
tiny grains of dust - no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.
At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what
Walcott likes to call "all that freaking bad air." One day, he was sitting in the shed with his
colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were
dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct
tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI
agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is
wrong with this picture?...”
Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong, very badly wrong with that picture…
Those FBI agents, who were not ashamed to wear those full haz-mat suits, moreover, sealed shut with
duct tape, in front of unprotected “commoners”, knew the “third” and the ultimate truth I am going to talk
about in this book. That is why they do not suffer now from leukemia or from any other kinds of terminal
cancer. The FBI agents will apparently live long and fulfilling lives, despite briefly visiting “Ground Zero”…
If you would only open a contemporary dictionary to look at the actual meaning of this strange term, you
won’t need to ask that question; you would understand immediately what was wrong with “Ground Zero”:
All possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive
Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.
It should be mentioned here also that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his
colleagues who used to work at “Ground Zero” and who were less lucky... On December 17, 2007, it was
briefly mentioned in some Internet news3 that John Walcott at last underwent some truly strange (and an
extremely painful) operation – a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live
(on special immuno-depressant drugs that would prevent his transplant rejection; and without leaving his
house due to the fact that his immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection could easily be
fatal).
2 The entire story from which I am quoting is here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0648,lombardi,75156,2.html
3 Full story about Mr. John Walcott who underwent a bone marrow transplantation was published here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172007/news/regionalnews/9_11_hero_meets_his_cell_mate_11157.htm
and yet another shocking story was published here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=2408066&page=1
24
For someone who does not know what the “marrow transplantation” means, I am obliged to explain. The
marrow transplantation is required for patients who suffered heavy doses of either penetrating or residual
ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (that is responsible for blood regeneration) is
completely killed by these heavy doses of radiation.
It is a strange property of radiation – it always strikes bone marrow cells most heavily compared to any
other cells of human body. That is why majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia – the heavier
radiation dose was – the more of their bone marrows is killed, so the heavier is their leukemia.
John Walcott, apparently, suffered from the heaviest possible condition – all the time before he obtained
his bone marrow transplant, he lived exclusively on donors’ blood, because his own blood was not
regenerating at all.
In addition to killing or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone
inhales or ingests some radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, could cause various kinds of cancer that
could affect virtually any part of human’s body, or even a few parts simultaneously. However, it is pretty
easy for dishonest doctors and health officials to give some plausible “explanations” in regard to these
cancers. They can claim that it is due to “asbestos”, “toxic fumes”, “toxic dust particles” etc. But when it
comes to bone marrow damage, these cheaters are helpless. The bone marrow damage could only be
caused by ionizing radiation.
When you hear that someone needs a marrow transplantation, all you have to do is to believe your ears:
it is a case of radiation poisoning.
That is exactly why those FBI agents wore full “haz-mat” suits with head masks even sealed shut with
duct tape “to ward off the fumes” while visiting “Ground Zero”. They wanted to suffer nor from leukemia,
neither from any cancer. And when they additionally sealed shut their head masks with duct tape, they did
it not “to ward off the fumes” as believed by John Walcott. They did it in order to ward off some
radioactive dust and especially radioactive vapor, which they wanted neither to inhale, nor to ingest.
25
About “ground zero”, “Ground Zero”, and this book’s author.
Introduction to Orwellian “newspeak”: pre-9/11 and post-9/11
meanings of “ground zero”.
To begin with, I think it would be reasonable to remind some people (who have probably forgotten what
the term “ground zero” used to mean before September 11, 2001) about the true meaning of these two
words “ground” and “zero” strangely used together. There are few more definitions from various sources.
Here are entire, unabridged definitions – “as is” – exactly as provided by respective dictionaries:
“ground zero” n. a point on the surface of land or water at or directly above or below the center of a
nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary, Major New Edition (Third Edition 1991, ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard).
“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).
“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear
bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).
“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which
an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994,
ISBN 0-517-11888-2).
“ground zero” – the point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic
or thermonuclear bomb.
The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe
Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796).
“ground zero” n: the point above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.
The Merriam-Webster and Garfield Dictionary (Paper back edition 1999, ISBN 0-87779-626-2).
“ground zero” n. the point on the surface of the earth at or directly below or above the centre of a nuclear
explosion.
Penguin Student Dictionary (first published as The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary 2001,
reprinted in this edition without supplementary material… ISBN 0-141-02818-1).
“ground zero” = point on the ground directly under the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
Dictionary of Military Terms (Peter Collins Publishing 1999, ISBN 1-901659-24-0).
“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which
an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.
The Random House College Dictionary (Edition 1966, printed in 1973, Library of Congress Catalog Card
Number: 68-19699).
“ground ze-ro” /,.’../ n [U] the place where a NUCLEAR bomb explodes, where the most severe damage
happens
Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).
“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast
was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [U] the site of the former World Trade Center in New York
City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. (This is a post 9/11 edition, widely available).
Are you surprised? If you don’t believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store to buy some
dictionary, don’t be in a hurry. When you arrive to such shop you will be surprised even more, because it
is no longer possible to find any dictionary with pure old definition of this strange term. Those dictionaries
printed before 9/11, such as mentioned above, that contained the only true meaning of “ground zero” term
have been a long time ago removed from book-shelves and replaced with some newer ones.
26
Unfortunately, the very English language was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration… Instead of
rushing to a book store, try to ask some of your friends if they have any – in case of good luck you might
succeed in finding some old big English dictionary that was not victimized by a linguistic part of a 9/11
cover-up.
Etymology of this term is easily traceable. In a military specific part of English language there was a term
“zeroing in” with meant exact aiming of a weapon onto some target. With advent of aviation bombs and
especially missiles this term changed a little bit – in regard to missiles, bombs and other projectiles. The
exact spot on the earth’s surface that is aimed by such a projectile began to be called “ground zero”. It
had nothing to do with either “explosion”, or “devastation”, but exclusively with “aiming of a projectile”.
When first atomic weapons came into the existence they were first made in a form of aviation bombs and
missiles. Logically, the term “ground zero” expanded to embrace the exact hypocenter of an atomic (and
later also hydrogen) explosion – since it was exactly “ground zero” as an aim of a projectile carrying its
atomic load, so that “ground zero” in an old sense of “aim” and “ground zero” in a new sense: “hypocenter
of a nuclear explosion” – always coincided. Once again this term has expanded, because nuclear bombs
would more likely explode above the ground, rather than on its surface. “Ground zero” began to mean not
just an exact spot on the earth hit by a projectile before a nuclear explosion followed, but rather projection
on to the earth’s surface of a hypocenter of such a nuclear explosion – be it above the ground, or even
below the ground. Later it was also expanded in the same sense to embrace underwater nuclear
explosions. As you can expect, soon “ground zero” has completely lost its initial meaning (a target of a
projectile) and the people ceased to use this term in that particular sense. The second meaning (a spot
on the ground of-, or a projection to the ground of an exact hypocenter of a nuclear or a thermo-nuclear
explosion) was to be its only meaning for the next 56 years since an atomic bomb was first tested. The
“ground zero’s” initial meaning was totally out of use – practically no dictionary (with the rarest exception)
did include the former meaning when defining “ground zero”. However, majority of big dictionaries in the
second part of the XX century used to define this term by only its second meaning alone, which became
the only meaning of these term: “a hypocenter of a nuclear (or a thermonuclear) explosion or its
projection to the earth’s surface”. Strangely enough, “ground zero” used to be traditionally associated with
the so-called “Manhattan Project” of 1942. It was so all the way down starting from 1945 and till about
noon time of September 11, 2001. Ironically, since 9/11, this term began to be associated with another
“Manhattan Project” – that of 1966, which has proven to be so disastrous only 35 years later…
Do not be surprised that almost all new English dictionaries, printed after 9/11, began to describe “ground
zero” as allegedly having more than one sense. Some of them even “remembered” its very first and
completely forgotten meaning (“aim of a projectile”), which was completely out of use for 50 years. In
addition, at least 3-5 new meanings have been ascribed to this term, ranging from alleged “great
devastation”, “great disorder” and “busy activities” to some alleged “basic level” and “starting point”. Some
preferred another approach: editors of a new Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, for example,
defined “ground zero” as a “place where a bomb explodes” without mentioning anything at all that such a
“bomb” supposes to be only a nuclear or a thermo-nuclear one. In addition to all of it, now almost all
dictionaries – either big or small – began to include this (to be exact “these”) definitions. The term “ground
zero”, obviously because of being too specific, prior to the September 11 affair existed only in really big
English dictionaries – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full Collins, full American Heritage, and similar (and
there it has only a single meaning). It did not exist in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for
students and for advanced learners (the only exception was the Longman Advanced American Dictionary
– mentioned above). For example, “ground zero” was absent in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries
of 4th, 5th and 6th Editions, published before September 11, 2001. Even Oxford’s 4th special “Encyclopedic”
version (that was about 50% larger compared to a normal one) did not include any “ground zero’s”
definition. Only Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 7th Edition first published in 2005 began
describing this term at last. Post-9/11 editions of Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, all kinds of new Merriam-Webster’s Dictionaries, majority
of new American Heritage Dictionaries, new Collins English, Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, and many
other new dictionaries and encyclopedias after the September 11 affair all began to include “ground zero”
and to define it in a sense that it might allegedly have more than one meaning, trying all their best to
divert attention of their readers from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of that term. By the way,
editors of the last mentioned above Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary have to be praised for not
cheating their readers: they were brave enough not to include any misleading definition of “ground zero”
into their post-9/11 dictionary, in sharp contrast to all other dictionaries editors at service of 9/11 cheaters.
It was reported that there were even attempts to prove that “ground zero” was allegedly used to describe
that location long before the September 11, 2001. All these post-9/11 linguistic efforts in regard to “ground
zero” are understandable, indeed. That strangely revealing name, rashly awarded by ABC specialists to
the demolition grounds of the former New York World Trade Center, was obviously too revealing to leave
that term in future editions of dictionaries with only its former sense alone…
27
Example of mutation of meanings of “ground zero” from 2000 through 2007 in various Longman’s
dictionaries. Top left – Longman Advanced American Dictionary (first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).
Top right – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (edition 2003, ISBN 0 582 77649 X). Example of this
term’s usage in the top right one is particularly impressive: have you ever heard that a certain explosion of a
“bomb” could flatten buildings within 25 km (15.5 miles) radius? It is hardly possible, unless a “bomb” were
something like 45 megaton (45.000 kiloton) in caliber or even mightier. Yet, the word “nuclear” is not there
anymore… But in the original definition it was even in CAPITAL letters… Bottom left – Longman Advanced
American Dictionary (second edition 2007, ISBN 978 1 40582 9540). Bottom right – Longman Dictionary of
English Language and Culture (3rd edition 2005, 2nd impression 2006; ISBN 0 582 85312 5). Please note, that
before it was the word “NUCLEAR” that was printed in capital letters in “ground zero” definition. Now it is
another word, printed in capital letters: “TERRORISTs”. Note also, that those dictionaries on the left – one
above another – are the First and the Second editions of the very same dictionary: “Longman Advanced
American Dictionary”, printed in 2000 and 2007 respectively. Here you can see a pure cheating of its reader:
either before or after “ground zero” definition other words’ definitions (“ground work”, “ground water”,
“group1”) including even samples of their usage are all exactly the same. But not that of “ground zero”.
28
Starting from top left – clockwise - pages of: Collins English Dictionary 1991 (ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard),
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary 1981 (ISBN 0-395-31256-6), Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994 - ISBN 0-517-11888-2), and Collins English
Dictionary and Thesaurus - 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6) - describing every
possible meaning of “ground zero” prior to September 11, 2001...
Here are a few more examples of mutation of “ground zero” definitions. These changes in definitions are
especially interesting in the below examples, because here we have a chance to compare editions of
similar dictionaries published before- and after 9/11. And these shameless changes are especially
notable, because they seemingly have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and
with its sacred grounds now spelled with Capital Letters. Additional meanings are NOT about the WTC.
Example 1. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in Random House College Dictionaries.
29
Left – The Random House College Dictionary (published 1973, no ISBN available, but only the Library of
Congress Catalogue Card Number: 68-19699). Right – The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (first
edition 1991, but this is an updated edition 2005, ISBN 0-375-42600-0). It is also interesting to compare this
post-9/11 “broadened” the definition of “ground zero” with that in the biggest of all these dictionaries – the
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language – available in the previous picture.
Example 2. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in The Merriam-Webster Dictionaries.
“Broadening” of meanings of “ground zero” in two Merriam-Webster Dictionaries. Left – The Merriam-
Webster and Garfield Dictionary (published 1999, ISBN 0-87779-626-2). Right – The Merriam-Webster
Dictionary (New edition 2004, ISBN 978-0-87779-930-6). Please, note that other definitions are identical - such
as that of “ground swell”, “ground water”, “ground work” and “group 1” – but not the definition of “ground
zero”. Note also that an additional “meaning” here differs from that in the above Random House’s attempt.
30
Example 3. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in Collins English Dictionaries.
“Expanding” of meanings of “ground zero” in 2 Collins English Dictionaries. Left – Collins English Dictionary
– published in 1991 Major New Edition (ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard). Right – new Collins English Dictionary
(Ninth Edition 2007, ISBN 978-0-00-722899-7). Make sure to note that all definitions of the word “group” below
our targeted term are absolutely identical. But “ground zero”, in addition to the justifiable third meaning, has
“strangely” acquired the second meaning in the after-9/11 edition of the same dictionary.
It would be understandable, if some extra definitions were added in regard to the demolition grounds of
the WTC – like it was in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition – mentioned at the
beginning of this Chapter, or like it was done in some Longman’s dictionaries – shown on the first set of
pictures in this Chapter. Strangely enough, it was not the case in the two examples above with the
Random House’s and the Merriam-Webster’s concoctions. It was other extra definitions (which moreover,
conspicuously differ from each other) added to the original meaning of “ground zero”. And it seems that
neither of these two conspicuously different additional meanings has anything to do with Manhattan’s
Ground Zero. Though, as you could guess, in reality there was a direct relevance between such a strange
“broadening” in the former definition of “ground zero”, and a nuclear catastrophe that occurred on 9/11 in
Manhattan that earned such a strange nuclear name to that place. Those so-called “good guys” from the
FBI who did all their best to conduct the unprecedented 9/11 cover-up, simply could not afford to leave
this most revealing definition with its former sense without “broadening” it at least a little bit.
And we have to understand them, indeed… If they would not do such a “broadening” of the definition of
“ground zero” it would not be only the FBI agents alone who would demand full haz-mat suits to be issued
to protect their precious selves – like those FBI agents mentioned by poor John Walcott in the previous
Chapter. Apparently, every ground zero responder and every Manhattan resident would demand his full
has-mat suit too. Along with comprehensible explanation on what really happened at “Ground Zero”.
* * *
To be honest, many friends of mine used to continuously ask me to write this book for the last few years,
but I was always hesitating. It would never be possible for me to write this kind of book without properly
being identified as its author. Even if I try to hide my identity, it wouldn’t be successful anyway – serious
guys would discover immediately who did it, so I really had no chance to stay anonymous. And I did not
like to be famous even to a lesser extent – all my life I preferred to be a small guy, unknown to anyone
and I was always happy with that state of affairs. This was an only reason behind my unwillingness to
write anything like that. However, this my unwillingness to write a book on this topic did not mean that I
did not want to share with others something important that I knew about terrorism. Yes, I did not want to
write any book, but I did honestly inform several different secret services of a few countries (including also
those of the United States, of course) about things I knew. Moreover, I did that a very long time ago. I felt
my conscience was clear even if I would not proceed to any further step.
But once I had accidentally encountered the abovementioned story of poor John Walcott somewhere on
the Internet, I have finally set up my mind and at last decided to write this book. It was not my friends, but
those cowardly FBI agents wearing full haz-mat suits, who managed to finally convince me to reveal the
truth about “Ground Zero” to others.
I am well aware that many so-called “American patriots” will hate me for this book (not even to mention
those FBI agents in haz-mat suits, and scribblers at their pay who are parasitic on “terrorism”-related
topics). I am anticipating how all of them will lash out at this book. But, honestly, I do not really care about
31
their opinions, especially considering that these guys and gals who parasitize on the concept of the socalled
“terrorism” (as well as zombies who believe them) do not have opinions of their own anyway.
The main reason for me to write this book was that I did not believe that those FBI agents wearing hazmat
suits should alone enjoy their exclusive knowledge about 9/11. It would be simply too unfair for the
rest of descendants of Adam – who do not expect to be reduced to resemble those poor creatures
described by George Orwell in his immortal “Animal Farm”.
I guess this book will allow other people to get to know also everything that happened on September 11,
2001: why there were no pieces of furniture or of a computer found among “unexplainable” fine dust, why
the WTC buildings collapsed with almost freefall speed, why the former WTC site was promptly dubbed
“Ground Zero”, why all former “Ground Zero” workers now suffer from leukemia and other kinds of cancer,
and why all those FBI agents, who had exclusive knowledge, wore full haz-mat suits while denying these
very haz-mat suits to others…
(End of the free part of the Chapter; in the full edition of this book this Chapter is complete).
32
An excerpt from the full version of the book with explanation
in regard to the holes made by the “planes”.
An illustration from Chapter 1 of FEMA's report shows what few pieces of aircraft debris allegedly
“passed entirely” through the Towers – FEMA and the FBI claimed that the undamaged landing gear
shown above penetrated through even the second steel perimeter of the North Tower on its way out.
Many people who at first did not pay any close attention to the actual Twin Towers’ construction and
thought first that outer façades of the Twin Towers were simply made from huge glass panes alone
(which would, understandably, allow planes to break in) later, to their utter dismay, found out that the
Twin Towers in reality were made of some thick steel columns – not different from its steel core columns
and such densely positioned steel columns indeed constituted their outer perimeters. Once this at last
became clear, it became also clear that no plane (which is largely made of aluminum) would ever be able
to crash in its entirety (including even ends of its wings and tail, not to say of its large turbofan engines
beneath its wings) through such densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns and to completely
disappear inside the Towers. Some elder people could probably remember what was the effect of hitting
American main-battle ships and aircraft-carriers by Japanese kamikaze-planes if such a plane hits a ship
into its board: the plane was just broken apart (without penetrating the ship’s board) and simply fell down.
In case of a non-armored ship – a maximum of what could really penetrate into the ship was a steel motor
of a plane, but never any other part of a plane – such as its wings, tail or its fuselage. Based on this
premise, one could make his own estimation looking at the pictures of the core columns below:
33
Above: profiles of remaining core WTC columns
found at “Ground Zero”; their comparative
thickness could be easily estimated; actually they
feature walls 2.5 inch thick; such thick columns
made of steel constituted both – the cores and the
entire perimeters of the Twin Towers.
Left: in this sketch you can see how these thick
core structures have been positioned in reality –
not only in the Towers’ middles, as believed by
many people, but also on their entire perimeters.
Below left: Twin Towers still under construction;
their steel perimeter columns could be clearly
seen.
Below right: another “perfectly captured” by
some truly “amateurish photographer” image of
the second alleged “plane” which was about to
penetrate the steel perimeter columns of the
South Tower and to completely disappear inside.
Does anyone seriously believe that the aluminum-made “Boeing” could really break in its entirety
(including its tail, wings and large turbofan engines) through the above-shown steel perimeter columns?
Placed only one meter apart of each other? However, even though it is impossible to believe, in
accordance with some “study” undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
alleged plane, which was “traveling at an estimated speed of around 500 mph”, managed “to sever” no
34
more, no less, but exactly “33 of the building’s 236 perimeter columns and damaged another one”4.
Actually, it might be little difficult to comprehend that it is impossible for an aluminum item to penetrate
steel; so, exclusively for this reason here is some hint – as a basic premise. It is well-known that an
armor-piercing artillery shell is made of materials stronger than an actual armor which it is intended to
penetrate. Normally, armor-piercing shells are made of Wolfram (Americans also produce armor-piercing
shells which contain, instead of very expensive Wolfram5, Uranium-235, which is otherwise useless
material, yet capable to penetrate armor due to it being much heavier than actual steel). Armor-piercing
shells made of aluminum apparently do not exist – it is self-evident truth. Neither exist aluminum swords,
nor do any other cutting / piercing tools made of this metal. The mere notion that an aluminum item might
cut steel sounds a little bit “strange”, not to say crazy. It shall be also noted that armor-piercing shells fired
against tanks or other armored items, travel to their targets with a speed at least trice as much as a speed
of sound – because even though they are made of Wolfram, this fact alone is not enough to achieve
steel-piercing capability – some very high speed is the second required factor. Speed of a typical armorpiercing
shell fired from anti-tank cannon is actually over triple sound-speed – it is at least 1000 meters
per second, and normally even faster than this, while a maximum cruise speed of whatever passenger
Boeing is subsonic – less than 250 m/sec in the best case. It is good to look at these columns again. And
imagine that their thick double walls are comparable with some armor used to make tanks. To penetrate
such a column alone would be a challenge for an armor-piercing shell fired from a long-barreled anti-tank
cannon at point-blank range. In fact, this concept of “double-walls” is applicable only to the case of an
armor-piercing shell because it faces a task of penetrating only two walls perpendicular to its way.
However, an aluminum plane faces a bigger task – it addition to the two walls perpendicular to its way, it
has to cut two more walls – that are parallel to its way, because each of such tubes has actually 4 walls,
not just two. And these two parallel to its way columns would evidently have much greater “thickness”…
Now, I guess, it would be a little bit easier to contemplate over those alleged armor-piercing capabilities of
the aluminum “Boeings 767” – after comparing such with an artillery armor-piercing shell. Why the “9/11
Commission” or those “engineers” from the above mentioned NIST, who managed even to count the
exact number of the “severed” steel columns, did not want then to try to make some penetrating
experiment with some written-off passenger “Boeing 767” and with several of those columns? That kind of
experiment would be a really good thing to prove to the doubtful guys that it were really the “terrorist
planes” that did demolish the World Trade Center… This particular realization led many people to a belief
that since aluminum kind of planes apparently could not be involved in such a feat, and then only the
“digital” kind of planes could really break through those dense double-walled steel perimeters of the now
defunct Twin Towers…
These pictures show actual damage to steel perimeter of the WTC North Tower allegedly inflicted by
American Airlines Flight 11 (“Boeing 767”). Strangely straight lines of the hole are intentionally highlighted
with yellow color on the right picture.
4 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp.39; also available on this Internet address:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
5 Wolfram is also often called “tungsten” – especially when referring to different projectiles made out of it.
35
Detailed view of the damage inflicted by the alleged passenger “Boeing-767” to the WTC North Tower’s
steel perimeter columns. It could be clearly observed that perimeter bars were all cut by a few ridiculously
straight lines, moreover parallel to each other, so a shape of the alleged “impact hole” does not match a
silhouette of a plane even remotely. Actually, explanation to this ridiculous phenomenon is quite simple.
As you can see from this picture the Twin’s perimeters were made not from steel columns alone. There
was also additional aluminum coating fixed on outer sides of the steel perimeter columns. And, unlike the
steel columns (which were more or less solid from bedrock up to the Tower’s tops), the aluminum coating
was arranged in much shorter vertical segments. If you look at the above picture’s detail carefully you will
notice certain horizontal lines parallel to each other repeating on equal intervals – that are slightly visible
on undamaged parts of the Tower’s façade. These lines that are nothing else than joining points of the
aluminum coating pieces show what was an actual length of each piece of the aluminum coating. The
problem of 9/11 perpetrators was that they needed to position their hollow-shaped charges of
conventional explosives (that were designed to imitate the impact holes – the planes’ silhouettes) not
inside the Tower, but OUTSIDE the Tower – because their explosive energy should have been directed
inwards to make the entire set up look plausible. If they would position these charges inside the Tower,
then the entire section of the Tower that supposed to be “hit by a plane” would not fell inside the Tower as
it suppose to be. It would be blown out of the Tower and, instead of the “landing gear” and the “plane’s
engine” simpletons would find on a sidewalk pieces of the Tower’s own perimeters. Apparently, it was not
an option. To attach the cutting charges outside the Twin Tower’s facades was not an option either – they
would be visible by people. Therefore, the tricky 9/11 perpetrators placed their hollow-shaped charges in
between the outer aluminum coating and the actual perimeter steel columns. The explosive energy of the
charges was directed inwards – in order to precisely cut the steel bars in right spots. And, indeed, it
worked – as you could see the inner steel bars (that appear to be of “rusty” color as opposed to the
bluish-shining aluminum coating) were indeed cut in the right spots to imitate the complete planes
silhouettes precisely. Moreover, cut ends of these steel bars additionally bend inwards – exactly as
supposed to be. However, the 9/11 perpetrators miscalculated something. Even though most of the
explosive energy of the hollow-shaped charges was directed inwards – towards the steel, some relatively
minor part of the explosive energy was directed backwards – creating a kind of recoil effect. This
managed to blow out the aluminum coating. However, instead of actually “cutting” this aluminum coating,
the unruly explosion simply tore out the entire pieces of aluminum at their full lengths and threw them
back to the sidewalks. Therefore, depending of vertical disposition of the hollow-shaped charges in some
parts it was single vertical length of aluminum bars torn out, in some other places – double vertical length,
in some other parts – triple vertical length, etc. Therefore these “impact holes” look so ridiculously stupid
– being a kind of a “stepped” shape, instead of a perfect silhouette of a “plane” as supposed to be if there
were only steel bars alone. Besides of all, on this photo a woman could be clearly seen, desperately
holding to one of the sticking up columns; she was recognized as Mrs. Edna Cintron, who was still hoping
to get rescued at that last moment; unfortunately, she was killed in the North Tower collapse; but in that
last moment of her life she demonstrated to the world (by her mere presence at that supposedly “hot”
spot where steel columns supposed “to melt”) that the US Government was cheating the people.
36
It is a well-known fact is that the actual Twin Towers, besides of all, were the first civilian buildings
especially designed to withstand impacts of large airliners. Before their construction only nuclear power
plants were routinely designed with the ability to resist the planes. Leslie Robertson, one of the two
original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, once stated that, "The twin towers were in fact
the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner,
the Boeing 707."6 In this light it would be utterly unreasonable to expect that two “Boeings 767” – which
are the same size as the “Boeing 707” – would ever be able to topple the towers in one way or another.
“…The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the
time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure
is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil
puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting …”
Francis (Frank) Albert De Martini,
on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center.
January 25, 2001.
Frank Albert De Martini during his unprecedented interview on Jan 25, 2001.
Please, note that the author of these lines does not base this book upon any particular conspiracy theory
in regard to those planes, and his private opinion is nothing else than his private opinion only. This book
explains who organized 9/11 and why the Twin Towers actually collapsed – disregarding the fact of
whether there were any real planes involved or not. So, irrespectively of your personal preferences –
whether you sincerely believe that the two aluminum planes really hit the Twin Towers and managed to
penetrate their thick double-walled steel perimeter columns – like those shown in the above picture. Or
you prefer to believe WTC on-site construction manager Mr. Frank Albert De Martini and think that the
alleged “planes” were either holographic or digital and they existed only in the news footage – in either
case you can read this book further without any fear. It does not actually deal with the planes matter: it
deals exclusively with technicalities of the WTC collapse and with conspiracy behind their collapse.
Many people, especially from among mainstream so-called 9/11 “truthers” led by Prof. Steven Jones,
asked me – why did I touch the no-planes/planes argument whatsoever? Didn’t I know that this issue is
very annoying to the mainstream “9/11 Truth” society, because it allegedly divides the “truthers” over this
issue? Why didn’t I concentrate on mechanics of the actual WTC nuclear demolition leaving aside the noplanes/
planes argument? To be honest with you I thought for a while about it. Indeed the mere fact that I
placed myself into a “no-planers’” camp might easily scare away from this book a large number of people.
However, I decided to leave here my critics in regard to the government-sponsored “planes theory” and to
openly state that I do not believe there were any “planes”. I am not a coward, after all, but a truth-seeker.
Why should I be afraid of the opinion of the crowd if I know it for sure that the crowd is wrong?
Yes, I am well aware that my position on this issue will scare away some people, but I do not care. I am
after the truth, not after satisfaction of morons who believe that aluminum projectiles could penetrate thick
WTC steel while simultaneously causing black frames on video footage in the middle of the impact scene.
Moreover, I am certain that if someone believes that aluminum planes would be indeed capable of
penetrating the steel WTC perimeters, such a person would never believe that the Towers were
6 http://werboom.de/vt/html/body_707_vs_767.html ;
http://digg.com/educational/The_Lone_Gunman_predicts_9_11?t=5942464 ;
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement ;
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm .
37
pulverized by underground nuclear explosions and even the most revealing “ground zero” definition would
not help him to realize this obvious fact. Such a person would rather believe his guru – Prof. Steven
Jones – who stubbornly insists that it was physical planes that penetrated the steel columns of the WTC,
and it was so-called “nano-thermite” which allegedly melted the steel columns into fluffy microscopic dust.
Since my video presentation was published on the Internet and was widely discussed I noticed that a lot
of people, at last, came to realization that aluminum planes could not penetrate the steel perimeters of the
World Trade Center by definition. And I felt a little bit proud of it now. Before my video went public the socalled
“no-planers” camp was merely a small group of individuals who were considered “outcasts” by both
– so-called “main-stream truthers”, and by so-called “good citizens” who believed the Report of the 9/11
Commission. But soon after I first voiced an opinion that no aluminum projectile could penetrate steel,
irrespectively of its actual speed, I noticed that the “no-planers” camp grew considerably. Perhaps, it was
a well-known psychological phenomenon described in a famous fable of the naked king, whom no one
dared to call naked trying hard to convince himself that the king was dressed despite seeing exactly the
opposite with his very eyes. Perhaps, in this case the humble author of these lines played the role of that
child who first shouted – “the King is naked!” – thus freeing everyone to express his own opinion.
While before my video appeared the most so-called “no-planers” were routinely ostracized, ridiculed and
even banished from various Internet forums and from “truthers’ societies”, it is all changed now. To openly
state that aluminum can not penetrate steel is no longer “politically incorrect” on the Internet forums today
and more and more people began to express their opinions openly in this regard. Here is just a recent
example expressed by people while discussing my video presentation on one of the Internet forums
http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?1880-911-Thermonuclear-Destruction-100-Certain/page2 :
An apparent government shill who performs a full-time job to derail dangerous discussions on the
Internet forums (of course, he strongly opposes both – “no planes” and “nuclear demolition”
versions) says: “There's no way it could have been a fuel loaded plane slamming into each tower at
over 500mph taking out several floors and creating a massive inferno....nah” [meaning he ridicules any
one who might dare to doubt this allegedly “obvious” notion]
A thinking person’s reply: “Yes, intuitively, a large fast moving aircraft represents a lot of energy, and
one would think it reasonable for an aircraft to do a lot of damage to a building on impact. What do you
think would happen - hypothetically - if the aircraft was stationary in the air, and someone picked up one
of the enormously massive WTC towers, swung it violently, and hit the aircraft at an impact speed of 500
mph ? Would it flatten the aircraft do you think, or would the aircraft go clean through the moving
building and turn it to dust ? Have a think about the above hypothetical question, because whether the
aircraft was hitting a stationary tower, or the tower hitting a stationary aircraft, the physics of the
situation is identical. The intuitive response to the damage from a 'fast moving aircraft' may not be quite
so intuitive.” [It did not convince the shill, as you might expect, but at least, it might convince my reader.]
Steel perimeter columns of the WTC during its
construction. Note that they look small from this
point of view. However, you can easily overcome
this optical illusion if you imagine that the
aluminum passenger aircraft which supposed to
penetrate these steel double-walled perimeters in
its entirety (without even the smallest part of the
aircraft falling back to sidewalks below) would not
look “too big” either – its wings span would be
less than the width of the Twin Tower’s façade.
Why then, one might ask, does Prof. Steven Jones, the leader of the 9/11 Truth movement, so staunchly
denies this “no-planes” version – to the extent that he banishes from his ranks all those who might doubt
there were physical planes involved? Does not he know the laws of physics? Or does he sincerely believe
the laws of physics took holiday on 9/11? The answer is obvious. Prof. Steven Jones is a physicist who
knows the physical properties of aluminum and the physical properties of steel very well. Not to mention
that he is a nuclear scientist who apparently knows very well what “ground zero” really means (does any
one seriously doubt that an American nuclear scientist is aware what “ground zero” used to mean before
9/11?). However, it does not prevent Prof. Steven Jones and Co. from staunchly denying the “nuclear
demolition” version along with the “no-planes” version.
The so-called “main-stream” 9/11 Truth movement was from the very beginning hijacked by impostors
who claimed to be “dissidents” allegedly “fighting for the truth”. However, in reality they work hard to help
the US Government to continue hiding the 9/11 truth from the public. For that reason they were appointed
to lead those sincere truth seekers who are unhappy with the 9/11 Commission Report to the wrong
direction. And this sad fact is self-evident. Do not believe me? Well. Read the paragraph above –
regarding the Internet discussion – and try to form your own opinion in regard to alleged penetrating
capabilities of an aluminum plane and also try to form your own opinion in regard to the main 9/11 Truth
movement leader’s honesty and scientific integrity.
It is very easy, indeed, to understand why the US officials spend so much effort to quash any discontent
when it comes to the “no-planes” argument. If the “no-planes” truth is established, then the US officials
would have no choice than to arrest all those who filmed the “planes” and many of those who “saw” them.
The next thing the US Government would be obliged to admit that it shot down at least two passenger
planes – Flights 93 and 77. And then it would have no explanation whatsoever why it actually demolished
the Twin Towers.
The “planes” theory is indeed a corner stone in the US Government’s defense against public accusations.
Therefore you could sincerely expect it to defend this till the end. It is a very serious point, indeed.
Since my work in any case is an open challenge to Prof. Jones’ so-called “nano-thermite” demolition
theory I can’t afford disregarding the “planes theory” even though it is not the primary point of the book.
These theories are too intertwined to allow to challenge one and to leave intact another.
39
Conspiracy theories about 9/11 in a sense: “How did they
demolish the World Trade Center?” and disproving these
conspiracy theories.
Now, as I guess it became more or less understandable why so many “conspiracy theories” have their
undeniable right to exist, let me proceed to these very theories. As I have already mentioned above, I will
make a brief overview of the most common “conspiracy theories” (from the technical point of view). All of
such “conspiracy theories” suggest that the entire 9/11 affair was nothing else than an “inside job” and
that no one else than the US Government was allegedly its main perpetrator – i.e. they claim that it was
the very US Government itself which had allegedly organized all these outrageous (and possibly nuclear)
attacks on their own citizens.
“…We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away
from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty…”
Remarks by President G. W. Bush
to the United Nations General Assembly7
U.N. Headquarters, New York, New York
November 10, 2001
9:38 A.M. EST
The author of these lines totally agrees with President G.W. Bush in the abovementioned sense. Nobody
shall tolerate those outrageous conspiracy theories in regard to September the 11th attacks. Ironically, the
most outrageous of all 9/11 conspiracy theories is the one concocted by the US Government – namely
the Report of the “9/11 Commission”, alias the first “truth” intended for “plebeian” consumption. However,
the second “truth” intended for “confidential” consumption of “patricians” is by no means less outrageous
than the first one, because it is also deliberate and cynical cheating, probably even more cynical than the
primitive cheating of the “plebeians”. However, even though the rest of conspiracy theories are much less
outrageous than the abovementioned two, they shall not be tolerated as well. Let us speak the truth about
“terror” – exactly as President G.W. Bush has urged us.
I would like to state in advance that all of these remaining “conspiracy theories” were worked out by the
people who knew nothing of what exactly happened with the WTC and who did speculate only. With all
due respect to the people, who have their undeniable right to voice their private opinions amidst
atmosphere of lies and suspicions, I am obliged to state that:
1) Unfortunately, all these so-called “conspiracy theories” (at least those known to me and therefore
mentioned below) are in no sense better then the well-known “truth” No.1 concocted by the US
Government.
2) Even though the US Government absolutely rightly deserves to be suspected as being the chief
perpetrator of 9/11, in reality it was not guilty. It did not know anything in advance about the
attacks and has nothing to do with it at all (except, of course, being involved in the ensuing coverup
and into a declaration of the so-called “War” against the so-called “Terror”…). There should
not be a slightest doubt concerning the US Government’s total innocence in regard to the actual
9/11 attacks and in regard to following the attacks the World Trade Center’s nuclear demolition.
3) The 9/11 conspiracy theories, unfortunately, are not as “innocent” as they might appear. They do
not help truth-seekers to find the truth. They rather prevent them from finding the truth. Moreover,
the most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (if not ALL of them) are promoted by shills, appointed by
the FBI. It is because the conspiracy theories actually help the FBI to hide the truth about 9/11.
So here is it:
Conspiracy theory No.1 (the most famous proponent – David Ray Griffin): Many people allege that the
US Government has used a big number of cleverly placed charges of conventional explosives in almost
7 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html
40
every floor of the WTC Twin Towers and that a synchronized detonation of these charges in a process
known as “controlled demolition” (“CD”) would allegedly cause each of the Twin Towers to be reduced to
fine dust (including even office furniture, as well as its entire vertical steel bars). This particular theory, in
turn, is being subdivided into several independent theories which differ mostly only due to different
fantasies of so-called “engineers” and other speculators who advocate them. Some of advocates of such
a theory even claim that alleged charges of C4 (or whatever other) explosives have been allegedly
embedded into the concrete floors and walls of the Towers as long time ago as the time of the WTC
construction (obviously, detonators should have also been “embedded” in such a case, otherwise the
entire scheme won’t be really workable; which means that during the entire life time of the Twin Towers
their gullible tenants were spending over 8 hours a day inside the monstrous explosive device that was
ready to be go off at any moment also to do so accidentally). Without even considering any of such subtheories
separately I would rather comment on all of them at once: it is self-evident that this particular
claim can not be true. None of commonly known conventional explosives (and no any conventional
explosives whatsoever) would ever be able to reduce the entire 400 over meters tall and extremely robust
Tower made of thick steel to such fine dust – including even the Tower’s internals – such as office
furniture, mechanical equipment, cables, tubes, elevators, computers, decorations, and remaining human
beings.
It should be mentioned also that many people either maliciously or innocently attach too much importance
to the fact that all Twin Towers’ “concrete” was completely pulverized and in the same time ignore much
more important phenomenon – that not only the “concrete” alone, but the steel was completely pulverized
as well. Shifting the stress from pulverization of steel to pulverization of concrete allows government shills
who hijacked the 9/11 Truth movement to easily promote their “conventional controlled demolition”
theories thus shifting away attention of their flock from the dangerous truth about the nuclear demolition of
the WTC discussed in this book. In fact, judging from the merely psychological point of view it is easy to
understand why so many simpletons believe the WTC was allegedly “imploded” by conventional means
based on the alleged fact that “all concrete was pulverized” in the absence of any mentioning of
pulverized steel. It indeed looked like a normal, conventional “controlled demolition” judging from this
point of view. However, a serious 9/11 researcher should not be duped by this particular approach. The
problem is that the Twin Towers did not have much concrete in their constructions. Yes, the volume of
concrete used, in accordance with an official WTC documentation, was indeed huge and everyone could
verify these digits. However, one has to understand that this concrete was mostly used not in the upper
parts of the Twins, but almost exclusively on the creation of their basement infrastructure, its foundations
and also the so-called “bathtub”. The volume of concrete used in the actual Twin Towers bodies was
unbelievably little – it was only used in very thin Twin’s floor slabs and nowhere else. Thus the
corresponding share of concrete in the WTC dust was totally negligible compare with the share of steel
each Tower actually consisted of. From now on I hope everyone understands that when he hears about
an exaggerated importance of the “WTC pulverized concrete” he is being cheated by government
appointed shills whose primary intention is to create an impression that the WTC Twin Towers were
allegedly a kind of an ordinary construction that could logically have been demolished by a conventional
“implosion” commonly used in a civil demolition industry.
Let us look carefully at the actual design and at the alleged possibility to use commonly known controlled
demolition methods in regard to the Twin Towers. First of all let us look back at the controlled demolition
history.
Despite common misconception, there were no steel-framed skyscrapers ever been demolished by an
implosion anywhere in the world at least up to this day (this being said in May 2010). Primarily, because
the most of skyscrapers are new buildings and their time to be demolished has not come yet. The tallest
building ever demolished by an implosion was only 47-strories high - it was the Singer Building in New
York City that was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to its being obsolete. This building was a
much weaker structure compared to incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers being
built today. In bygone days when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-paneled, their bearing
structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders. Sometimes these
concrete bearing structures were reinforced by insertions of metal bars, but sometimes they were plain
concrete. In either case it was possible to calculate right amount of conventional explosives to be
attached to these bearing structures at right spots (or to be placed into holes drilled in bearing structures)
in order to break them all at once and to cause the building to collapse into its footprint – which is the
main goal of any controlled demolition. However, it is no longer possible to use this approach with modern
steel-framed buildings - such as, for example former Twin Towers of the New Your World Trade Center,
World Trade Center building # 7, or the Sears Tower in Chicago. There was no any "bearing structure" in
its former sense - the entire Tower was essentially a "bearing structure". The WTC steel-frame consisted
of exceptionally thick double-walled steel perimeter and core columns.
41
Here is a sketch of the steel bearing structure of the WTC Twin Tower:
This co-called "tube-frame design" was a totally new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than
columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as it was traditionally implemented in
previous structures. The Twin Towers featured load-bearing perimeter steel columns (square in crosssection)
positioned one meter from each other on the Towers' façades to form an exceptionally rigid
structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and sharing the gravity load with the
core columns. The perimeter structure contained 59 such columns per side. The core structure of the
Tower consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns that run from the bedrock to the Towers' tops.
42
The above is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Towers perimeter columns during
their construction. You can perceive from it, by the way, that there were no reason for huge volumes of
concrete to be used as mistakenly believed by many.
These steel columns were incredibly thick – each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire
thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good
example to compare with: front armor of the best tank of the WWII period – T-34 – was only 1.8 inch (4.5
cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shell available that time
that would be capable of penetrating such front armor. Of course, no explosives whatsoever would ever
be able to tear throw such front armor of a tank either (except only a hollow-charge shell which would still
not be able to tear a complete piece of such armor, but only to burn some narrow hole through an armor
plate). Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were
almost trice as thick compared to the T-34 tank’s front amour, it would not be possible to find any solution
to break such columns simultaneously in many spots in order to achieve an "implosion" effect – the basic
goal of any controlled demolition. It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns
in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-shaped charges attached to each individual
column, but even such an incredible solution would not help to achieve the desired "implosion effect". The
Towers were simply too high and too rigid – their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in
too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford. And even if they could, still, such a solution
would not lead to the desired effect – there would not be any guarantee that such a high-raised structure
would fall strictly down to its foot print. It might as well scatter its debris as far as a quarter of a mile,
considering its mere height. I think it is clear now that it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by
any kind of traditional controlled demolition.
Add here that both the WTC Twin Towers and the WTC-7 collapsed at near freefall speeds due to the fact
that their entire structures beneath heavy undamaged Tower’s tops were completely pulverized: their
incredibly strong steel structures simply ceased to exist. Let’s look into this strange steel pulverization
effect more carefully. Let us imagine unimaginable and presume that the WTC bearing structures shown
above were simultaneously broken in many spots by incredibly huge number of hollow-shaped charges of
conventional explosives attached to any and every perimeter- and core- column in, let’s say, 5 meters
intervals along the entire Tower’s length (in order to cut the steel bars into equal 5 meters long segments
to be conveniently loaded into trucks – as alleged by not unknown David Ray Griffin – another prominent
9/11 conspiracy theorist and another leader of the 9/11 Truth movement). First of all let’s calculate how
many hollow-shaped charges we would need to implement such a demolition idea. We have 59 perimeter
columns on each of the 4 façades – altogether 236 perimeter square columns – plus 47 core rectangular
columns. In total we need to simultaneously break 283 steel bars each of such bar having its own
perimeter consisting of actually four walls (before I called them “double-walled”, but I think may be I was
wrong methodologically, since any square shaped tube has actually 4 walls rather than two). Note that
each of such walls is as thick as front-armor of a tank – don’t forget this important detail. We would need
4 hollow-shaped cutting charges in order to cut each of such steel tubes – each charge has to be
attached to either side of every steel bar. In order to cut all 283 columns on one level only we would need
283x4=1132 charges. In order to cut at least 350 meters of each Twin Tower (leaving their remaining
upper parts intact – in order to imitate the actual 9/11 style of their collapse) into 5 meters long segments
we would need to cut each steel bar at 350/5=70 spots by vertical measurement. Now we multiply
1132x70=79.240. We would need nothing less than 79.240 charges of conventional explosives! Don’t
forget that in addition, we would also need 79.240 detonators. And a corresponding wiring system to
detonate all of our charges in a synchronized manner. And a corresponding ability to secretly install such
a demolition system that no tenant in the WTC Towers would notice our works. Do you seriously believe it
is feasible? David Ray Griffin believes so…
What do you think about weight of each of such hollow-shape cutting charges? How many kilograms of
TNT or other explosive materials each charge should contain in order to be able to cut 2.5 inch steel wall
considering such wall’s width? Let’s again imagine unimaginable and presume that each of such charges
would contain mere 2 kilograms of TNT (in reality it should be more than that, I think; it is very unlikely
that 2 kg would be sufficient, but for simplicity sake let’s presume that only 2 kg per charge is needed).
How many TNT we would need to explode in total? 79.240x2=158.480 kg or almost 160 tons. And now,
at last, try to imagine what kind of deafening sound would produce such a simultaneous explosion of near
160 tons of TNT, dynamite or C4. Do you think that all those witnesses who “heard explosions” during the
WTC collapse indeed heard explosions of 160 tons of TNT detonated simultaneously? Are you serious?
An enormous explosion of over 100 tons of TNT at high altitude would be heard in all over New York City.
In addition it would shatter all glass panes in a couple of miles distance around and knock down everyone
around by its enormous air-blast wave which would resemble that of an atmospheric atomic blast.
43
Oh, we almost forgot about the floors. In order to demolish the Twin Towers by conventional explosives
we would need not only to cut each of the multiple vertical steel bars in multiple spots. We would have to
cut also each floor slab into some reasonably-sized chunks. Isn’t it? Please, make further calculations.
Now let’s consider a possible mechanics of the WTC collapse based on our above presumption that the
steel bars of the Tower’s structure were simultaneously cut in 5 meters long segments. Don’t you think
that all this mess of steel cut into relatively large chunks, along with remaining floors, cables, lifts, internal
walls, stairs and staircases, carpets, office internals, and so on would considerably delay the Towers’
collapse? Don’t you think that in such a case the Towers’ collapse would not be at the freefall speed?
Anyone who watched video footage showing details of the each Towers’ collapse should have noticed
that there were no any alleged 5-meter long chunks of multiple steel bars, neither any chunks of floors on
the way of heavy Towers’ tops crushing downwards at near freefall speeds. There was only dust –
complete, fluffy microscopic dust. This dust offered to the falling down Towers’ tops no more resistance
than would air. It was dust of steel, furniture, floors, lifts, cables, carpets, stairs, office internals and all
other inorganic and organic materials, human beings inclusive. I think it is pretty self-evident that neither
the WTC Twins, nor the WTC-7 was demolished by an alleged “conventional implosions” as alleged by
David Ray Griffin and Co. All three WTC buildings were PULVERIZED and not “imploded”. And their
strange pulverization (mainly pulverization of steel rather than concrete) occurred momentarily and
without any deafening sound of enormous explosions of conventional explosive materials as alleged.
Many people argue that certain squibs beneath the crushing downwards Towers’ tops were anticipating
their actual collapse and they looked like explosions. These relatively few squibs could be clearly seen in
several video clips showing either of the Twin Towers’ collapse. However, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, which conducted a three-year “study” of the WTC collapse, rejected the
suggestions that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives. And, despite the fact that the NIST
report in general is nothing else then the most shameless 9/11 cover-up, in harmony with the infamous
Report of the 9/11 Commission, this particular reasoning of the NIST engineering experts was dictated by
elementary logic and not by any governmental “kerosene-pancake-collapse” theory. CTV [CTV,
9/12/20068] will assert, “Flashes of light that seemed to indicate bombs detonating were not explosions.
They were pockets of air being forced out of windows as the sagging floors pushed downward.” The
author of these lines totally agrees with that observation (later you will understand why). While hollowshaped
charges of conventional explosives were obviously used in the WTC case – to imitate the
“terrorist planes’” impacts and to cut some perimeter steel bars in order to blame those holes on the
“planes”, ordinary explosives could not have been used in bringing the Twin Towers down. This theory is
not plausible – neither in its pure form, nor even in combination with the Theory No. 2, which is below.
Conspiracy theory No.2: Some people, understandably, can not reconcile themselves with a notion that
aviation fuel (namely “kerosene”) might allegedly combust with such a high temperature which is enough
to melt or to weaken the WTC core columns made of extremely thick steel – as an officially approved
version of 9/11 events claims. Seeking the truth, such people have arrived to a conclusion that certain
incendiary materials (such as pyrotechnic composition known as “thermite9”) have been allegedly used by
9/11 perpetrators to melt core structures of the WTC Towers. They support their claims primarily by this:
somewhere at “Ground Zero” there have been several molten pieces of steel found and this apparently
could not have been caused by burning of fuel of any kind.
One might try to imagine how it might look – if those alleged “conspirators” have attached some thermite
charges to each of those steel-bars – located not only at the Tower’s middles, but also around their dense
outer perimeters only one meter apart from each other. Considering that such charges supposed to have
been positioned not just on one level only, but let’s say in 1 meters interval vertically – you are welcome
to make your own calculations as to the number of thermite charges required – similar to the calculations
in regard to explosive charges above… And now try to imagine how the targeted Tower would look if all of
those alleged thermite charges were simultaneously ignited. A thermite reaction, if somebody doesn’t
know, produces extremely intense, blinding sparkly flames – similar to that of electric welding (because
thermite is the very material used in the electric welding). You can’t simply look with your naked eyes into
such a thing; you must wear a protective mask with dark glasses. Did you see the entire WTC Tower
8 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060906/911_Conspiracy_060906/20060910/
9 Thermite is a composition of aluminum powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction
known as a thermite reaction commonly used in electric welding. It is often used to join railroad rails and is also
implemented in some special hand-grenades intended to quickly and efficiently destroy weapons – such as artillery
pieces, but also to destroy machinery, etc.
44
sparkling from bottom to top at the entire area of each of its four 64 meters wide x 415 meters tall façades
prior to its instant pulverization and collapse? The answer is “no”. Yes, indeed there were a couple of
some strange sparkling fires somewhere in the Twin Towers prior to their collapse; these were clearly
visible on some footage. But you have to understand that these were small and isolated sparkling fires
and their alleged importance can not be exaggerated to such an extent as to claim that the entire Towers
were allegedly “stuffed with thermite”. It is simply ridiculous. It was not technically possible to stuff the
Twin Towers with thermite due to the very same considerations discussed in debunking the conspiracy
theory No.1 above. Besides, the actual Towers’ views before their collapse did not reveal any enormous
blinding sparkling torches that supposed to embrace the entire Towers’ bodies from top to bottom and to
be visible even from the most distant outskirts of New York City.
Moreover, even if this particular conspiracy theory struggles to somehow explain those molten pieces of
steel found at “Ground Zero”, it would never be able to explain very fine dust to which has been reduced
almost 80% of the entire Tower’s structure – i.e. the very core structures made of thick steel the
proponents of the “thermite theory” are talking about. If thermite is capable of melting steel, would it really
mean that thermite would be also capable of reducing this steel to fluffy microscopic dust? Such claim is
not serious.
The initial “thermite theory” was born apparently out of desperation – simply because the truth-seekers
could not find any other reasonable explanation to the “unexplainable” Twin Towers’ collapse and also to
“unexplainable” high temperatures found at “Ground Zero” several weeks later – which were intense
enough to melt boots of firefighters who worked there in just only a few hours. I hope it is self-evident that
any potential thermite reaction would never be able to sustain any high temperatures for a few weeks – it
would cool down in half-an-hour at the worst case.
Some proponents of the “thermite theory” also claimed that it must have been thermite which cut some
steel columns found at “Ground Zero” precisely evenly – as it was shown in some pictures. It is not true,
apparently – those “precise cuts” of in the steel columns were caused by conventional explosives – by the
very hollow-shaped charges used to create the alleged “impact” holes for the “terrorist planes”. Such
precisely cut ends of the steel columns (at least those on the perimeters) could be clearly seen at that
picture which shows the detailed “impact spot” in the façade of the North Tower, where you could also
see poor Mrs. Edna Cintron, desperately leaning on one of such “precisely cut” columns before the North
Tower’s collapse. It is clear that those cuts were caused to steel columns well before the collapse and
could not be blamed on alleged “thermite” which might have been allegedly used later to bring the Twin
Towers down.
Unfortunately, the Theory No. 2 itself is not sustainable at all. It is not plausible even if someone would try
to use it in combination with the abovementioned Theory No.1.
There is also a sub-variety of this incendiary theory – which claims that the evil US Government allegedly
“napalmed” the World Trade Center, but I think we do not need to bother to disprove it, because it is too
bizarre to be even remotely plausible.
Conspiracy theory No.3 (the most famous proponent – Prof. Steven Jones): a so-called “nano-thermite”
theory. This theory is probably the most dangerous lie – not because it sounds plausible to any extent; it
is actually as stupid and as ridiculous as either of the two theories discussed above. It is dangerous
because nowadays it is being favored by the absolute majority of main-stream 9/11 “truthers” tricked into
believing this nonsense by their shifty FBI-appointed leaders.
This is a relatively new theory. It surfaced not later than in 2007, but most probably in 2008. It is based on
an alleged “fact” that “some traces” of so-called “nano-thermite” were allegedly “found” in the WTC dust.
Strangely enough, these alleged “traces” were not found back in 2002, not even in 2003 when it would be
logical to expect them to be found in the WTC dust. They were “found” only around 2007-2008. Which
says a lot of this theory’s and its main proponent’s credibility, by the way. The “discovery” of the so-called
“nano-thermite” traces strangely coincided with the first attempt by the humble author’s of these lines to
publish his book on the WTC nuclear demolition.
According to this so-called “nano-thermite” theory the malicious US Government allegedly “sprayed” (or
“painted”) the entire steel columns of the WTC Towers with so-called “nano-thermite” and this alleged
coating was allegedly the very factor that destroyed the steel bearing structures of the Twin Towers.
However, this theory does not provide any plausible physical (or chemical) explanation in regard to how
this so-called “nano-thermite” actually works. Supporters of this theory can’t even audibly explain what the
45
so-called “nano-thermite” actually is – whether it is a kind of incendiary (like commonly known themite or
napalm), or it is a kind of explosive (like dynamite, TNT, RDX or C4). Nonetheless, despite this theory
being unexplained, unfeasible from the logical point of view, and, moreover, born in highly suspicious
circumstances, it managed to win a lot of popularity among so-called “main-stream 9/11 truthers” led by
Prof. Steven Jones. It so happened that the “9/11 Truth” society almost unanimously supported this most
bizarre notion and even attempted to prepare some legal charges based on this so-called “nano-thermite”
theory against the US Government. Leaving aside our prediction what would happen in the court-room
when this straw-man argument would be legally submitted to the court of law, we will try to disprove on
our own this most ridiculous notion which, nonetheless, stands on our own way to the ultimate 9/11 truth.
Could it be true that so-called “nano-thermite” was indeed responsible for the WTC demolition as claimed
by Prof. Steven Jones and his flock? There are primary points and secondary points which will help us to
debunk this dangerous nonsense.
The primary points are these:
If so-called “nano-thermite” exists not only in sick imaginations of 9/11 “truthers” but also in reality, then
logically it should belong to either of the two groups:
a) explosives;
b) incendiaries.
If so-called “nano-thermite” indeed exists in reality and it is “explosive”, then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by “nano-thermite” due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.1.
If so-called “nano-thermite” indeed exists in reality and it is “incendiary”, then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by “nano-thermite” due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.2.
The secondary points are these:
Prof. Steven Jones who is the author of this notion is also an author of another infamous notion – that
empty aluminum projectiles could allegedly penetrate thick steel targets. Unlikely it would be reasonable
to believe a person who claims that hitherto unknown mysterious substance could allegedly “melt” steel
into fluffy microscopic dust, considering that this very same person also claims that steel was allegedly
susceptible to being cut using aluminum cutting tools. If you add here that Prof. Steven Jones is actually a
physicist, it aggravates the whole thing. If he were a former priest or a former senator, it, perhaps, would
be forgivable. But unlikely it could be forgivable to a physicist. In addition to all of it, it shall be taken into a
serious consideration that being a nuclear scientist, Prof. Steven Jones must have known what “ground
zero” really meant in the then specific nuclear jargon. It did not mean “a place where a building has been
melted by so-called “nano-thermite” into fluffy microscopic dust”. It meant “a place of a nuclear or thermonuclear
explosion”. And it is highly unlikely that a person holding a Doctorate in nuclear physics might not
notice this more than transparent hint.
I believe that from now on the reader of this book would not bother trying to adjust reality to the bogus
claims of the so-called “nano-thermite” theory, and realized, at last, that this senseless theory is intended
only to dupe him and to lead him away from the truth.
Conspiracy theory No.4 (proponents – all U.S. and foreign high-ranking officials, 9/11 Commissioners,
NIST Commissioners, FEMA Commissioners, etc.): the infamous kerosene-pancake-collapse theory (or
as a variety “kerosene-progressive collapse” theory). This theory, as you could probably understand, is
the least plausible, because those “patricians” who promote it for consumption of gullible plebeians,
themselves do not believe it either. However, quite a few people still believe this theory. The theory
claims that burning kerosene from alleged “planes” along with fires caused by further burning of various
office materials allegedly weakened structural steel of the WTC Twin Towers and this allegedly caused a
so-called “pancake collapse” (other version: a so-called “progressive” collapse) of both buildings. Since
some few gullible people still believe this ridiculous notion, I am obliged to devote a few lines to
disproving this particular theory as well. The easiest way to disprove it, perhaps, is this: the Twin Towers’
designers apparently had to take into consideration that one day some fire might occur inside these
buildings. Therefore they had to design them with a certain degree of “overprotecting” or “reinsurance” –
i.e. you don’t even have to doubt that the WTC designers calculated structural strength of steel frame in
case of the worst possible fires – eg. caused by a direct hit by a fully loaded largest commercial aircraft.
46
And by no means could the WTC designers have been mistaken in their calculations. It would be just
stupid of us to presume that the original WTC architects would design a 415 meters tall structure that
should have been populated by perhaps 50.000 human beings and sincerely hoped (and keep their
fingers crossed) that no fires would ever happen inside their brainchild, because in case of bad luck the
construction would collapse due to some unfortunate fires. Do you agree with this logic? Besides, it shall
be known that any architect should be arrested and tried in a court of law if any construction designed by
him would ever collapse and cause some damage (not to say the loss of life). If the WTC Twin Towers
indeed collapsed due to kerosene weakening their structural integrity, the original WTC designers, along
with those who supplied them steel of presumably inferior quality should have been behind bars now.
This is the way the law functions in any civilized country, the United States inclusive. Did you see any of
the WTC architects on trial so far? The answer is “no”. This is the first and foremost proof that this theory
of the “fires initiated collapse” is not sustainable.
Left: Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, following the February 2005 fire. Right: the actual blazing inferno.
For those who might still doubt my words, here is two pictures of the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain,
which burned like a giant torch for more than 24 hours in February 2005. According to an official
description, during the 24 hours-long fire “…flames devoured the 106-meter-high building from the top
down…” Still, it did not collapse, because it was a STEEL-FRAMED building. And steel-framed buildings
are designed not to collapse, even as a result of the most intense fires burning for 24 hours. What do you
think about little fires quietly leaking on several floors in each of the Twin Towers for about an hour only?
You can additionally assure yourself that the governmental kerosene theory can’t be true by looking again
at how thick where actual steel perimeter- and core columns of the Twin Towers.
Besides, don’t forget that shortly before the Towers started to collapse there were a few people seen alive
at the holes caused by the alleged “planes” and these people did not seem to suffer at all from any high
temperatures allegedly “enough to weaken steel”.
And, at last, even this theory struggles to explain the cause of the Twin Towers’ collapse, it can’t explain
the most important 9/11 phenomenon: the pulverization of the major parts of the Tower’s bodies, steel
inclusive. If burning kerosene and burning office materials could allegedly “weaken” steel it does not
mean that they could also reduce steel to fluffy microscopic dust. Isn’t it?
47
Conspiracy theory No.5 (the most famous proponents – Dr. Judy Wood and Prof. Morgan Reynolds): a
laser-beams theory or so-called “directed energy weapons” theory. Some more advanced “theorists” who
obviously understand that neither of the above two theories are plausible (nor a combination of the above
two theories) claim that in such an alleged conspiracy there must have been used some sophisticated
weapons – such as laser or maser beams – which, would be the only kind of destructive tools capable of
reducing to dust the entire Twin Towers’ structures made of steel and concrete. Moreover, proponents of
this particular theory coined a good new word that was obviously missing in the pre-9/11 English – the
word “dustification”. They used this new word to describe the state of materials applicable to the Twin
Towers shortly before they began to disintegrate into fluffy microscopic dust. If to call the actual process
of their turning into dust by the word “pulverization”, then there would be no word available in the then
English vocabulary to describe the physical process of their being no longer rigid structures, but piles of
complete dust still sticking together for a little while. They proposed the neologism “dustification” for that
and it seems that this word is indeed very useful – I will also use it in my further explanations in regard to
the Towers’ collapse. This particular conspiracy theory is not as desperate and bizarre as the above two;
it is quite difficult to be comprehended in full, and therefore such a theory could be easily used in various
speculations. In fact, there are quite a lot of innocent people who believe these theory and its proponents
personally, especially because unlike other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Dr. Wood and Prof. Reynolds went
as far as even to sue some US officials in the court of law (using their bizarre theory as legal grounds for
their accusations). Of course, their complaints were dismissed by the court with prejudice primarily due to
being totally unsubstantiated. To be completely honest, I would say that even a better grounded legal
case would be dismissed in such circumstances, because the US Justice is apparently an integral part of
the Government-sponsored 9/11 cover-up, but nonetheless, the bizarre ideas of Dr. Wood and Prof.
Reynolds which they dared to express even in some legal papers indeed greatly lighten the task of the
judge for finding some pretext to dismiss the case. Instead of describing this theory at my own, I would
rather use some quotations from the abovementioned court-case (the court order10 mentions three
plaintiffs, because in addition to the two abovementioned persons there was another co-plaintiff – a
certain Mr. Edward Haas): “Plaintiffs assert that NIST’s investigation is tainted by fraud and other serious
misconduct. They contend that the NCSTAR 1 report constitutes a “fraudulent document,” in that it
conceals the true cause for the collapse of the Twin Towers. Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged fraudulent
nature of the investigation has furthered the deception, perpetrated upon the masses, that the WTC was
demolished as a result of terrorists plowing two commercial airplanes, filled with thousand of gallons of jet
fuel, directly into the Twin Towers at a high rate of speed. They claim that, through the employment of
psychological operations, millions were deceived into believing that the destruction was caused by a
terrorist hijacking that murdered thousands of innocent people inside. Plaintiffs theorize that what actually
occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s
secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are
operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality from
the capacity to do great damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less
than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun
on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops [psychological operations] purposes.”” What
other ravings would you need to dismiss the case if you were a judge?
The beginning of this lawsuit sounded quite reasonable – their initial statement claiming that “the NIST’s
investigation is tainted by fraud and other serious misconduct. They contend that the NCSTAR 1 report
constitutes a “fraudulent document,” in that it conceals the true cause for the collapse of the Twin Towers”
is true. However, it is not really difficult – to disprove such a poor concoction as the 9/11 Commission
Report or the NIST report. It is much more difficult to prove to the court that your own claims in regard to
the WTC destruction are correct. “Theorizing” is not acceptable in the legal proceedings. Some expert
opinions could be acceptable; however, not as bizarre as those claimed above about laser-beam based
“psy ops” and laser-beams based WTC destructions. If a real expert in physics appears in the court-room
and would firmly state before the judge that an empty aluminum plane is not capable of penetrating those
double-walled steel perimeter columns of the WTC with walls as thick as the tank’s front armor, the judge
would have no choice than to believe his expert opinion, because what the expert claims is self-evident
even for a judge. If a real aviation specialist appears in the court-room and would firmly state before the
judge that a passenger aircraft can not fly at his full cruise speed at an altitude claimed by the NIST’s and
the 9/11 Commission’s reports, the judge again would have no choice than to believe such an expert
opinion, because it is again self-evident and, besides, it could be easily verified through questioning some
additional aviation experts. If a communication expert would appear in the court-room and firmly state
before the judge that it is not possible to connect a cellular phone to a cellular network in order to make a
successful phone call from a typical cruise altitude of a commercial airliner, the judge again would have
10 The entire court order to dismiss the case in pdf format could be downloaded from here:
http://sites.google.com/site/reynoldslitigation/100Judgment-Dismissedwithprejudice.pdf
48
no chance than to accept his expert opinion, because it is pretty self-evident – the judge too has his own
mobile phone and it is quite clear even for the judge that it is not possible to connect such a mobile phone
to a mobile cell at a distance of nearly 5 miles. In fact, many ridiculous notions established by the NIST
and by the 9/11 Commission could be successfully disproved in the court-room by real expert supported
by some good professional lawyers. However, it seems that real experts are not interested in disproving
the governmental conspiracy theory, giving floor to plaintiffs akin to those mentioned above. I think it is
not really necessary – to be an “evil” and “corrupt” judge – to be able to successfully throw away a case
where some lunatics theorize that certain alleged “secret” super-human technology was allegedly used
from space to destroy the WTC and, simultaneously, for “controlling crowds into believing” something…
The biggest problem of those conspiracy theorists who promote this “directed energy weapons” theory
that they have no clue what they are talking about. If a physics expert who undertakes to disprove a claim
that it is allegedly possible for an aluminum plane to penetrate thick steel could stage on practice some
illustrative experiment making some piece of flying aluminum colliding with steel, proponents of those
“secret” beams from space could produce nothing at all to substantiate their bizarre notions…
From the merely technical point of view this bizarre notion could be disproved as follows. Firstly, nobody
could explain why such an alleged “laser beam” that was allegedly used to pulverize the Twin Towers
was not able to pulverize them completely – why it actually left the Towers’ tops intact? If the alleged
laser beams were really from space (i.e. from the above), why then it was not the other way around? It
seems that according to this logic the Towers’ tops supposed to be pulverized first, if their destruction
started from top down. Secondly, this theory even if it struggles to explain the Towers’ pulverizations,
completely fails to explain high temperatures, underground cavities, filled with molten rock at a depth of
nearly 100 meters below the earth’s surface. Even if to imagine that such a hypothetical “laser” or “maser”
could instantly reduce steel into fluffy microscopic dust, does it also mean that the same process must
also simultaneously create enormous deep underground cavities filled with molten rock? Do you see any
logic in this? Besides, it can’t be true even from the point of view of the energy consumption. To achieve
the alleged functionality of the Twin Towers’ pulverization the power of such “beams” must have been so
high that probably the entire American Electrical system would never be able to supply that amount of the
energy to any alleged giant “laser” or “maser” at a time. Perhaps only a thermo-nuclear explosion of over
a hundred kiloton in TNT yield could theoretically supply the required amount of the energy to such a
hypothetical giant “laser”. But if you go as far as to accept that such a thermo-nuclear charge of over
hundred kiloton could have been used to supply the required energy to the alleged giant “laser”, then you
are ready to accept that such a nuclear charge could have been used. Then you are only one step away
from the actual truth: if you accept that those who destroyed the WTC could use a huge thermo-nuclear
charge for that reason, why don’t you accept an obvious? That instead of using such a thermo-nuclear
charge for supplying the required amount of the energy to an enormous hypothetical “laser”, they simply
used such a thermo-nuclear charge directly for destroying the WTC? This would be at least logical.
Conspiracy theory No.6: This particular conspiracy theory is the most serious and that is exactly why it
shall be considered most carefully. Some people claim that the US Government (or as a variety – Osama
bin Laden’s so-called “warriors of Islam”, or possibly also Saddam Hussein’s secret emissaries) allegedly
deployed some low-caliber nuclear charges – Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADMs) – commonly
known as “mini-nukes” – to demolish the Twin Towers by exploding these kind of devices in the basement
floors. Some alleged “witnesses” went as far as even to claim to “hear explosions” on the WTC basement
floors. In fact, this conspiracy theory became very popular especially during the last couple of years and
even a special term “nukers” was coined to call its proponents. This particular theory must be considered
especially carefully, because there are all reasonable grounds to believe, that the very US Government in
its cumbersome and desperate attempts to conceal truth about the 9/11 attacks, exploits this theory as a
“confidential” version of “truth” about 9/11 intended for various “patricians”.
I feel that it is my primary duty – to disprove this particular Theory No. 6 – irrespectively of whether such
alleged “mini-nukes” might belong to Osama bin Laden, to Mullah Omar, to late Saddam Hussein, to Mr.
Larry Silverstein, to the Mossad, to the Freemasonic Order, or to the US Government itself.
Here it is: even if this particular theory might look to some people like very much resembling the truth
(actually it is quite plausible in comparison with the rest of bizarre theories above), still it is being very and
very far from the actual truth. Proponents of this particular theory normally use the following arguments to
support their claims:
- 6.1. Seismic “evidence”. The most widely circulated in the Internet (and admitted by the US Government
to be true – one may only guess why the US Government did not deny their authenticity???) two alleged
49
seismograms from seismographs of the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC (shown below), recorded some strange seismic activity
on September 11, 2001. To say precisely – they recorded nothing else than two underground nuclear
explosions under the WTC site – at 9:59:04 and at 10:28:31 (those several seconds in time difference
between actual beginnings of Twin Towers’ collapse and the seismograph’s recordings were due to the
time required for seismic waves to travel 21 miles from Manhattan to Palisades). The proponents of the
“Conspiracy Theory No.6” (as we called it here) claim that this is allegedly a “proof” that the “mini-nukes”
have allegedly exploded under the WTC Twins.
I will not say anything first, but only put this preliminary question: are they really sure about “mini-nukes”?
Just read further and you will also doubt that it might have been “mini-nukes”.
One of such seismograms which purports to show the two alleged explosions
of “mini-nukes” under the WTC South and North Towers – allegedly “filtered”
in diapason 0.6 – 5 Hz.
On these seismograms (being widely circulated in the Internet and being freely available until now on the
Columbia University website: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html ) are clearly
visible two underground nuclear explosions – at 09:59:04 and at 10:28:31. These two were the nuclear
explosions, without any doubt; they can not be mistaken with anything else – the two spikes are simply
too short in time and too big in amplitude, to be mistaken with an earthquake… Still, it does not mean that
these seismograms are necessarily genuine – it could be as well a part of the US Government’s covert
support for their concoction for the “patricians” and their “leakage” to the wilderness of the Internet might
have been intentional. Let us consider these seismograms more carefully.
- 6.1.1. What is the most doubtful is that the US Government and the FBI, who confiscated all videos of
the alleged plane which hit the Pentagon, and who do not want until now (this being said in June 2008) to
release passenger-lists of the 4 allegedly “hijacked” planes, nevertheless, still tolerate the presence of
these seditious seismograms on the official web site of the Columbia University. The mere fact of these
seismograms’ existence on the official web site somewhere in the Internet within the US jurisdiction is the
best proof that these seismograms are bogus. They apparently serve some special purpose beneficial to
the US Government (at least covertly) and therefore they must be automatically presumed to be false.
Besides, the two seismic peaks in these seismograms are also too clear – it seems that someone made
them by hand and a ruler – just to make sure that even a lay person would not miss to notice the two
nuclear explosions on these pictures.
- 6.1.2. What is particularly doubtful in these seismograms is that magnitudes of the seismic spikes are
unreasonably low. It seems that “someone” had really tried his best to “prove” to us that it was “mininukes”
and not anything stronger than that. Moreover, magnitudes of these two spikes – 2.1 and 2.3 on
50
the Richter scale respectively – also attract some doubts. The two nuclear charges which demolished the
two Towers supposed to be of the same caliber. It is because nuclear weapons (especially high-tech
“mini-nukes” – which could only be produced by some highly-developed countries) are very precisely
wrought devises, and both nuclear explosions supposed to go off at the exactly same yield. Since both
alleged nuclear explosions supposed to happen at the same location – with similar ground structure and
similar distance to the seismic station – both of them should have caused seismic spikes with equal
magnitudes. However, there could be a following effect: both nuclear explosions (presumed to happen
underground) supposed to create underground cavities – which are typical for any and every
underground nuclear explosion. Since the positions of the two nuclear charges were quite close to each
other, their respective cavities might easily overlap each other (at least in a rude approximation – if we
disregard any precise mathematic calculations). In this case the energy of the second underground
explosion communicated to the earth would be lower than that of the first one, because it would be partly
decoupled by the adjacent (and probably overlapped) cavity left by the first explosion. Strangely, in this
particular seismogram it is vice-versa – the first spike is only 2.1 and the second one – is 2.3… This alone
is not a proof, of course, it is only a suspicion, and in this particular sense I could be mistaken, but I am
sure that I am not. Anyhow, these seismograms are false and it will be proven below by some other
logical considerations.
- 4.1.3. Besides the abovementioned seismogram, the same webpage of the Columbia University site11
published the following table which purports to represent the 9/11 seismic events:
But before analyzing the below seismic table, please, try to remember that:
1) aluminum projectiles can not penetrate steel targets even in theory;
2) suicidal hijackers can not survive their suicidal missions;
3) real planes’ impacts can not cause black frames right in the middle of the impact scenes recorded
by various different video-recording equipment;
4) cellular phones can not function at the cruise altitudes of commercial airliners;
5) commercial aircraft can not fly at their full cruise speeds at altitudes of only 350 meters above the
ground;
6) typical Saudi-Arabian passports are made from some pretty common paper and carton and they
can not survive infernos caused by the impacts of fully loaded aircraft (in order to be later found
somewhere below the places of the alleged impacts).
Just remember that there were no physical planes that really hit the Twin Towers on 9/11. Thus anything
that deals with alleged effects of the alleged “planes’” impacts must be presumed to be bogus by default.
Now, at last, you can look at the below table:
11 http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
51
Do you see any cheating? If not, I will point it out to you: it will be proven below successfully, but just for
the simplicity’s sake, please take it now as if being already proven fact: the WTC-7 was also demolished
by an underground nuclear explosion – exactly in the same manner as the WTC-1 and WTC-2. OK?
We see that those “seismic specialists” at service of the 9/11 cheaters wanted to prove to us that an
underground explosion under the WTC-7 which actually caused its collapse was allegedly only a 0.6
magnitude seismic event, while the impacts of the “plans” as high as several hundred meters above the
ground were respectively 0.9 and 0.7 magnitude seismic events? And they want us to believe them?
Here is the second very well known fact: when in 1993 some real terrorists detonated alleged “over half
ton of explosives” in the basement floor of the WTC (in fact it was a mini-nuclear explosion of about 0.1
kiloton, but this is the “patrician” truth) it was not detected by any seismic station – either in the Columbia
University, or anywhere else. Why it so happened? Because those guys who work in the Columbia
University would “detect” only those things the US Government and the FBI approve. The alleged
“conventional explosion” was allegedly “not detected” for the public simply because specialists who
worked in that seismic laboratory understood very well that a mere “half ton of TNT” exploded
underground was still too little to communicate to our planet Earth enough energy to cause any noticeable
seismic signal. Of course, even a conventional explosion of half-ton of TNT would still communicate some
little energy to the Earth, but it would not be possible to notice such a minor seismic event against a
general seismic background – which represents a kind of permanent “noise” of a certain magnitude. That
is why, despite the fact that a real mini-nuclear explosion in 1993 was definitely detected (it supposed to
cause a seismic signal of at least 2.5 or even higher on the Richter scale), it could not have been reported
to the plebeians, for whom it was claimed to be a “conventional” explosion of a “half-ton”. What we could
conclude analyzing this piece of information? First, we could be sure that those seismic “specialists” from
the Columbia University are not as “independent” as they may appear. They would lie to us if the FBI
orders them to do so. Thus we have to be rather careful when dealing with these liars. Secondly, we
could guess that half-ton of TNT exploded underground in location of the WTC Twin Towers would be
such a minor seismic event, that it would not be technically possible to detect it. How come then, that the
two “planes’ impacts”, which happened above the ground have been detected by this seismic station?
And moreover, not only “detected”, but detected with certain alleged magnitudes comparable even to
those of real “mini-nukes” explosions?
One does not have even to doubt that he is being cheated by these “seismograms”. Those rogue guys
from the Columbia University who published such a concoction, were acting under the FBI’s instruction –
which wanted to produce some plausible “evidence” that it were indeed terrorist “mini-nukes” (in the case
of the WTC-1 and the WTC-2) and nothing explosive at all in the case of the WTC-7. These strange
seismograms were just a necessary part of the “patrician” version of the 9/11 “truth” and nothing more
than that. In addition to all of this, the cheaters went as far as to even try to prove to us that there were
allegedly some “planes’ impacts” implying not only that these that aluminum projectiles could penetrate
steel, but also that such processes could allegedly cause some noticeable seismic signals… Means that
these seismograms are definitely not for the “barbarians” like us and we shall not be duped by them.
- 6.1.4. The magnitudes of the two alleged nuclear explosions shown by these seismograms. What do
you think: those magnitudes of 2.1 and 2.3 suppose to belong to which kinds of devices? I will quote here
something verifiable – found by me after a long search on the US Government’s website12. I am quoting:
“…A 1-kiloton nuclear explosion creates a seismic signal of 4.0. There are about 7,500 seismic events
worldwide each year with magnitudes > 4.0. At this magnitude, all such events in continental regions
could be detected and identified with current or planned networks. If, however, a country were able to
decouple successfully a 1-kiloton explosion in a large underground cavity, the muffled seismic signal
generated by the explosion might be equivalent to 0.015 kilotons and have a seismic magnitude of 2.5.
Although a detection threshold of 2.5 could be achieved, there are over 100,000 events worldwide each
year with magnitudes > 2.5. Even if event discrimination were 99% successful, many events would still
not be identified by seismic means alone. Furthermore, at this level, one must distinguish possible
nuclear tests not only from earthquakes but also from chemical explosions used for legitimate industrial
purposes...”, - Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner, Author: "Decontrolling Strategic Technology, 1990-1992,"
before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Tuesday, April 28, 1998.
"Technology Decontrols: Striking at the Heart of U.S. National Security".
As everybody could see, the US Government was actually obsessed with the “mini-nukes” which might be
used against it as long ago as in 1998 – otherwise, the US Congress won’t have such a specific hearing.
It should be noted in this regard, that the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had not been bombed
12 http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/dualuse/leitner.htm
52
yet at that moment, and the 1983 nuclear bombing of American marines in Beirut13 has been forgotten as
15 years have passed since it, but at least three more “mini-nukes” have been recently used against the
United States. One – in the first WTC bombing in 1993, one in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, and one – in
the case of 1996 “Khobar Towers bombing” of the US troops in Saudi Arabia. But in our particular case
now we are not interested right now in an actual development of that “mini-nuclear” intrigue (it will be
discussed in detail later in this book). Now we are interested only in digits: a fully contained underground
nuclear explosion of one kiloton in TNT yield would create a seismic signal with magnitude of 4.0 – as
claimed by the US Government’s own specialist. While a fully contained underground nuclear explosion
of 0.015 kiloton, as well as properly decoupled (for cheating reasons) underground explosion of 1 kiloton
would both create a seismic signal of about 2.5 in magnitude. Since supposed explosions of the “terrorist
mini-nukes” in the lowest underground floors of the WTC Twin Towers would never be real underground
nuclear explosions, they would communicate to the Earth much lesser amounts of the energy in
comparison with the respective explosions of the same yield which are truly underground ones. I guess it
is clear – that if you simply bring a “mini-nuke” into a basement of the WTC (let’s say into its lowest
underground parking floor) and detonate it there its energy which suppose to cause a seismic signal
would be largely disseminated in the basement – so by no means such an explosion could be considered
being truly “underground”. It would be a normal atmospheric nuclear explosion and it would be quite
complicated to measure its exact yield based on the seismic data alone – which was designed to
measure exactly only real deep underground explosions. In any case such a measurement would only be
guessing. Let’s try to guess now – what those cheaters from the Columbia University attempted to tell us
by their alleged “seismograms”. Here is just one of the basic premises: it is believed that if some country
possesses a ready underground cavity of 100 meters in diameter (such as the one left by a former
underground explosion of 150 kiloton), and if this country would detonate inside such a ready cavity a
new nuclear charge of 1 kiloton (in order to avoid secretly the nuclear testing ban), such a secret
explosion wouldn’t be detected at all by controlling services of other counties, because its seismic signal
would be almost completely decoupled by an existing cavity. The above was just an example that one
could base his calculations upon, because it would be really difficult to guess if one does not have any
basic data at all. Again, what those cheaters, who drew those seismograms with perfectly clear spikes of
2.1 and 2.3 in magnitudes, wanted to say to the “patricians”? In my opinion, they wanted to say the
following: “terrorists” detonated two “mini-nukes” of 1 kiloton in TNT yield in the basements of the WTC,
but their seismic signals were decoupled by empty spaces of the basements. Thus it shows slightly above
2.1, instead of the 4 – expected in case of a “normal” deep underground explosion of one kiloton. The
“patricians” are supposed to agree with such “logic” and to believe that these two suspiciously perfect
spikes of nuclear explosions were indeed caused by “mini-nukes” which demolished the WTC-1 and the
WTC-2. While the WTC-7 was demolished without any “nuclear” spike at all – it simply “fell by itself”. And
the “patricians” have apparently believed such a confidential “truth”.
- 6.1.5. I quote here again the phrase taken from the abovementioned Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner:
“…Although a detection threshold of 2.5 could be achieved…” . Does anyone understand what it means?
It means that magnitude 2.5 is such a low magnitude that a specific seismic signal of 2.5 could be barely
recognized at all against the noisy seismic background which has about the same peak magnitude. Even
he admits that it is still possible to distinguish a nuclear spike of 2.5, this would be extremely difficult task
to achieve. And what do you think about 2.3 and 2.1? Could their detection threshold be so successfully
achieved as shown in the abovementioned seismograms? Where the two alleged “nuclear spikes” are so
distinct against the completely absent background seismic noise which itself supposed to reach from time
to time 2.5 in its maximum? Is your intelligence insulted yet? But even this is not all. Not only the 2.3 and
2.1 seismic spikes have been successfully “detected” by those perspicacious guys from the Columbia
University. They managed to successfully “detect” the alleged seismic signals of the “planes'” impacts and
even the “conventional” WTC-7 collapse, which, according to their ravings, has produced a seismic signal
as low as only 0.6. Besides of all, it shall be known that it is normal to filter seismic signals for a reason of
distinguishing suspected nuclear explosions from ordinary earthquakes at 0.6 Hz alone. Sometimes they
13 An officially dubbed “1983 Beirut barracks bombing” – was a major nuclear incident on October 23, 1983, during
the Lebanese Civil War. Two alleged “truck bombs” allegedly “struck” separate buildings in Beirut housing U.S.
and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S.
Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had
been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Officially, of course, it was declared as a “conventional”
bombing – not to scare the lay civilians, but in reality it was a pure double nuclear bombing – with corresponding
perfectly “mushroom-formed” cloud and corresponding number of casualties. Nobody in the immediate vicinity of
the nuclear explosions survived: the death toll was a perfect 100%. The US Government that was forced into the
corner by its awkward cover-up attempt had no choice than to venture into Grenada Invasion right on the very next
day after the Beirut Barracks bombing in order to somehow distract attention of shocked American public away
from the nuclear blast in Beirut. French Government followed suit and hid the truth from French public as well.
53
also filter the seismic data at 1.25 Hz alone. But look at the seismogram picture above – they claim that it
was filtered in diapason raging from 0.6 till 5 Hz… And still those alleged “spikes” of such an unbelievably
low magnitudes are distinct against absolutely noiseless background… I will quote here again something
important from the abovementioned Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner: “….There are about 7,500 seismic
events worldwide each year with magnitudes > 4.0… …there are over 100,000 events worldwide each
year with magnitudes > 2.5...” Now just try to imagine how many seismic events happens each year with
magnitude > 2, how many – with magnitude > 1, and how many with magnitude > 0.5. Imagine? Now try
to divide that imaginary number by 365 – to see how many of them happen every day. Now again – divide
the resulting digit by 24 – to see how many of them happen every hour. And now – please, look at that
“seismogram” again and take notice that it allegedly embraces a period of time of roughly 3 hours. Did
you see any trace of those supposed extraneous seismic events? I guess everybody understands, that
those rogue guys from the Columbia University simply laugh at us by using our supposed ignorance…
The above is a seismogram of the May 21, 1992, Lop Nor (Chinese nuclear testing ground) underground
nuclear explosion believed to be in between 700 and 1800 kiloton in the TNT yield. This seismogram was
obviously filtered in much narrower frequency diapason since it is professional. It is just for comparison.
These are another two seismograms: the above – of a typical earthquake, below – of a typical nuclear test.
This is how a real seismogram supposes to look like. Try to compare it with that of the Columbia University.
I guess it is clear enough that these notorious “seismograms” concocted by the Columbia University were
primarily intended to cheat some people (apparently, not the “plebeians”, but the “patricians”) to the effect
that some “mini-nukes” have been allegedly used by those brutal “Muslim terrorists” to demolish the Twin
Towers. But we have successfully proved it here that those “seismograms” themselves are cheating stuff.
Thus anything what they purported to represent should be logically presumed to be cheating also: it was
not “mini-nukes” that demolished the Twin Towers and the WTC-7, it was something different… Later, in
the Chapter devoted to actual nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers, it would be one more time proven
that people from the Columbia University cheated us and real seismic events before the Towers begun to
collapse were well over 5.5 on the Richter Scale; but for now the abovementioned will be sufficient.
- 6.2. Another argument of the proponents of the above theory is that alleged Electromagnetic Pulse
(EMP) of those alleged nuclear explosions in the basement floors the WTC was so “powerful” that it even
caused passenger cars parked along some streets adjacent to the spot to explode with their doors burst
open and to cause such cars to be partly burned down. There were even some “eye-witnesses” hired to
54
testify to this effect. The most strange thing was that several half-burned (for some truly unknown reason)
cars have been indeed found on adjacent streets and have been photographed accordingly – which led to
reasonable suspicions that this was nothing else than a special trick intended to “adjust” evidence to this
particular claim. It was especially suspicious, because such “half-burned” cars have been indeed nicely
and exactly “half”-burned – such as shown in the left picture below. It is pretty obvious that these cars
were not “half-burned” by any alleged “mini-nukes”, but were subjected to blow-lamps and hammers of
the FBI agents who were deployed around ground zero with a task to inflict the typical “atomic” damage.
This “half-burned” car is no more “genuine” than the above “seismograms”…
Strange nicely “half-burned” by alleged EMP Another police car – in even closer proximity to the
police car in the immediate vicinity of the WTC. WTC – which managed not to be “half-burned”.
The most seditious picture of 2002 Bali Bombing.
Here is a “naturally” half-burned car after a real “mini-nuclear” explosion – known as “2002 Bali Bombing”.
It is just for comparison – compare it with that so nicely and so precisely “half-burned” police car above…
Please, note that this well-known effect of “half-burning” of cars during an atmospheric nuclear explosion
in the open actually occurs not because of EMP, but because of extreme heat caused by radiation from
fireballs of the nuclear explosion in visible spectrum, which has the very same nature as normal light as
received from our Sun, but much more intense. Note also that this car was not burned by ordinary flames,
because its “shady” parts managed to strangely retain their green painting, which won’t happen in case of
common fires. Those parts of the car which faced the nuclear fireballs were shortly subjected to some
intense irradiated heat, but not to actual flames. You can also imagine what kind of burns such thermal
radiation would cause to human skin: people who happen to be there would be also “half-burned” – the
burns covering about 45% of their bodies. Someone might wonder – why did the farther vehicle lose its
painting completely even on its “shady” parts? It is because its position was sufficiently closer to the
55
hypocenter and so it occurred within a zone of higher temperatures. The green car was apparently more
“lucky” – its position was farther from ground zero.
The consequences of the 2002 Bali bombing as shown in this “seditious” picture clearly testify that it was
an “open” nuclear explosion, while it was not in the case of the World Trade Center. People in the case of
the 2002 Bali bombing received heavy burns – very typical for an atmospheric nuclear explosion – i.e.
burns covering exactly 45% of their bodies, plus heavy radiation injuries. Many of them died in the next
couple of days, and almost all the rest – died in about 30 days time (30th-31st day is a standard “dead-line”
– to die from moderate forms of radiation sickness). Moreover, all these people who wandered around
this area of the recent nuclear explosion, had a good chance to die from radiation sickness too – because
they apparently inhaled deadly microscopic radioactive dust – abundant in the shown zone. That
microscopic dust was especially highly radioactive during the very first hours after the “mini-nuclear”
explosion. It is believed that the “mini-nuke” in Bali went off at only 0.01 kiloton, maximum – at 0.015
kiloton (15 metric tons) in TNT yield.
Now, at last, you could imagine an approximate direction of propagation of thermal radiation in the case
of that green car in the event of 2002 Bali [nuclear] bombing. To figure out this direction is relatively easy
by looking at the remaining green parts of the car and imagining that these parts were in a “shady” side
regarding the actual nuclear fireballs. The actual “shade” could have been provided by two factors:
1) by actual position of the green car towards the fireballs of nuclear explosion;
2) by some extraneous subjects partly shielding the car from thermal radiation emanating from the
nuclear fireballs, such as some buildings in between, other cars, trees, etc.
Now, please, try to determine a potential direction of propagation of thermal radiation in the case of that
nicely “half-burned” car allegedly found in the WTC “Ground Zero”, as shown in the first picture. It is not
possible to figure out such a direction, unfortunately, due to the fact that “half-burning” is too precise. This
is the very proof of it being false evidence. That car was apparently “half-burned” by a blow lamp…
Unfortunately, this claim about EMP is utterly unreasonable and could only be put forward by the people
who know absolutely nothing about true nature of such Electromagnetic Pulse resulting from a nuclear
explosion (or possibly by those pretending not to know it). The problem is that if it were true that there
was such powerful Electromagnetic Pulse as claimed that it was even able to cause cars to burst open
and even to half-burn them, then EMP would first damage all electronic devices in the surrounding area
(starting from microelectronic devices, of course) and relatively robust passenger cars would definitely
occupy last positions in a list of potential “victims” of that EMP. I think that general ignorance of the
gullible public should not have been exploited so shamelessly like in the case of this particular claim. It
should be known that any Electromagnetic Pulse resulting from any nuclear explosion would completely
and without any doubt interrupt any and every kind of communication channels – be it radio or even wired
ones – around that area, which apparently did not happen around the time of the Towers’ collapse.
Neither radio-communications between firefighters, nor any radio- or TV- news coverage have been ever
interrupted. It should be noted that all various radio-communication equipment belonging to firefighters
and to police officers and all electronic medical equipment belonging to paramedics (not to mention
mobile phones, pagers, computers, TV-sets, radios, digital photo- and video- cameras and even digital
wrist-watches of the ordinary people around the WTC) remained in working condition; if it were damaged
it was only due to mechanical damage – caused by debris or by dust, but definitely not by any EMP.
Yes, there were also well-known shortages in electricity supplies, as well as some interrupts in radiocommunications
and in mobile phone services connected to the Twin Towers’ collapse, as well as some
interrupts in a fixed telephone system. But one could probably understand that all those shortages and
interrupts have not been caused by any Electromagnetic Pulse, but only because the collapsed Towers
had contained some radio-communication repeaters and cellular transmitters. And, partly, also due to
mechanical damage caused to the surrounding area – as a result of which there were some power-lines
and fixed telephone-lines damaged. This was the very factor which caused power shortages and some
communications interrupts. However, all the communication devices, even those which did not actually
function after the collapse, still, remained electronically undamaged and could resume their functioning
later. You could be pretty sure that there has never been any Electromagnetic Pulse strong enough to be
even noticed and this entire argument shall be discarded at once as the most ridiculous speculation.
However, the facts concerning EMP as mentioned above are good to remember for future use – because
EMP is nothing else than an alienable part of any and every nuclear explosion (except only a deeply
buried underground one); so the fact of the absence of any EMP in the abovementioned case would be
56
needed for the future disproof of any lies in regard to alleged nuclear munitions which might allegedly
“explode” in either the basements or even in the deepest underground floors of the WTC.
- 6.3. One more argument of the proponents of the “mini-nukes” theory is that they claim that many
people who happened to be around the WTC area shortly before the Twin Towers began to collapse,
allegedly developed such “typical after-nuclear” ailments, as they14 call it “…burned or hanging skin,
without fire, like so many Hiroshima victims…”. Apparently none of such people have ever had any
chance to see any “Hiroshima victims” in order to examine their skin; still they continue to claim that
nonsense. The problem is that any kind of skin disease resulting from the nuclear explosion could only be
caused by radiation – in either visible spectrum, as well as its infra-red and especially ultra-violet subvarieties
(i.e. by direct burns from its thermal radiation) or in invisible spectrum (i.e. by the direct impact of
invisible gamma- and especially beta-radiations + neutron-rays emanating from the same source – which
is normally referred to as “penetrating radiation”). If we imagine that alleged explosions of “mini-nukes” at
the basement floors of the Twin Towers were so “open” that they even caused skin damage to some
people, why then the actual nuclear fireballs went unnoticed by anyone? One might imagine that such
nuclear fireballs should have been outshined our Sun by at least 10-fold and the intensity of light instantly
released in that case should have been resembling a kind of a flash known to be used in photography.
Those who would be unlucky to look into such a thing directly would definitely loose their ability to see
anything for at least a couple of minutes, if not for a couple of hours. Did anyone notice anything similar?
And in any case if there would be some radiation capable of damaging skin, then, automatically, it would
be also very strong EMP (exactly as described in the above Clause 6.2) emanating from the same source
– which would without any doubt damage all electronic devices in the surrounding area and interrupt all
kinds of telecommunications. In addition to EMP, there would be another effect expected – all those
alleged visible and invisible rays, capable of damaging skin (including not only ultra-violet and gammarays,
but also X-rays), would additionally destroy (overexpose) all photo films (those days many people
still had old-fashioned non-digital cameras, which used ordinary negative films, which were highly
vulnerable to such radiation – even in case if this gamma-radiation enters not through its lens and open
shutter, but penetrates via the camera’s thin plastic case). Apparently, this did not happen in reality –
everybody could still use their mobile phone and normally have their film developed without any slightest
sign of its being overexposed. And in any case one shall remember that a nuclear weapon (even such a
small one as a so-called “mini-nuke” of only 1 kiloton in TNT yield) is still an extremely dangerous thing –
which would necessarily produce some ionizing radiation strong enough to lethally injure human beings in
its close proximity and to seriously (with a probable rate of further lethality of 90% and more) – injure
standing human beings even in distances of several hundred meters. And, unlike radiation injuries
caused by cumulative doses of radioactive contamination (which are usually chronic, which could proceed
in human’s body largely unnoticed but case leukemia or various kinds of cancer several years later),
radiation injuries caused by a hard front of penetrating radiation would always cause injuries which are
acute – i.e. immediately noticeable: ailments within he first couple of hours and possible deaths within
several days. One might make his or her own calculation based on this premise: 1 kiloton of a nuclear
explosion would produce a front of penetrating radiation with a strength capable to fatally injure standing
human beings in distances of up to 800 meters – because they would get a lethal doses of 500-600
Roentgen (or you can measure it in “rem” units which is about the same15); in further distances (let’s say
slightly over 1 kilometer) standing human beings would acquire 200-300 R doses, which would cause
extremely heavy cases of acute radiation sickness (with a rate of mortality up to 90%); and even in farther
more distances standing human being would acquire still over 100 R doses which would cause – not
necessarily heavy cases of radiation sickness – but nevertheless acute16 cases of it. The consideration
14 This particular claim was found on this web site: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
15 Formerly, at first stages of nuclear science, it was unit of “Roentgen” (R for short) generally accepted to measure
radiation doses; however, later it was reconsidered – because “Roentgen” traditionally deals only with gamma-rays,
while penetrating radiation is represented by full spectrum – alpha-rays, beta-rays, gamma-rays, fast neutrons, etc.,
all of them having damaging effects on human organism. So later there were adopted “correlating” measurement
units, which purported to be more “correct”: such as “BER” (Biological Equivalent of Roentgen) – in former USSR
or “REM” (Roentgen Equivalent Man) in US; besides of those there is also “RAD” unit (Radiation Absorbed Dose)
– typically used to measure doses acquired from absorbed radiation (means not from penetrating radiation, but from
radioactive contamination) - which for X-rays and gamma-rays is equal to “REM”; just to spare you: without raking
your brains, you could roughly presume that all of those units are about equal – when it comes to an actual nuclear
explosion and to measurement of lethal doses – 500 R or 500 Rad or 500 Ber or 500 Rem would kill you in exactly
the same manner. Still, many old-fashioned people (like me) prefer to measure radiation doses in Roentgen units.
16 “Acute” here means that such a radiation sickness is noticeable immediately – in a couple of hours, or maximum
in a couple of days – as opposed to “chronic” – which might easily take its course scarcely noticed for years, but
result in leukemia or in other kind of cancer at the end. It shall be known also that not only heavy cases of radiation
sickness cause deaths, but the moderate ones cause deaths as well: 90% of people who suffer from heavy radiation
57
above was applicable to a single nuclear explosion of 1 kiloton. Consider also that there should have
been two (one for the WTC-1 and another one – for the WTC-2) alleged “mini-nukes”, which supposed to
go off shortly one after another. It shall be presumed then that everyone in this area and around it should
have been struck not by just one front of penetrating radiation, but by two. It should be known also that
any kind of acquired radiation dose (be it from either instant penetrating radiation or from radioactive
contamination) has a “cumulative” nature – meaning that different amounts of radiation doses acquired on
several instances could be simply summarized. So that if someone has received not yet lethal dose (but
very close to the lethal dose) by penetration radiation from the first alleged blast of the “mini-nuke”; then,
from the explosion of the second alleged “mini-nuke” 30 minutes later it would be guaranteed for him to
get a dose about twice as much as the nominally lethal one. And the same calculation is also applicable
to the people standing in father distances – let’s say if someone whose position was 1,5 km away from
the spot would get just only 100 R from the first explosion of alleged “mini-nuke” and his condition due to
radiation sickness would not be life-threatening yet (he or she would also develop acute radiation
sickness, but in a light form, which will probably in a couple of months heal itself even without any specific
medical treatment), when he would be struck by the front of penetration radiation from the second
explosion of a “mini-nuke” only 30 minutes later he would get another 100 R (so he will acquire 200 R in
summary) and this will cause already heavy condition – the ensuing acute heavy radiation sickness will
be life-threatening – with a high probability of death. Let’s draw a logical conclusion: if any “mini-nuke”
(especially if it were two “mini-nukes”, not just one) would really explode in the basement floors of the
WTC Twin Towers as claimed – without any doubt it would cause a lot of cases of acute radiation
sickness – ranging from lethal ones (when the people will die in a few days even despite medical
treatment) and very heavy ones (when the people would require such a serious medical treatment as a
bone marrow transplantation) to just light and medium ones – which would cause many people to feel
immediately sick and remain sick for weeks and also cause some deaths, even despite medical
treatment. Apparently, this did not happen as well – nobody is known to be hospitalized with any
symptom of acute radiation sickness immediately after 9/11. Actually, all cases of radiation sickness
related to the WTC nuclear demolition (practically only among ground zero workers and among nearby
Manhattan residents) were chronic rather than acute – being caused not by penetrating radiation, which
suppose to instantly emanate from an actual nuclear explosion, but only because of absorbing and
accumulating of dangerous radiation doses from radioactive contamination, especially from radioactive
vapor – which was a totally different case. Considering all said above one may conclude that it was
simply logically impossible that an alleged radiation in visible spectrum has caused some skin diseases
(as claimed) while in the same time there were no any noticed cases of acute radiation sickness caused
by penetrating radiation, which is an alienable part of any nuclear explosion. This argument is also
nothing else than a ridiculous speculation.
- 6.4. Another argument of the proponents of the “mini-nukes” theory is that they try to use the fact that
there were practically no dead bodies and not even body parts found among the main pile of the WTC
debris – because all what has been found there was just only that well known microscopic dust. This fact
led some “conspiracy theorists” to yet another ridiculous speculation. They claim that allegedly all people
from the WTC Towers have been “vaporized” as a result of the explosions of those alleged “mini-nukes”.
This speculation shall be countered as follows: if the people have completely “vaporized” – why then the
dust itself has not been “vaporized” as well? Is there any logic in such a claim? It shall be understood –
that a potential explosion of any SADM (or “mini-nuke”) would never release enough energy to
“evaporate” human beings in distances over let’s say 35 meters from its hypocenter. It would kill them, of
course – by an actual explosion, but an extreme heat, by air blast-wave and by ionizing radiation in
combination, and most probably it would also tear them apart and throw parts of their bodies everywhere
around. But, still, it won’t be able to completely evaporate their neutron-ridden, smashed and charred
remains – so a coroner would still have something to deal with even after an explosion of a “mini-nuke”.
One might make his/her own calculation based on this particular premise: 1 kiloton in TNT yield of a
nuclear explosion is technically capable of evaporating just only 80 metric tons of dry granite rock which is
not actually much. Moreover, these mentioned 80 metric tons it would be able to evaporate exclusively
from among its immediate surroundings (let’s say 5 meters around its hypocenter); because in farther
distances 1 kt in TNT yield would be able to evaporate far less than 80 metric tons due to an apparent
dissemination of its energy. Considering that the Twin Towers were over 400 meters tall, it would not be
possible to “vaporize” anything at all even in their middle floors, not to say in their upper floors. Moreover,
it shall be also understood that if the energy, instantly released from a nuclear explosion, would be
enough to vaporize human beings – it would also vaporize any and every other material in the same
proximity – including the very dust. Nobody could expect such an effect that some materials would
sickness die on 10th or 11th day, while 50% of people who suffer from moderate cases of radiation sickness usually
die on 30th – 31st days. People, who were struck by penetrating radiation of > 3.000 Roentgens, could die in only a
day or two; those who were struck by huge doses – let’s say > 8.000 Roentgens – could be killed right on the spot.
58
remain, while all human beings would be selectively “evaporated”. It simply does not work that way.
Especially considering that total incineration (not even to say about “evaporation”) of the human being
requires temperatures almost as high as to melt steel (if someone does not believe – let him check what
the typical temperature at any crematorium oven is and also check as to much long time a human corps
must remain in there to be completely incinerated). This argument is not sustainable at all.
- 6.5. Any explosion of a “mini-nuke” in the basement floor of the Twin Towers would never be a real
“underground explosion” in a sense of a fully contained underground nuclear explosion. It would still have
all features of a typical atmospheric nuclear explosion, so it would feature at least: a certain loud sound –
resembling a burst of thunder – which would reach quite far around the WTC area. Apparently nobody
has heard anything like that, if not counting several speculators who allegedly “heard some explosions at
the basement floors”. Just try to imagine, that if 1 kiloton, which is 1000 metric tons of TNT, would really
explode in the basement floor as claimed – would those speculators hear “some explosions” or they
would simply lose their ability to hear for at least a couple of days? It will necessarily feature air-blastwave,
which without any doubt would shatter all windowpanes in every building around the WTC area
(which apparently did not happen – many windows strangely managed to retain panes of glass even after
both WTC Towers have already collapsed). It would definitely cause certain Electromagnetic Pulse – an
alienable part of every nuclear explosion – (exactly as described in above Clause 6.2) – which would, in
turn, damage absolutely all electronic devices around this area and interrupt all telecommunications
(including wired ones) – an effect, which was apparently missing in reality. At last – any imaginary
explosion of a “mini-nuke” at the ground floor of the WTC Tower (how deep would the exact floor be does
not matter – even at the deepest floor) would undoubtedly cause some debris and other products of an
explosion to be thrown away through the lobby of the building and its lowest floors – onto adjacent
streets. Just try to imagine that 1kiloton in TNT yield of such a “mini-nuke” is still nothing else then ONE
THOUSAND TONS of TNT – i.e. ONE THOUSAND TONS of a highly-explosive material. For example,
some large-caliber conventional aviation-bomb weighing only 5 tons normally causes several buildings
standing close to each other to be destroyed at once, while a 10-tons conventional aviation bomb would
destroy a good block of a city street – so one could make his or her own calculation as to how far such an
explosion of 1000 metric tons of the TNT (even if it happens in the deepest underground floors of the
WTC) would throw debris through the WTC lobby… This also did not happen. There was apparently no
any explosion which might look like or sound like an “explosion”. Thus the entire theory of “mini-nukes” –
irrespectively of whether such imaginary “mini-nukes” might belong to the “foreign” or to the “home”
perpetrators – is beneath criticism.
- 6.6. The last one is just some ordinary engineering consideration. If any alleged “mini-nukes” have really
been exploded somewhere in the basement floors of the WTC Twin Towers as suspected – then they
would definitely cause the following effect. The explosion power of such a “mini-nuke” would never be
enough to reduce to dust the entire 400 over meters length of the rigid Tower’s structure, but it would
definitely be more than enough to completely “undercut” it – that is to say “to sever the entire Tower from
its foundation”. In only a next second after such an explosion the entire rigid Tower’s structure would tilt to
any side and in a next – it would begin to crash with its entire length onto the surroundings. But the
Tower’s structure even in this case would never disintegrate – it was made to be so strong that even in its
potential fall to its side it would remain whole. Apparently this scenario was not that has happened in
reality – as everybody could see in his or her TV. The last “conspiracy theory” – that some “mini-nukes”
allegedly exploded at the WTC Tower’s basements – shall be discarded as unreasonable, despite looking
quite “believable” at the first glance.
- 6.7. And the very last is some logical consideration. Suppose someone would still stubbornly adhere to
the “Conspiracy Theory No.6” – disregarding all technical considerations provided in the above Clauses
6.1 – till – 6.6 – and would still believe that the WTC Buildings No.1 and No.2 (i.e. the Twin Towers) were
both demolished by “mini-nukes” which belonged to Osama bin Laden or to late Saddam Hussein. Then
there would be one very strange irregularity resulting from the following well known fact. The new owner
of the WTC property – Mr. Larry Silverstein – has already admitted publicly that it was him, Mr. Larry
Silverstein, who personally gave a final order to “pull” building 7 in the late afternoon September 11, 2001.
He has said exactly in that interview: “…I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department
commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said,
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it [the WTC-7]…" And they
made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse…”. This was probably the most shocking
admission, portions of which were reproduced in a PBS documentary aired on September 10, 2002, and
entitled “America Rebuilds”. The most shocking part of his interview was not even that he has admitted
that he (Mr. Larry Silverstein) has personally voiced the idea to demolish the WTC-7. The most shocking
thing was, firstly, that there were no any firefighters deployed to the WTC-7 in the late afternoon
September 11, 2001. Therefore we can conclude that Mr. Larry Silverstein did not talk at all to any
59
alleged “commander” of firefighters in regard to the demolition of building 7. According to Chapter 517 of
FEMA's Building Performance Study18 , firefighters were never in building 7: "Preliminary indications were
that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." Here is another account of
events: “Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in
the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].” – according to the Fire Engineering, 9/200219.
Second shocking thing was that even if there have been any decision to “pull” (i.e. to bring it down in a
process of a controlled demolition), even in such a case the procedure of an actual controlled demolition
would not be carried out by firefighters. I guess everybody understands that to demolish buildings is not a
job of firefighters, but that of highly-qualified construction engineers, possessing specific demolition skills.
But the most shocking indeed is not even the two above considerations. The most shocking consideration
will be this: if for example, someone has decided to “pull” (i.e. to demolish) a building in an urgent manner
– amidst the alleged fires ravaging the building. Then what do you think – would that person ever be able
to quickly bring into such a burning building a big number of charges of conventional explosives – along
with all required detonators, to quickly make all necessary calculations, to nicely position these charges
(despite the fires burning around) and to proceed undisturbed with such a precise job as a controlled
demolition? Try to guess. Of course it would never be possible. To prepare a controlled demolition would
take a few weeks at least. Such a sudden decision to “pull” the WTC-7 could only be carried out in one
and only one case: if a controlled demolition scheme was a built-in feature of the WTC-7. Moreover, such
a built-in scheme (if any) could not be based on any conventional explosives, because those explosives
would be damaged by fires in this particular case, and in general case it would simply be too unsafe to
keep large amounts of conventional explosives, all equipped with detonators on a permanent basis inside
such a building. The only possible presumption is that such a built-in demolition scheme was a nuclear
one – which was safe at least on its preliminary stage (unlike conventional explosives, nuclear charges
can not explode either accidentally, nor even in the result of any fire. Nuclear charges can not be even
accidentally detonated – such as a result of some accidental explosion nearby20).
Now if one would take a closer look at what Mr. Larry Silverstein has actually admitted and would try to
analyze a true meaning of his words, one would find that:
1) It was Mr. Silverstein personally, who demolished the WTC-7, and as such this action had nothing to
do with any alleged “commander” of the non-existent firefighters;
2) Mr. Silverstein could only use in this case some built-in nuclear demolition scheme, because such a
demolition scheme (if any) simply could not be based on any conventional explosives.
Theoretically, however, one could also presume for a little while that, instead of such a built-in nuclear
demolition scheme, Mr. Silverstein used the third SADM or a “mini-nuke” – similar to those two alleged
“mini-nukes” which might have been used several hours back to demolish the Twin Towers in accordance
with the Conspiracy Theory No.6. Let us have some fun and keep this “mini-nuke” presumption for a little
while… just see what will happen next.
By the way – Mr. Silverstein’s abovementioned interview was so widely circulated on various websites, in
books and in videos, that even if now someone would at last try to quash any further distribution of his
unprecedented confession, it would be simply too late. Everybody who is familiar with elementary logic
has got the point already: Mr. Larry Silverstein was the one who demolished the WTC-7.
17 Available in the Internet: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
18 Available in the Internet: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
19 Available in the Internet:
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=158382&VERSION_NUM=1
20 Nuclear charges also contain some conventional explosive materials which are intended to “implode” the nuclear
material which will reach its over-critical mass in the process of such an implosion. So it might seem for some
people that an accidental detonation of those conventional materials inside a nuclear charge might cause also
accidental “implosion” and accidental accumulation of over-critical mass which might lead to an accidental nuclear
explosion. Fortunately, it would not be possible – process of implosion requires highly (on a micro-second level)
synchronized detonation of all conventional explosives. Any kind of “unauthorized” detonation of these
conventional explosives would never be so precisely synchronized, so as a result an actual nuclear explosive
material would never reach its over-critical mass – instead, it would only be destroyed by that ordinary explosion, so
such a nuclear charge would render useless. This is actually why nuclear charges can not accidentally detonate in a
sense of nuclear explosion and that is exactly why they consider much safer to keep in comparison with ordinary
explosives which could detonate at any time.
60
Larry Silberstein makes his unprecedented admission about controlled demolition of the WTC-7
during his interview with PBS documentary “America Rebuilds” aired on September 10, 2002.
Coming back to the suspected nuclear stuff involved: the WTC 7 has been apparently demolished in the
same pattern and by exactly the same kind of an alleged nuclear explosion – exactly as the WTC
buildings 1 and 2. Meaning that the WTC 7 has been also first reduced to an “unexplainable” fine dust
and then has fallen strictly down – right onto its footprint with freefall speed, while also spreading large
clouds of that very “unexplainable fine dust” to all around Manhattan. There were exactly the same
streams of radioactive vapors emanating from the debris of the WTC 7, as well as those emanating from
the debris of the WTC 1 and 2. There were the same “unexplainable” high temperatures – recorded
weeks and months later under the debris of the WTC-7 (as well as high temperatures at the spots of WTC
1 and 2). Firefighters have been ordered to use exactly the same radioactivity deterrents (transparently
named “powerful ultra-violet absorbers”) to mix into their water – to be used to extinguish at last those
very “unexplainable underground fires, the most long-lasting in history” – under the debris of WTC 7 – as
well as they have been ordered to do so in regard to the debris of the WTC 1 and 2. Thus, if someone
seriously believes that both WTC 1 and 2 have been demolished by some alleged “mini-nukes”, he must
automatically come to the very same conclusion in regard to the WTC 7, because there were technically
no difference – neither in an actual pattern of the WTC 7 collapse, nor in any ensuing from its nuclear
demolition unexplainable “underground fires”, unexplainable “high-temperatures”, and streams of those
radioactive vapors emanating from the WTC 7 demolition site for many weeks.
Now here is pure logic: if the two alleged “mini-nukes” that have demolished WTC 1 and 2 have indeed
belonged to Osama bin Laden or to late Saddam Hussein (or to both), then the third alleged “mini-nuke”,
which has leveled the WTC 7, must have been also a property of Osama bin Laden or of late Saddam
Hussein. Isn’t it? Based on this presumption we may further conclude that Mr. Silverstein – when he
actually ordered to “pull” the WTC 7, has indeed ordered nothing else than to set off the third “mini-nuke”
provided to him by Osama bin Laden or by late Saddam Hussein. Isn’t it? Or it is also quite possible that
the third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Mr. Silverstein himself (it is indeed very much possible and if
logically thinking we would have to presume so). Logically there would be just only a few possible
combinations in regard to who exactly owned those three alleged “mini-nukes” (if there were indeed any)
that might have been used to level WTC buildings No.1, No.2 and No.7 respectively:
- 6.7.1. The third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Larry Silverstein, while the first two belonged to Osama
bin Laden or to late Saddam Hussein (or that each of the first two “mini-nukes” belonged to either of them
as a variety); so while Muslim terrorists detonated their own “mini-nukes”, Mr. Silverstein answered them
in a worthy manner – by detonating his third “mini-nuke”.
- 6.7.2. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to Osama bin Laden or to late Saddam Hussein (or
both) and Mr. Silverstein was only a mere operator entrusted by their respective owners to set off their
“mini-nukes” when necessary;
- 6.7.3. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to the US Government – which for some not so clear
reason wanted to stage an unprecedented covert nuclear attack on its own citizens – but, instead of
appointing an operator from among highly trusted secret agents or corroborative military officers, has
appointed a lay civilian – Mr. Silverstein (who, besides of all, does not even know how to properly keep
his mouth shut and makes such scandalous revelations about it – as described above) – to pull the trigger
in either of the three cases accordingly;
61
- 6.7.4. While the third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Larry Silverstein, the first two belonged to the US
Government. So that the US Government has detonated their own two “mini-nukes”, while Mr. Silverstein
has detonated his own one “mini-nuke”;
- 6.7.5. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to Larry Silverstein and the entire conspiracy to
demolish the WTC by exploding these three “mini-nukes” belonged to Mr. Silverstein as well, and as such
this conspiracy had anything to do neither with Osama bin Laden, nor with late Saddam Hussein, nor with
any sinister conspirator within the US Government.
Considering that combinations 6.7.1 and 6.7.4 are not logical, and combination 6.7.3 even though logical,
but not serious, the only plausible remaining combinations are 6.7.2 and 6.7.5, while the most possible if
to chose between 6.7.2 and 6.7.5 would be the last one. (One could scarcely imagine Larry Silverstein
making a sinister agreement with a secret emissary of Saddam Hussein, not even to say about any secret
emissary sent by Osama bin Laden – especially considering that Mr. Silverstein appears to be a Jew).
If someone still stubbornly adheres to the “mini-nukes conspiracy theory”, he must exclude from his list of
possible conspirators the US Government first. It is self-evident, that such an unprecedented admission of
Mr. Silverstein that he was indeed the one who had given the final order to pull the trigger in the case with
the WTC-7, automatically excuses the US Government from any complicity. Yes, the US Government
indeed participated in the ensuing 9/11 cover-up, but it does not mean that the US Government has
ordered to demolish the World Trade Center or that the US Government has ever planned such an action.
The only remaining possible culprits in this case (i.e. in case if the entire “mini-nukes” theory is true) are:
- Mr. Larry Silverstein himself (since he has already confessed);
and:
- Osama bin Laden and Co. and/or late Saddam Hussein and Co. (both have denied their complicity).
Considering that guilt of Mr. Larry Silverstein at last has been established, while the same question
remains open in regard to Mr. Osama bin Laden and late Mr. Saddam Hussein, we would better stop for a
while with this so-called “mini-nukes” theory or how we have called it – “The Conspiracy Theory No. 6”.
Again, considering all technicalities, described in above Clauses 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, one might
deem it successfully proven that the World Trade Center has not been demolished by any “mini-nukes” as
claimed. It was simply technically impossible. I guess that by all the abovementioned considerations I did
not leave a stone standing of the entire “mini-nukes conspiracy theory”…
While it is self-evident that Larry Silverstein somehow managed to demolish his newly acquired and newly
insured property, the device, used in its demolition, was, firstly, not a “mini-nuke” (and not even several
“mini-nukes”), and, secondly, it had nothing to do with the US Government. Actually, in any case it shall
be understood that the US Government did not participate in the demolition of the WTC neither by any
conventional, nor by any nuclear explosives, nor by any incendiary devices, nor by any laser or maser
beams, nor by any other hi-tech weapons. One could be sure that the US Government has been truly
unaware of any upcoming 9/11 events.
Now, as I believe I have at last somehow “cleared” the US Government from serious suspicions of
conspiring with 9/11 perpetrators, I could actually proceed to explain everything what really happened
with the WTC and who exactly was behind that perpetration. Apparently, Mr. Silverstein was not alone –
he simply would not be able to do it alone. Of course, he has had some accomplices, but his accomplices
were definitely not Osama bin Laden with Mullah Omar, neither was it late Saddam Hussein. However,
before we proceed to consider the ultimate truth, we still have one more conspiracy theory to disprove.
This theory is also very dangerous and must necessarily be considered first.
Conspiracy theory No.7 or the first introduction to Nuclear Madness: This theory has nothing to do
with the so-called “truth” Number 2, intended by the US Government to cheat the “patricians”, but,
nevertheless, this conspiracy theory is also extremely dangerous – because it was actually intended to
cheat the “barbarians” – i.e. us. Some people claim that the US Government allegedly had nothing less
than two small underground nuclear reactors under each of the WTC Twin Towers and these alleged
“nuclear reactors” for some unknown reason went out of control and melted in a process commonly
known as “China Syndrome” – i.e. that the molten cores of the reactors allegedly melted their way down
62
into the Earth. Moreover, some of them (like a certain Mr. William Tahil – who wrote this book: “Ground
Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC ...” – which is downloadable from the following Internet
address: http://nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf ) went as far as even to even claim that the
uncontrollable overheating of such an underground nuclear reactor would allegedly send shock-waves
powerful enough to reduce the entire WTC Tower into a fine dust. In his introductory word on the very first
page of his book Mr. William Tahil, B.A. claims precisely that there were nothing else than “two nuclear
explosions”, but, he declares, “not atomic bombs have caused these two nuclear explosions”, but certain
“…clandestine nuclear reactors buried deep beneath the towers…”
This particular theory, however dangerous it might be in its intention to cheat the “barbarians”, would still
be disproved. Firstly, because nobody would ever be able to offer any plausible reason for which would
the US Government have such “clandestine” nuclear reactors “buried deep beneath” the Twin Towers.
Secondly, if such a thing as the so-called “China Syndrome” (a/k/a “nuclear meltdown”) would have really
occurred – the entire ground water system under New York City and its surroundings would be severely
poisoned forever. Even if the New York residents would only use bottled water, still other living beings
(cats, dogs, birds, rats, insects etc.) would not be able to survive – which apparently did not happen. And,
thirdly, it is not possible to explain how technically a small (or even a big) nuclear reactor beneath the
rigid building – made of thick steel and concrete – would reduce such a building above itself into a fine
dust? Proponents of this particular theory in their desperate attempts to answer this question subdivide
themselves into two groups.
One of such groups claims that concrete dust (they prudently omit mentioning of a steel dust) has been
allegedly produced when an alleged overheated underground nuclear reactor’s “million degrees heat” had
sent a certain, how they put it, “rapidly expanded water vapor 1000-fold in the concrete floors”. This is a
maximum of what they could say, unfortunately. One does not need to be an engineer in order to
comprehend that such gibberish has nothing to do with reality.
Another group (such as the author of the abovementioned book) tries to be more “realistic” – they claim
that alleged “clandestine” underground nuclear reactor has exploded – apparently in the same manner as
usual nuclear charge might explode – since they operate by terms such as “nuclear explosion” – and thus
it had allegedly sent up the tower certain “shock wave” which, according to them, was the very factor that
has actually reduced the entire Tower structure into fine dust. Yes, this one is quite close to reality, but
there is one little problem. Actually, Mr. William Tahil appears to know at least a little bit about either
chemistry or physics, since he quite freely operates in his book by certain scientific facts as well as by the
specific terminology pertaining to these scientific disciplines. But in the same time it appears that he tries
to exploit general ignorance of his potential readers, while himself being perfectly aware that whatever he
claims in his book simply can not be true.
The problem is that a nuclear reactor and a nuclear charge (such as an atomic bomb or an atomic landmine
or any other kind of nuclear warhead / munitions) use distinctly different kinds of materials for their
nuclear reactions and their nuclear reactions themselves are distinctly different. If the first exploits a socalled
“controlled” or “slow” nuclear reaction, the second one produces an “instant” or a so-called “fast”
nuclear reaction, which in reality is nothing else than an actual atomic blast. In the former Soviet Union,
for example, such elementary things have been taught to pupils during physics lessons in a secondary
school and if Mr. William Tahil would only try to translate his book to Russian and to distribute it in the
former Soviet Union he would only be laughed at. The main material which is being used in any nuclear
reactor – is a mixture of two different isotopes: of Uranium 235 and of Uranium 238. An actual proportion
of U-235 and U-238 could differ for different kinds of reactors (usually richer in U-235 for mobile reactors
– to increase their efficiency factor and poorer – for stationary ones – to decrease their cost), but in any
case the quality even of the richest possible nuclear fuel for mobile reactors would NEVER come even
close to a grade required for a “fast” nuclear reaction. While a nuclear reactor’s fuel could be used in a
“slow” nuclear reaction – i.e. to produce heat, under no circumstances even the richest possible variety of
any nuclear fuel may develop any “fast” nuclear reaction – known as an atomic blast. To produce an
actual nuclear explosion one will need a so-called “weapon-grade” material – normally, highly enriched
Uranium, which consists of almost pure isotope of Uranium 235, or its only alternative – Plutonium 239.
Generally speaking – none of nuclear reactors (which contains neither highly enriched Uranium 23521, nor
21 The poorest Uranium material which could be theoretically used in making an atomic blast should contain at least
over 80 percent of Uranium 235 (practically in nuclear weapons the percent is much higher – usually, over 90% and
up to 100%), while the richest possible Uranium material for reactors ever heard of contains less than 60% of U-235
(practically, however, even nuclear reactors on submarines, which require the maximum efficiency factor, never use
any nuclear fuel with over 40% enrichment by Uranium 235, while all stationary nuclear reactors use nuclear fuel
which contains less than 15% of Uranium 235, since it would be considerably cheaper).
63
any critical mass of Plutonium 23922) may ever end up in an accidental nuclear explosion. In a sense of
an “accidental atomic blast” absolutely all nuclear reactors are absolutely safe. Nuclear reactors might be
unsafe in any other aspect, but not in this particular one. A nuclear reactor can not explode and that’s it. It
is an axiom. Any claim to the contrary – that a certain nuclear reactor might allegedly end up in an
accidental nuclear explosion – is the cheapest speculation possible. It is almost as ridiculous as to claim
that our planet Earth is allegedly “flat”. A maximum of what could really “explode” in case of any nuclear
reactor is vapor from an inner circle of its cooling system – in case if that one would get overheated. But
what about a core of any nuclear reactor, it can not explode – neither in a sense of a nuclear explosion,
nor in a sense of an ordinary explosion. (If someone thinks about Chernobyl at this point – it is better to
forget about it, because the Chernobyl was a pure sample of a public cheating – an ensuing the
Chernobyl “disaster” governmental cover-up was not any better than that in the case of the 9/11 attacks.
The only difference between the Chernobyl “disaster” and 9/11 in this sense was that while the actual
nuclear dangers at Manhattan’s ground zero were intentionally underestimated, in the case of the
Chernobyl the alleged nuclear dangers were greatly exaggerated. From the technical point of view the
Chernobyl “disaster” was a pure act of sabotage. The reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant did
not explode itself, it was “helped” to be exploded – by a “mini-nuke” smuggled into and placed under the
reactor. However, it would not be appropriate to further discuss it here, since our current topic is
different). The point is that a core of an overheated nuclear reactor can not explode. Even its controlled
nuclear reaction one day would turn uncontrollable, still, it won’t cause any explosion. The reactor’s core
could only melt and that’s it. If someone does not believe me – let him consult any specialist on nuclear
reactors or just simply try to educate himself by reading some related articles in the Internet.
Based on this premise, we may conclude that the most bizarre “theory” represented by the above
mentioned book – which claims that some alleged “clandestine nuclear reactors” under the WTC Towers
went out of control, overheated and ended up in a “nuclear explosion” – sending alleged “shock-waves”
which have allegedly “reduced the entire WTC Towers to fine dust”, and, in addition to all of it, have
themselves also melted (without a trace) in a process of the so-called “China Syndrome” (probably only in
order to relive the “9/11 Commission” of such a cumbersome duty and “to hide” any evidence of their own
previous existence) – is beneath any criticism.
However, despite that his actual ravings about an alleged “nuclear explosion” of an alleged “clandestine
nuclear reactor” have been successfully disproved by all the above considerations, still there is something
very badly wrong with the author of the abovementioned book. Let me explain what is wrong. Let us try to
imagine that someone plainly claims that a car featuring a carburetor-type engine would allegedly function
if you fill its tank with a diesel fuel. What would you think of such a person? You would probably think that
this person is simply ignorant and that’s it. Now here is another situation to consider: let’s imagine that we
encounter an apparent specialist in car engines – he explains to you on a professional level how a car’s
carburetor actually works, how to regulate it, what is the difference between a carburetor- and inject-typeof
engines, what is an engine’s compression ratio, what is the octane number of the gasoline, and, at the
end of his comprehensive explanation, he claims that you could easily use diesel fuel in a carburetor-type
engine… What would you think of such a person? Would you think that he is just simply “ignorant”? Or
you would rather presume that he is a clown, whose job is to make people laugh? But the problem is that
an author of the abovementioned book by no means looks like a clown. His book is not intended as a kind
of a comedy. Its author first explains to his reader quite scientific facts – such as he explains a fission
sequence of Uranium, he explains what kind of radio-active isotopes are typically found after any nuclear
explosion, he explains how seismic waves do propagate after a typical underground nuclear explosion, he
explains a lot of other related facts – all on quite a scientific level. And after all of this, he still claims that
nuclear reactors (and not even one, but two!!) might allegedly end up in a nuclear explosion? No, sorry,
this person is not ignorant, unfortunately. This is something much more sinister than just ignorance…
It is highly recommended to everyone to download his book and to take a closer look into some of his
points – then one would probably understand what exactly attracted my suspicions. The author of the
“Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC” is apparently not so “innocent” and definitely not as
“innocently ignorant” as it might appear at the first glance… Mr. Tahil knows the subject very well; he
understands very well all the processes of nuclear reactions – on both chemical and physical levels. You
could be absolutely sure that the author of that book by no means suffers from any delirium – indeed, he
is perfectly aware of what is talking about. The problem, however, is that there are some reasonable
22 Plutonium 239 is nothing else than a by-product of any controllable nuclear reaction. That is why even peaceful
nuclear reactors could be used to slowly (really slowly – it takes many years in reality) accumulate some quantities
of Plutonium 239, which, in turn, could be used to make an atomic bomb. However, it would never be possible that
any critical mass of Plutonium 239 would be somehow accumulated as a whole 11kg piece of this material within
any single nuclear reactor at any given time. Thus it can not cause any nuclear explosion in a reactor even in theory.
64
grounds to suspect that Mr. Tahil knows not just “something”, but absolutely everything – of what exactly
happened with the World Trade Center. Apparently he knows about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme
more than I do (later below you will understand from where my own knowledge comes and you may then
compare it with that of his, if you so wish). I have arrived to this particular suspicion because a mere
amount of knowledge possessed by the author of the abovementioned book in regard to the exact
position and exact effects of these nuclear explosions under the Twin Towers is tantamount to his direct
involvement in designing the actual WTC nuclear demolitions scheme. Even if he did not design it
personally, then he must have been, at least, talking for several hours to its actual designer. By no means
might any casual “innocent engineer” acquire such exact (and apparently top secret) information by
simple guessing… The conclusion is this – the author of the “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the
WTC” obviously knows the entire 9/11 truth – exactly as the author of the current lines does. But there is
a big difference between us – if I do intend (it will be done below very soon, just be patient for a while) to
explain to my reader everything what really happened with the WTC, Mr. Tahil, who apparently knows the
same things, if not more, for some unknown reason tries his best to mislead his reader.
After a long deliberation over what could be a reason behind such a strange scientific fiction, I concluded
that the reason could probably be only this one: the certain “Mr. William Tahil, B.A.” has been hired by
some true 9/11 perpetrators who have ordered him this work. It seems to me that in reality his bizarre, yet
“scientific-looking” book was intended to serve as nothing else than an emergency “last-ditch” cover-up in
case of all other kinds of cover-up would fail and suspicions of the common people would come close to
the truth. One probably knows that the most dangerous kind of lie is that where there is the biggest
percentage of truth being mixed into. For example, the lie (I mean the “truth” for the public consumption)
provided by the US Government about 9/11 is not a dangerous kind of lie, because there is not even a
particle of a truth present in it, so even to the most gullible and to the most primitive people is clear that
this is lie. The second kind of lie (I mean the secret and “awful” kind of “truth” intended for “patricians”) –
which exploits alleged technicalities explained in detail in the abovementioned “Conspiracy Theory No. 6”
– is much more dangerous, because it already contains some “honestly-looking” elements, which makes
such kind of lie much more believable, but, still, it is possible (especially for a specialist) to disprove even
that one. But the kind of “truth” provided by the book of Mr. Tahil is not just simply dangerous – it is
almost as destructive as the very demolition wave which destroyed the Twin Towers, because it contains
almost 98 percent of the truth and only about 2% of lie, which in this particular case would be the most
poisonous 2%… This is the exact reason why I suspected that his book was intended as a kind of highly
destructive weapon to defend the real 9/11 perpetrators at the very last ditch of their defense – in case if
they would be at last put to a corner and there would be no more room to retreat. The real danger is that if
such a book would really widely circulate and many people would get its point – they would be severely
“poisoned” with the wrong idea, which, however, is extremely close to the truth. One could probably
guess that in such a case it would be impossible (judging from the merely psychological point of view) for
these people to switch their minds to begin to believe to the real truth – simply because the truth differs
from this lie by a too little margin. This is the psychological danger represented by this misleading work,
which automatically attracts suspicions that this book was indeed ordered by some serious people, who
understand not only about nuclear weapons alone, but about psychological weapons as well. My
suspicions in connection with the book “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC” are indeed so
serious, that we will come back to this book once more – when later in a course of narrative we will
discuss the exact technicalities of the WTC collapse.
To conclude with the abovementioned book for now, I would say that Mr. Tahil presents to his reader
quite a true picture of everything – and the picture is so exact that he even managed to place his
imaginary “nuclear reactors” to their exactly needed positions – and not only in a sense their exact
depths, but even in a sense of their exact horizontal coordinates, which is the most strange exactness of
his supposed “guessing”. However, the “true picture” of events, as presented by Mr. Tahil, has some two
relatively “minor” faults, which could still be easily corrected as follows: one should take his book,
everywhere where there would be mentioned a “nuclear reactor” – change it to an “underground thermonuclear
charge”. And, instead of digit “2” in regard to the exact number of the nuclear devises used, one
has to use digit “3”, meaning: one nuke for WTC-1, one – for WTC-2, and one – for WTC-7. And then one
will get the true story about the WTC demolition with almost exact technical details.
65
Barbarian truth: Nuclear Coup de Grâce or the H-Hour of
the World Trade Center. Technicalities of the Twin Towers
collapse from the “nuclear” point of view.
The pictures above clearly shows us the South Tower’s collapse: its relatively intact and more or less solid
upper part had tilted to the “wrong” (considering position of the impact spot) side and almost immediately
began crushing all the way down with almost a speed of free fall – spreading for a couple of seconds some
relatively small debris and then – crushing under itself only fine dust, to which the entire Tower’s structure
has been “unexplainably” and instantly reduced. The North Tower managed to collapse in a similar way.
66
Now I would like to explain in brief about some technicalities of the WTC buildings’ collapse – why they
collapsed not so “neatly” as the engineers who created the emergency nuclear demolition scheme have
initially planned and why there was apparently “unplanned” debris and a lot of fine dust flying around.
But before I proceed to the explanation of the particular WTC collapse, I am obliged to explain (at least
briefly) what usually happens during a typical underground nuclear explosion.
Now we suppose that some nuclear charge of 150 kiloton of TNT yield is buried in a relatively hard rock
environment – comparable to a hardness of the soil of Manhattan. In this sample we presume that such a
charge is placed at the end of a vertical borehole in a depth of 200 meters beneath the earth’s surface.
What will be consequences of its explosion? First, there would be an underground cavity of about 50
meters in radius (or 100 meters in diameter). The center of this cavity will be at the former position of the
nuclear charge, of course. The cavity will result because of the disappearance of the evaporated rock.
The entire tremendous energy of an actual nuclear explosion, which in the atmospheric conditions
supposes to create a well-known atomic blast with all its well-known trade-mark destructive factors in the
case of an underground nuclear explosion will be exclusively spent on evaporating of surrounding
materials. You could imagine what will happen next. The cavity will be immediately surrounded by a layer
of completely crushed rock. This second layer, immediately surrounding the cavity, is called the “crushed
zone” in a professional nuclear jargon. The thickness of the second layer (i.e. this “crushed zone”) could
be from 80 to 200 meters – its exact thickness might depend on the hardness of the soil and also on the
relative hardness of the soil in comparison with the hardness of the soil at the exact hypocenter of the
nuclear explosion. But roughly it would be 100-150 meters thick. A shape of the “crushed zone” is usually
not exactly “round”. It normally has an “elliptic” form – with its longest end facing upwards – i.e. towards
the earth’s surface. You can imagine that as a result of its “ellipsoidal” form, the horizontal radius of the
“crushed zone” would be always smaller than the vertical expansion of this “crushed zone”.
The “crushed zone” becomes actually “crushed” because immediately after a nuclear explosion a cavity in
the middle is being created by the pressure of gases resulting from the evaporated rock first. And the
cavity itself becomes empty not only because of the actual evaporated rock’s disappearance, but also at
the expense of neighboring (outer) areas. The cavity expands to every direction due to the extreme
pressure of the gases which (even after an initial drop of it) could still likely exceed 200 atmospheres. To
make it simple: there are actually two stages of creating of such a cavity. At the first stage a “primary
cavity” is created – only because of the disappearance of the evaporated rock. At the second stage a
“secondary cavity” is created – it is actually the same instance of the cavity, but it is larger in diameter. It
67
becomes enlarged to its “secondary” size, because the evaporated gases would press outwardly and
would expand the “primary” cavity at the expense of the neighboring areas of rock. Outer areas become
so tightly compressed that the entire surrounding environment (even if it were basalt or granite rock)
would be completely “dusified” (using a new convenient word invented by Dr. Judy Wood). Later, since it
became extremely fragile, it would be easily crushed into fine dust under the slightest mechanical
pressure. The state of being “dustified” in this particular case is in fact a kind of very interesting state of
any material. Except only after an underground nuclear explosion, it can not be found anywhere else in
the nature. It looks like this: while remaining seemingly “solid” the so “dustified” rock (or whatever other
material) will be immediately reduced to microscopic dust under slightest mechanical pressure. You can
even crush this kind of material to fine dust by simply pressing it with your bare hands for example – it is
that fragile. It could be probably compared with an extra dry (means deprived of any oil) halva or with a
snowball made from snow which was not sticky. Such a “dustified”, yet looking like still “solid” matter will
be the only filling of the “crushed zone”. Then, the “crushed zone” will be immediately surrounded by the
third layer – in professional jargon called the “damaged zone”– which will in our sample be as thick as
about 50 to 150 meters. This zone would contain pieces of rock structure also damaged, but not actually
“dustified” in the abovementioned sense. Then a surrounding area further beyond could be considered as
relatively intact (it will be also somehow damaged; actually, geologists and professionals who detonate
nuclear charges underground also distinguish a so-called “block-fractured zone” and other zones of
lesser damage, but in our case for the sake of simplicity we will disregard the rest and make a rude
estimation that beyond the typical “damaged zone” the material remains undamaged – it will be just
easier for us to think like this).
Considering that in our sample the nuclear charge was buried only 200 meters deep we can make simple
calculation about the abovementioned layers dispositions towards the earth’s surface. We will have: from
the former position of the nuclear charge up 50 meters (the radius is a half of the diameter) there will be a
cavity, next 120-150 meters – some “crushed zone” and this one would almost reach the earth’s surface –
especially considering that an actual form of that “crushed zone” is not round, but rather elliptic – with the
longest end facing upwards. The third layer – the “damaged zone” will probably never reach the earth’s
surface by a strictly vertical vector, because the surface will be reached in the vertical direction the by the
second layer (i.e. by the “crushed zone”), instead. That is how the “layered” soil structure, surrounding a
typical underground nuclear explosion looks like in general.
The drawing above is an illustration of the resistance of the surrounding rock when a cavity is located not
very deep below the earth’s surface. Evidently, the resistance of the rock towards the earth’s surface will
be much less than towards any other direction. Understandably, because everything goes by the way of
least resistance, the cavity will be expanded mostly towards the earth’s surface either; therefore it would
never be ideally round. It will always be ellipsoidal.
Now let’s look at the left drawing below – it approximately shows how the elliptic forms of the damaged
and crushed zones will extend upwards with decreasing of the depth of burial of the nuclear charge (i.e.
with the depth of its “zero-box”). When the nuclear charge is buried very deep (I mean really very deep –
i.e. sufficiently far from the earth’s surface) – the damaged and crushed zones will be almost round and
concentric. However, as the “zero-box” is positioned closer to the earth’s surface, the forms of their upper
spheres become more and more ellipsoidal – it is because then it would be “easier” for the pressure
68
(which actually expands these zones) to propagate upwards – it encounters less resistance towards the
earth’s surface (if the depth is sufficiently shallow, of course). The last situation depicted is when the
propagating upwards fronts of the damaged and crushed zones before reaching the earth’s surface have
reached some underground foundations (a situation 5). If in a situation 4) these crushed and damaged
zones will simply stop propagating upwards upon reaching the earth’s surface, in a situation 5) they will
apparently continue to propagate upwards; and not only will they continue, they will continue much
farther, because the relative firmness of a half-empty concrete tower will be obviously lesser than that of
surrounding solid granite rock. The rest you can conclude yourself.
Now we come back to the question – why the Twin Towers were reduced to such fine dust before their
collapse?
Partly these problems were caused by the “injuries” caused to the internal Towers’ structures by the
alleged “terrorist planes”. As everybody could see in many video clips available on the Internet, building 7,
which had not been damaged by any “plane”, has indeed collapsed very neatly – exactly as planned by
the engineers. But when it comes to the WTC Towers 1 and 2 it was partly due to a certain amount of an
engineering miscalculation (since nobody has ever demolished any skyscraper by nuclear explosions so
far, it is understandable that no one have any experience in this particular field).
Now I would like to explain what exactly happened with the WTC when each of the underground nuclear
demolition charges has been set off and what was the engineering miscalculation (I am only talking about
WTC 1 and 2, but not about the WTC 7, which was much lower in height and also spared by any “terrorist
plane”):
1) A nuclear explosion under the Tower began to develop and the underground cavity began to be
created and to expand to every direction. Since it was a normal deep underground nuclear
explosion, there was neither air-blast wave, nor usual fireballs emitting thermal radiation, nor
Electromagnetic Pulse, nor ionizing radiation that could reach the earth’s surface, nor any sound.
The underground nuclear blast itself went largely unnoticed by anyone around, except that some
people in the immediate vicinity felt some unexplainable shaking of the earth – similar to an
69
earthquake. Indeed, this was noticed and reported by many firefighters, who claimed in their
testimonies that before the Towers have began to collapse from above, they had definitely felt
some earth shaking, and only then the collapse has started23;
2) The top end of the upper sphere of the expanding underground cavity has just nearly reached the
lowest foundations of the Tower;
3) What comes next – is the effect of Towers’ “dustification”. It was caused by the “crushed zone”
which is always immediately adjacent to the actual cavity. The thickness of such a “crushed” layer
would be at minimum as big as the diameter of the cavity itself or even it could be at maximum as
much as twice or even three times as big as the diameter of the actual cavity – especially by its
vertical measurement. We need to consider that Manhattan was built on granite rock, which is
apparently harder than the concrete of the Twin Towers. If the “crushed zone” would extend itself
by the vector of the Tower itself, a thickness of the “crushed zone” layer by that vector would be
apparently “thicker” than its thickness by any other direction towards the remaining rock
environment. What I mean is that if the “crushed zone” was estimated to be 100 meters thick in a
typical solid rock environment, then towards the direction of the concrete tower (which is, besides
of all, not “solid”, but contains a lot of emptiness) it might likely extend by double or even triple
that distance. The “crushed zone” is being expanded to every direction with roughly the same
speed as the actual cavity expands itself in the middle, but the “crushed zone” reaches any object
on its way first, because it is outer layer, while the cavity is inner. Thus before the upper part of
the expanding cavity reached the lowest foundations of the Towers, these lowest foundations
were reached by the fronts of first the “damaged zone” and then, almost immediately – by that of
the “crushed zone” – propagating by the same vector. Thus before the Tower’s structure began to
immerse into the overheated underground cavity in order to be molten there, some unexpected
preliminary effect occurred. When the developing upward front of the expanding “crushed zone”
had reached the lowest Tower’s foundations – it sent up through the Tower the tremendous
pressure – which passed up to the upper Tower’s end, and the Tower itself became just an
alienable part of the “crushed zone”. Approximately first 300 meters of the Tower’s structure
became itself the “crushed zone” – and all steel and concrete in the structure (not to mention the
furniture and the rest of the stuff inside, including remaining human beings, of course) were
completely “dustified” I.e. they were reduced to a special condition which is typical during any
nuclear explosion – when the matter has been crushed already, but still looks like “solid” (but only
to be crushed to microscopic dust a few seconds later). Then approximately another 70 meters of
the Tower’s structure above were also crushed to something very small, but not actually
“dustified” – so that this second degree of structural damage began to represent the “damaged
zone” – which in any underground nuclear explosion is the third inner layer – immediately
surrounding the “crushed zone” – as explained above. This is exactly why, when the Twin Towers
just began to collapse, they first scattered some relatively big pieces of debris from their upper
levels, and then only – roughly 30-40 meters downwards – the falling Towers continued to scatter
only the fine fluffy dust – as everybody could see any available TV footage. Finally, the last upper
50 to 70 meters of the Towers were damaged to a much lesser extent, because they were
located quite far from an actual hypocenter of an underground nuclear explosion.
4) The last thing that went absolutely unexpected was this: the upper parts of the WTC Towers were
not only damaged to a much lesser extent in comparison with the lower parts of the Towers (as
mentioned above). It was also partly due to the “injuries” inflicted to the steel structures of the
Towers by the two alleged “terrorist planes’” impacts. Since the alleged “terrorist planes” (or to be
more precise – cleverly positioned hollow-shaped charges that should produce a hole matching
that of the plane’s silhouette) have obviously severed some perimeter structures, they created an
additional “unexpected” gap between the lowest parts of the Towers (below the spot of the
alleged impact) and their upper parts (above the spot of the alleged impact). This “gap” has
apparently played an additional role in decreasing to a certain extent developments of the
“damaged” and “crushed” zones by the upward vector. While the Tower’s structures below the
impact spot were “dustified” almost completely, parts of each of the Towers above the impact
spot were damaged to a much lesser extent and remained more or less rigid and heavy pieces of
the structures.
5) It shall be also understood that the time the “damaged” and the “crushed zones” traveled towards
23 “Shortly Before 9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ground Shakes Prior to South Tower Collapse”:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_911=aa77&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=24
00 ; http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110200.PDF
70
the Towers’ tops was less than a second. It is because the speed of waves traveling in metals is
supersonic – exceeding speed of sound in air by several times. However, some 11-12 seconds
after the underground nuclear explosions, but before the Towers’ collapse were spent on heating
and evaporating the rock and also on creating a certain “breaking point” – i.e. the point when the
materials surrounding the cavity of primary size yielded under the pressure of the gases trying to
expand the cavity. Only once this “breaking point” has been created the actual “crushed” and
“damaged” zones have been born too and began their journey upwards at the supersonic speed.
It is very important to understand this, because many people realize that there was an about 11-
12 seconds long time-gap between the actual moment of a nuclear explosion (which could be
determined by the Tower’s shaking) and the moment the Tower started to collapse, but can not
understand why the Tower’s top “waited” for the entire 12 seconds for the entire Tower’s body to
be “dustified” instead of going down under gravitational forces in the very first second. It shall be
understood that these 11-12 seconds were not spent on “crushing” and “damaging” waves of the
corresponding zones traveling slowly upwards. These 11-12 seconds were spent on creating the
breaking point below the surface. While actual process of “dustification” of the Tower’s body took
a few milliseconds only.
6) In only about 11-12 seconds after the nuclear demolition charge under each Tower has been set
off the pressure propagating upward has transformed the Tower structure to the “dustified” state
– typical to the “crushed zone”. That extended, more or less, up to the spot of the alleged impact
of the “terrorist plane”. The Tower, even though it still looked like a “rigid” structure, indeed has
totally lost its rigidity and became in fact just a formed pile of dust. To be totally exact, we could
say that the Tower was actually not “dust” yet, in reality it was still a bar of the “pulverized matter”
which was still sticking together, but it was as fragile as a completely dried-up “sandy castle”
which was about to became disintegrated under its own weight. Immediately the heavy upper part
of each Tower (relatively intact) began to fall down, pressing and spreading around firstly some
big and small debris (from the “damaged” zone) and then only spreading the further microscopic
dust (from the “crushed zone”) to all around Manhattan. Another interesting observation is this: in
both cases the upper parts of the Twin Towers (it was especially clearly noticeable in the case of
the South Tower, but even in the case of the North Tower it was still noticeable) before they have
started to collapse, had tilted, but both had tilted to a wrong side. It seemed that the directions of
their tilting should have been towards gaps, created by the alleged “impacts”. However, they have
tilted to another side. Why it happened? Because the “crushed” and the “damaged” zones have
both expanded by the undamaged façades of the Towers unhindered. While expansions of the
both zones by the façades which featured the structural damage by the alleged “impacts” have
been definitely hindered (at least to a certain extent). That is exactly why that façade which has
been damaged by the alleged impact, was damaged to a lesser extent by propagating upwards
crushing wave sent by the underground nuclear explosion. This was the reason, why the Tower’s
upper parts have tilted the “wrong” way before starting to crush down the “dusty” structures of the
former Towers…
7) In only a couple of seconds the end of the upper sphere of the expanding underground cavity
from the nuclear explosion has indeed reached the lowest foundations of the Tower, but it was
too late. Above the cavity there was no longer any solid Tower’s structure, but only a fragile bar of
the “dustified” matter with the hard upper part already crushed its way down by about 30% of the
entire Tower’s length. Thus, instead of “sucking in” the entire Tower’s structure as planned, both
cavities in both cases were able to consume and melt down only some relatively minor parts of
the former Twin Towers. Their major parts were reduced to the “unexplainable” fine dust which
was simply thrown everywhere around Manhattan, instead of going into the cavity. Moreover, the
expected “natural” sarcophaguses above the spots of actual nuclear explosions have never been
realized. Since the very materials which have been expected to be used on the creation of such
“natural” sarcophaguses have been simply missing. That is how seeming to be smart – “brave
and modern” engineering solution has resulted in a total fiasco. The only thing which could be
considered “fortunate” in this case is that one could be absolutely sure that not a living being was
any longer alive at the time when the Tower begun to collapse. Every human being inside was
instantly reduced to the same “dustified” state and later – to the fine dust; so nobody suffered too
long. That is exactly why rescue workers at “Ground Zero” were so surprised that they were not
able to find even one part of a body, nor even a piece of furniture – but only the fine dust. Only a
passport of one of the alleged hijackers managed somehow to escape being pulverized and was
found relatively intact. Thus, as opposed to the above mentioned “conspiracy theory No.6” (which
suggests that all the human beings and their remains have been allegedly “evaporated”) – all the
human beings and their remains have been indeed “dustified” – simply because they just
happened to be within the typical nuclear “crushed zone” and were instantly crushed to that
71
special “dustified” state by the extreme pressure of the gases which actually created the very
“crushed zone”. However, those human beings who happened to be in the upper floors of the
Towers – which represented the “damaged zone”, which was above the “crushed zone”, as
expected, were not “dustified”. They were, instead, crushed to some very small pieces. Horrible
confirmation of it came 5 years later – when on the rooftop of the former Deutsche Bank building,
during its pre-demolition cleaning, human remains were discovered24. They were mostly pieces of
human bones as small as only 1/16 of an inch (or 0.15 cm). As you probably remember, the
buildings’ parts immediately beneath the heavy tops of the Twin Towers were not completely
pulverized and there were some small debris which began to be thrown around as the tops of the
Towers’ only began to press downwards (while the fine dust has began a little bit later – as the
Tower’s tops proceeded farther downwards). It should be presumed that these tiny pieces of the
human bones (which were obviously bigger than particles of that well-known fine dust) belonged
to those remaining people who were above the totally “dustified” or “crushed” zone, but beneath
the undamaged tops of the Twin Towers – i.e. exactly within the zone which in the nuclear jargon
is called the “damaged zone”. Actually, a similar effect was noticed even during atmospheric
nuclear explosions. Standing animals (used as live targets) that happened to be struck by air
blast-wave while being not very far from a hypocenter (and immediately killed, of course)
resembled not usual stiff corpses, but a kind of sacks of skin filled with completely crushed
bones. If some human being is killed in such a way, you won’t be able to take his corpse by its
hands and legs as usual in order to load it to stretchers – so devoid of any rigidity it will be. It
seems that during an underground nuclear explosion, those happened to be within the “damaged
zone” also suffered a similar effect.
For those who forgot how the actual core and perimeter columns of the Twin Towers looked like here is
a reminder: some remaining perimeter- and core columns of the Twin Towers (from their upper parts that
were spared by the pulverization) at “Ground Zero”. Each of their walls was thicker than a front armor of
a tank. Make sure to imagine that the same kind of columns that belonged to the lower and middle parts
of each of the Twin Towers (as well as to the entire length of the WTC-7) were instantly reduced to
complete, fluffy microscopic dust that allowed the upper parts of the Twin Towers to reach the ground at
freefall speed as if under them were not remnants of any steel columns by merely air alone.
24 http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=259533
72
The North Tower just began to collapse a moment ago.
These two pictures show the North Towers collapse (which collapsed the 2nd). It is clearly seen that the North
Tower was reduced to exactly the same fine fluffy dust as the South Tower was. In the down right corner it is
clearly visible that the WTC-7 (glassy shining nice brownish building) was not damaged at all. On the right
picture the WTC-7 appears to be a little bit “shorter” than on the left one, but this was not because WTC-7
was “collapsing” in any way, but only because the helicopter with the photographer was on the move and
the second picture has been taken from slightly different angle and with the photographer himself being at
that moment slightly farther from the WTC spot. The WTC-7 has not collapsed in reality until 7 hours later.
Perhaps, you need to watch my video presentation in order to understand more about the mechanics of
the Twin Towers collapses, because in the video it is more illustrative than here, since real 9/11 video
clips are being used there that show demolition dynamics, along with comprehensive animated graphics
that explains actual physical effects of the underground nuclear explosions in general and in relation to
the WTC demolition in particular. The video presentation could be found on the Internet by searching for
“Dimitri Khalezov video” or for “Dimitri Khalezov video download links” or for “9/11thology video” or for
“Dimitri Khalezov DVD”. Seek and ye shall find.
73
Barbarian truth: technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse from the
“nuclear” point of view.
Unlike the WTC Buildings 1 and 2, building 7 was not damaged by any “terrorist plane”. It was not as high
as the Twin Towers, so its entire length managed to fit into the developing upward “crushed zone” alone.
There was no any third “damaged zone” extending upwards by the length of the WTC-7. That is exactly
why in the particular case of the WTC 7 demolition its scenario was slightly different. There was no any
heavy and relatively undamaged part above the main “dustified” structure – which might crush downward,
spreading dust underneath itself as it falls down. That is why – immediately after Mr. Larry Silverstein has
“decided to pull it” – and the third 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge under the WTC-7 has gone critical,
in about 11-12 seconds the entire length of the WTC-7 building has been transformed into a kind of a
dried-up “sandy castle” (being completely “dustified” from its foundations up to its top) which simply
disintegrated under its own weight. That is what exactly happened with the WTC-7.
Why the collapse of the WTC-7 and that of the Twin Towers looked so much different could be easily
understood from the below drawing that shows distribution of damaged and undamaged zones along
these structures related to their absolute height:
This drawing shows distributions of “damaged” and “crushed” zones along the WTC Twin Towers’ and the
WTC-7’s bodies. It is easy to understand that the entire length of the WTC-7 fit into the “crushed zone” alone
and so there were no any undamaged part on top of it that might cause an effect of falling tops as shown in
the Twin Towers’ collapse.
74
These pictures shows the “unexplainable” WTC-7 collapse at about 5.21 EST; the first photo shows the very
beginning of collapse – but there was dust already created – it is clearly seen as beginning to ascend from
the Tower’s footprint. The second one – where the tower’s top fell by about 25% of the entire WTC-7 Tower’s
length already. The dust over its top was not able to catch up with the rest and was obviously delayed; in the
several available movies the “delay” of the dust is especially noticeable. Thus on the second photo the two
distinctly different sources of the dust cloud could be easily seen – one is the dust which began to ascend
from the WTC-7’s footprint, and the second one – is the “delaying” dust which remained from the WTC-7’s
top which has moved down too fast. This picture shows that, unlike in the case with the WTC-1 and 2, the
entire WTC-7 structure was reduced to the dust, even the very top of it – hence was that “delaying” dust.
There was no “damaged zone”, but only the “crushed zone” alone that extended by the entire WTC-7’s
height.
The World Trade Center Building #7 (alias the Salomon Brothers Building) was the dark flat-topped 47-
story skyscraper immediately north of the World Trade Center super-block, across Vesey Street. The
WTC Building #7 was 300 feet from the plaza and its construction did begin only in 1985. It was the latest
addition to the WTC complex. Building #7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like the most modern
skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure.
Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague
description provided in FEMA's “WTC Building Performance Study”. The 23rd floor of the Building #7 had
received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an Emergency Command Center (EMC) for the
then-Mayor of New York Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center included:
· Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows;
· An independent, secure air and water supply;
· The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph (meaning that these EMC windows were virtually
anti-atomic – they were designed to withstand an overpressure of ~6.5 PCI – a very typical
one for air-blast wave of an atomic explosion).
However, the fate of this Emergency Command Center was to be never used in a real emergency...
75
The official theory for the WTC-7 collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of FEMA Report25, is this:
· At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was
shut off.
· Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
· Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the
building. (This means the debris had to travel across the WTC 6 and Vesey Street – a distance of
at least 355 feet, then – penetrate the outer wall of the WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet
of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
· This, and other debris (that also made the journey across the WTC Building 6 and Vesey Street),
managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone
to turn off the generators.)
· The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred)
failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth
floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
· The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to
ignite.
· The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
· The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength,
precipitating a total collapse of Building 7. (This, in addition to the notion that the burning of
kerosene could allegedly weaken structural steel, enriched the contemporary engineering science
with another notion – that the burning of diesel fuel could allegedly achieve the same result.)
Probably, since the authors of the abovementioned claim felt a little bit ashamed, they decided to finalize
their report as follows:
“…The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best
hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are
needed to resolve this issue….”
The abovementioned one was the only official document, published in regard to the WTC-7 collapse.
The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention the WTC-7 collapse – as if it was not worth any mentioning.
Neither a final report of the NIST did mention anything in this regard. Thus, the collapse of the WTC-7 on
September 11, 2001, late afternoon, officially remains a mystery, which no official organization dares to
explain. Even the seismic specialists in the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of the Columbia University
preferred to depict the WTC-7 collapse on their notorious seismogram as only a “conventional” seismic
event which allegedly caused a seismic signal of only 0.6 on the Richter scale – as if such a process of
disintegration of a pile of fine dust (which very much resembled a kind of a soft snow) could cause any
seismic signal whatsoever. A certain “Mr. William Tahil, B.A.” in his notorious book also preferred not to
place any “clandestine nuclear reactor” under the WTC-7; he strangely limited his fantasies to claiming
that there were only two nuclear explosions – under the WTC-1 and WTC-2. Actually, it was only Larry
Silverstein, who publicly admitted that the WTC-7 has been indeed demolished intentionally; however,
without specifying by which means it has been demolished…
Since my video-presentation appeared on the Internet on March 2010 I have received many questions
from the people who have watched it. Many asked me why I claimed that building 7 was completely
pulverized, while it was clearly visible that it was reduced to a huge pile of debris and this pile of the
25 http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch5.htm
76
WTC-7 debris was, in fact, about 5 stories high. In opinions of many this was allegedly a proof that I was
wrong and the WTC-7 was not actually pulverized by a nuclear explosion, but simply demolished by some
conventional explosives – as any other building would. I have no choice than to address this point now –
otherwise it might appear that I am avoiding some important evidence. Therefore I decided to make this
latest addition to this Chapter.
First of all, let’s remember that the WTC-7 was an extremely strong hollow-tube type steel-framed 47
stories high modern skyscraper of the latest generation. Actually, it appeared “small” only because it was
standing near the 415 meters high Twin Towers. If the WTC-7 would stand as a separate structure you
would be surprised to see that it was indeed a skyscraper of its own. It was a very toll building; and a very
strong one. Indeed, the WTC-7 was more rigid than even its two elder twin sisters. Therefore it was NOT
TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE to demolish it using conventional controlled demolition methods – due to the
same set of considerations discussed in the above Chapter dealing with debunking of various conspiracy
theories in regard to the WTC demolition (see debunking of the Conspiracy Theory No.1 there for your
reference).
Secondly, let’s consider if the 5 stories toll pile of the WTC-7 debris was indeed “high” considering that it
was all that remained of the 47 stories toll skyscraper. Just to make it more illustrative I placed here a
couple of photographs:
This is the pile of debris that remained from the WTC-7 (the pile strangely emits vapors that are clearly
visible). It indeed seems to be quite “high”. At least so it appears for a naked eye (or to be more exact so
it appears to a lay person, who is not an architect or a demolition expert). But you will get rid of this optical
illusion that the merely 5-stories high pile of the debris of a 47 stories high skyscraper is allegedly “a huge
pile” if you only look at the picture to the right – where the WTC-7 is depicted. Just imagine that if it were
demolished by conventional means (if it were only technically possible), then the pile of the WTC-7 debris
should have been at least 20-25 stories high. It is self-evident that near the entire body of the WTC-7 was
pulverized and very little remained of that building.
However, one more question remains – why this approximately 5-stories high pile of the WTC-7 debris
did remain whatsoever and why the building was not pulverized completely – as it supposed to be from
the above diagrams showing distribution of the “crushed zone” that seems to embrace the entire building?
Why some relatively undamaged parts of outer walls seem to lay on top of the pile in the above photo?
Let’s read first about the WTC-7 actual design. As it has already become tradition, let’s go to Wikipedia.
I am quoting: “The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building
than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was
located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed
in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a
structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old
caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns
77
in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.”
A diagram is also provided by the Wikipedia article that shows how the transfer trusses that were used on
the 5–7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation actually looked like:
In case if you did not get the point, I will explain what that Wikipedic explanation means. It means that the
WTC-7 foundations were smaller in size than its actual enlarged footprint. It means that if you project the
WTC-7 outer walls onto the earth’s surface, a perimeter that such a projection would draw on the earth’s
surface would be bigger in size than the actual foundations of the WTC-7.
The WTC-7 bearing structure was strange – as appears from the above explanation starting from its floor
No.7 up the building rested upon the abovementioned “system of gravity column transfer trusses and
girders”. This means that the WTC-7 outer walls below that point (i.e. its outer walls 7 stories high) were
merely decorations – i.e. a kind of “false walls”. They did not bear any loads and they were not connected
to the WTC-7 foundations in a structural sense. I think it is quite easy to imagine now how the WTC-7 was
actually designed.
Therefore these “false” outer walls that were 7 stories high were not pulverized. Because the “crushing
wave” (caused by the “crushed zone” of an underground nuclear explosion propagating upwards) began
its way upward the WTC-7’s body after hitting its lowest underground foundations first. And then it was
conducted through the bearing structure of the WTC-7 till it reached the top of the building. However,
such a “crushing wave” could only travel forward. It could not travel back. That is why it can’t affect those
7 stories high “false” outer walls that were not connected to the deep foundations of the WTC-7. That is
why these 7 stories high walls remained more or less intact and when the WTC-7 core and its entire body
from the 7th floor upwards were completely pulverized and so disappeared, these remaining 7 stories-high
perimeters fell inwards creating that about 5-stories high pile of the debris visible on the photograph. You
could even see that the outer walls lying on top of the pile appear to be about 7 stories high (if you count
their rows of windows). This is the explanation to this phenomenon.
In fact a similar explanation is also applicable to another phenomenon – why some lower parts of the
WTC Twin Towers’ perimeters managed to remain intact despite the fact that entire upper parts of their
bodies were completely pulverized? You will encounter this explanation in the next chapter of this book.
In any case you don’t have to doubt that the entire WTC-7 building was reduced to microscopic dust –
this 5 stories high pile of debris should not deceive you. Ground zero responders who worked on the site
of the WTC-7 were surprised that they could not find any piece of furniture, any mouse, any computer
part, any telephone, or any other thing that could tell it was a 47-stories high office building. Apart of those
“false” walls lying on the piles of debris and apart of some number of steel beams (apparently supporting
those “false” walls) nothing could be found in that debris; except only strange microscopic dust – which
was not different from the microscopic dust produced during the Twin Towers’ collapse.
78
Technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse and the rest of the WTC
collapse from the logical point of view. Unproven suspicions.
I would like to begin this chapter with a certain disclaimer: I am not going to bear any
responsibility for anything I suggest in this chapter, and I will not accept any arguments intended
“to disprove my claims” in the future, as well as any accusations that I might lie here, by stating in
advance: I do not know for sure about anything I say here and I am only guessing by using logic.
I will begin this chapter reminding you of one “strange” fact which has been already mentioned in the
beginning of this book. This is about the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center – Mr.
Frank Albert De Martini – the one who gave the strangest interview on January 25, 2001, talking about
the WTC Twin Towers’ resilience, comparing it with a “mosquito net”, and the Boeing – with a pen, which
could do nothing to such a net. As you probably remember, this person managed to strangely disappear
(he is presumed to be dead) during the WTC North Tower collapse. (Do you believe that it was possible
for him to remain there after the South Tower collapse?). It shall be presumed he knew more than others
about the nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC and that is exactly why he “disappeared”. I think it would
be difficult to find anybody alive who could still remember exact details about that WTC demolition idea.
Apparently, a majority of the people who knew anything exact about it disappeared as well.
There is yet another strange fact which apparently needs to be considered here. As it was reported26 later
the exact account of events shortly before the WTC South Tower began to collapse is as follows: “…In
the lobby of building 7 of the WTC, EMS Division Chief John Peruggia is in discussion with Fire
Department Captain Richard Rotanz and a representative from the Department of Buildings. As
Peruggia later describes, “It was brought to my attention it was believed that the structural damage that
was suffered to the [Twin] Towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s
stability was compromised and they felt that the North Tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.”
Peruggia grabs EMT Richard Zarrillo and tells him to pass on the message “that the buildings have been
compromised, we need to evacuate, they’re going to collapse.” Zarrillo heads out to the fire command
post, situated in front of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building, where he relays this message
to several senior firefighters. He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.”
(OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC 7.) Fire Chief
Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?” Seconds later, they hear the noise of the South
Tower as it collapses…”
It appears that according to the existing US laws every skyscraper must have its demolition scheme (not
necessarily nuclear, of course). You would never be allowed to build any skyscraper unless you are able
to provide a satisfactory scheme of its demolition in the future, and, in certain cases – even its demolition
in case of emergency. This is enforced and controlled by no one else than the Department of Buildings.
One don’t even have to doubt that the nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC Twin Towers, which existed
since the beginning of the 70’s, however awful it might sound, was definitely registered in the Department
of Buildings; and there must have been a certain procedure of how to cooperate with the Department of
Buildings’ officials when such a scheme supposed to be implemented.
What was the “representative from the Department of Buildings” doing there? And why there is no exact
name of that strange “representative” provided to the 9/11 inquiry? Just imagine: there are unprecedented
events unfolding in regard to the terrorist attacks, there are fires in the Twin Towers; even the WTC-7 has
been already evacuated a long time ago – including even its Office of Emergency Management. No one
supposed to remain inside the WTC-7. Perhaps with only an exception of some firefighters who did not
care about orders of the Office of Emergency Management and who just found it convenient to establish
a temporary command center of their own in the immediate vicinity of the burning Twin Towers. This is
understandable, indeed. But what the “representative from the Department of Buildings” was doing
inside the abandoned WTC-7? Just try to find any reasonable explanation. I guess that someone has
concocted a story that the WTC-1 and 2 were allegedly going to collapse due to their “weakening” core
structures and has advanced an idea that the Twin Towers had to be demolished using their in-inbuilt
demolition scheme in order to anticipate their uncontrollable collapse. Since such a demolition was
apparently designed to be initiated from the WTC-7, then a representative from the New York Department
of Buildings was summoned there either to be consulted, or to be informed, or to sanction the demolition
of the Twin Towers according to the prepared in advance demolition procedure. That is exactly why that
26 City of New York, 10/23/2001; City of New York, 10/25/2001; City of New York, 10/25/2001; City of New
York, 11/9/2001
79
strange “representative” strangely appeared at that spot at that moment. I simply do not see any other
reasonable explanation. If this “representative” would be there for some other business, except for his
direct involvement into the Twin Towers demolition, let’s say he wanted to participate in some emergency
meeting of firefighters, city officials, and the WTC new owners, then, considering that the WTC-7 has
been long ago abandoned, this “representative” would proceed, instead, to the contemporary command
post of Mayor R. Giuliani – which was established at 75 Barclay Street.
Why they decided to “pull” the WTC-7? Honestly, I don’t know. I am absolutely certain about everything
what I claim in my book – in either part before this chapter, or after this chapter, but I do admit, that in this
particular chapter I am merely speculating. It could be true what I am guessing here, or I could be wrong
as well. My opinion, however, is that I do not believe that both nuclear charges have been permanently
placed under the WTC Towers 1 and 2 and always stayed in their respective zero-boxes. There are two
reasons for thinking so:
1) Any nuclear charge shall undergo some technical maintenance from time to time, because there
are a lot of sensitive things in such a precise devise as a modern nuclear charge, which are to be
cleaned, changed or just being subject of making sure that they are still OK and ready to be used.
This is particularly true for thermo-nuclear charges that suppose to undergo special maintenance
in regard to their thermo-nuclear fuel – deuteride of lithium – that has to be maintained in certain
specific conditions. For this reason, I think, these demolition charges were not designed to be
always positioned in their zero-boxes, but, instead, they had to be kept somewhere – where they
could be easily observed and maintained. I guess that only shortly before their intended use
those charges had to be lowered into their respective boreholes (but actually, not even “lowered”,
but delivered by horizontal delivery tunnels to these zero-boxes in this particular case).
2) As everybody could understand now, any underground nuclear explosion will create not only a
cavity, size of which is easy to calculate in advance, but also two zones around the cavity – one
“totally crushed” or “pulverized” zone and another one – a still seriously damaged zone. Those
professional guys, who have experience in detonating underground nuclear charges, knew very
well that when a simultaneous detonation of more than one nuclear charge is planned, those
charges must be detonated precisely simultaneously. Because if not so, then a destructive wave
from a charge which was detonated first, traveling with an approximate speed of over 2.5 km/sec
(if not faster), would damage the second charge (which has not been detonated yet). Due to this
reason it was apparently impossible to keep one of the charges in its zero-box while detonating
the other charge nearby – such an action would apparently destroy the “stand-by” charge.
Due to the above considerations, I think that none of the three charges – intended to demolish the WTC-
1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 – could be kept in their “ready-to-use” positions always (I mean in “zero-boxes” of
their respective boreholes). I think all these three charges had to be kept in some secure room, where it
would be easy to maintain them and there should be some automatic systems of their quick deliveries to
their assigned spots. I think the delivery systems in this case constituted of some special heavily fortified
tunnels, probably as strong as a typical ICBM’s silos, and each equipped with some mini-rail road. Most
probably such a room (where also these delivery tunnels supposed to begin from) was under the WTC-7
– since it was exactly the WTC-7 which served as the head-quarters of the WTC-property management
starting from 1987. Moreover, I am sure that there was some special pre-designated scenario of the WTC
1 and WTC 2 demolitions: someone of the two Twin Towers was apparently scheduled to be demolished
first and that order could not be otherwise. Logically everybody could feel it – simply because the North
Tower should have been demolished first and it would look “logical” – since the North Tower was “hit” by
the alleged “terrorist plane” first and fires there were burning apparently longer period of time. However,
as everybody could see, it was the South Tower which was demolished first – contrary to any logic.
Strangely enough, there was some logic in the pre-scheduled order of the Twin Towers demolitions. The
South Tower necessarily had to be demolished first, and only then the North Tower. Why? The problem is
that the South Tower was farther from the WTC-7, and the North Tower was closer to it. The mini-rail
ways intended to deliver the demolition charges to their respective zero-boxes were supposed to be of
different lengths – the one leading to the underneath of the South Tower was the longer one, and to that
of the North Tower – the shorter. Now imagine if you detonate the nuclear charge in the shorter location
first: it might (and most probably would) damage the delivery tunnel leading to the farther zero-box which
passes nearby. That is why it was designed that the farthest from the beginnings of those two delivery
tunnels Twin Tower must be necessarily demolished first, and only then the “closer” Tower. And it could
not be otherwise. And that is exactly why the South Tower was demolished first and only after it the North
Tower. Apparently, those who violated the logic were not demolition engineers who designed the actual
nuclear demolition scheme and set it off finally. It was the so-called “terrorists”, who made the wrong plan.
80
They supposed to direct the first “plane” into the South Tower and the second – to the North Tower, but
they did vice-versa… Look at the sketch below and you will probably understand why the North Tower
(which was the WTC-1) could not have been demolished first:
Possible directions of delivery tunnels in an “ideal” case are on the left. On the right are the real positions of
the zero-boxes and suspected positions of delivery tunnels. Obviously, designers of that nuclear demolition
scheme had to position charges as far from each other as possible, so that when the first charge explodes it
won’t damage the zero-box and the delivery tunnel of the second charge. By making the directions a little bit
“divergent” from each other, the designers managed to win at least extra 30 to 40 meters, which might be a
crucial gain in a sense of safety (I mean safety of the second nuclear charge, of course, not of the people). In
any case – whether you chose the “ideal” direction on the left, or the real one on the right, in both cases it is
clear that the WTC-2 (“South Tower”) must be demolished before the WTC-1 (“North Tower”) and it could not
be otherwise – an explosion of a “nearer” charge first would be too risky for a “longer” delivery tunnel.
It is important also to remember this fact: at 6:47 AM, September 11, 2001, the WTC Building 7’s Alarm
System was placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during
maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored27. Why
was it done so? Just read the paragraph below and you would probably guess why: there should be some
alarm signals produced and transmitted towards WTC Twin Towers when the actual demolition scheme
was about to be implemented. It should be logically presumed of being designed so... I am sure that such
alarm signals should have been also transmitted towards another dangerous zone – the subway station,
whose tube was crossing the WTC site under the South Tower’s footprint.
Now I will reveal to you one of my most serious suspicions: I do not believe that these 9/11 perpetrators
had really planned to make an actual event of the WTC demolition to look as stupid as it really looked.
I am almost certain that their intention was like this: the digital image of a plane (or a physical plane if you
wish) enters the respective Tower, some Hollywood-style pyrotechnic effects follows (like orange flames),
and then immediately or in a maximum of a few seconds a nuclear charge under the Tower goes off and
the Tower goes down. Then with an arrival of the second digital image of a plane (or the physical plane if
you wish) the same thing repeats with the remaining Tower. This would look really cool and the public
would be completely shocked – no doubts, no suspicions at all (and no even surviving witnesses, who
could cast any doubt that the planes could have been digital): the terrorists used some awful hitherto
unknown weapons of mass-destruction. (Extra version for the US Government, for FBI, and for those who
knew for sure about the nuclear demolition scheme: those damn “terrorists” in the hijacked planes
managed to learn somehow of the nuclear charges under the WTC and they had some specially
designed by rogue engineers certain “initialization devises” with them inside the planes, which allowed the
“terrorists” to distantly set off those underground nuclear charges.) Then something went badly wrong –
27 National Institute for Standards and Technology, “Interim Findings And Accomplishments”, in Progress Report
on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center, Vol.1.,28. Also available here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf
81
the “planes” have apparently “arrived” as expected, but something was delayed with demolition charges
deployment. Then the initial “cool” project was reduced to its most stupid state – as everybody could see
in reality.
What might delay the nuclear charges and make the entire planned scenario to be re-designed “ad hoc”?
Let us think about it. Probably, the first thing which could delay the nuclear charges explosions was that
those nuclear engineers who designed the initial nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC were themselves
neither sadists, nor criminals. They were probably normal responsible specialists who knew for sure what
kind of danger was represented by any building’s demolition in general and by any nuclear explosion in
particular. For this reason they must have in-built into the nuclear charges deployment scheme and into
set-offs procedures some extra double (or possibly even triple) overprotection. This is very typical when it
comes to nuclear charges in general: every nuclear devise is normally “overprotected” several times – so
that even if a bunch of morons would fool around by pressing different buttons, it won’t explode. The
second thing which also suggests the same idea is the fact mentioned above (I repeat it in full, because it
is extremely important) “at 6:47 AM, September 11, 2001, the WTC Building 7’s Alarm System was
placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance
or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored.” (National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp.28: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf ).
What are they talking about? What kind of “alarms” from the WTC-7 to the Twin Towers? Please, try to
employ your imagination and to reckon out some possible nature of those mentioned “alarms” – what kind
of alarms could it be? Honestly, even if my own imagination is quite rich, I can’t figure out any reasonable
alarm which could have been logically initiated from the WTC-7 and transmitted towards the WTC-1 and
WTC-2. If inside the WTC-7 there have been headquarters of NORAD which detected an upcoming aerial
attack and transmitted commands to some surface-to-air missile batteries in the WTC 1 and 2, than it is
OK; that would be a logical and understandable solution. But, considering that both structures – the WTC-
7 and the Twin Towers – were civilian, what kind of alarms could be in their case necessarily transmitted
from the WTC-7 towards the Twins? I think if I would not know about the WTC demolition scheme, I could
not find any reason at all. But since I knew very well about the nuclear demolition scheme, I could
suggest an idea: the so-called “WTC Building 7’s Alarm System” might have been designed to transmit
only one kind of alarm: a warning about that the nuclear demolition scheme of the Twin Towers is being
implemented and nothing else than that. Of course, I could be mistaken, but I am sure that I am not.
Besides the mentioned above alarm, in my opinion, there was some built-in totally unavoidable feature in
the nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC: you could set the demolition scheme to finally work-out, but it
won’t actually explode until at least 30 minutes of an extra delay. Why? Because an underground nuclear
charge of 150 kiloton is quite a dangerous stuff and you must have given chances at least:
1) to make sure that the people who work with you on the actual demolition and remained within the
most dangerous area would have a chance to escape if they for some reason did not escape yet
at the moment you press the “final” red button;
2) your yourself must also have at least 30 minutes to make away after pressing the button – I don’t
think it was really designed that you, who press the button, have to sit in an underground bunker
just some less than 200 meters away from a hypocenter of the 150 kiloton underground nuclear
explosion – apparently, you must run away and hide at a much farther distance.
Why am I talking about exactly 30 minutes? Well, I will try to explain: it was exactly 30 minutes that have
passed between the collapses of the 1st (WTC-2 or “South Tower”) and 2nd (WTC-1 or “North Tower”);
and we have already presumed (and I am sure that we are not mistaken in that particular sense) that the
nuclear charge intended to demolish the second Tower, could not have been delivered to its zero-box
before the nuclear explosion of the first charge, since it would be too risky. The second charge could have
been damaged by the first charge’s nuclear explosion, sending crushing waves under the surface. This
means that only after the first explosion, the second demolition charge could have been sent by its minirail
way under its targeted Tower and since then it would be needed 30 minutes more to get it actually
exploding. This is very logical. Another consideration is this: those people who normally work with nuclear
charges (and particularly with their underground testing), always count on the worst possible scenario:
someone, who remained within the most dangerous zone shortly before the nuclear explosion has
already set (i.e. became imminent), must be able to leave this dangerous zone on foot – even in case if
his vehicle gets broken. This is just a kind of over-insurance. The 30 minutes since the final alarm is
about the right time – one should be able to get away on foot at least 2.5 - 3 km from a hypocenter of
such a nuclear explosion, which is quite a safe distance. To make such an “extra-time insurance” less
than 30 minutes would not be really safe, while to make too long (let’s say an hour) would not be
reasonable. That is exactly why 30 minutes is a standard “extra time” since such a final alarm of an
82
imminent nuclear explosion and before the actual nuclear explosion or “H-Hour”. Apparently, the same 30
minutes were implemented in the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. Then, starting from this count-down
(or most probably even before the count-down begins), there should be those very alarm signals which
supposed to be transmitted from the WTC-7 towards the WTC-1 and WTC-2 – which were the main
purpose of that otherwise unexplainable above mentioned “WTC-7 Alarm System”, which was put on its
“TEST” mode at 6.47 AM September 11, 2001, and which supposed to be “off” for as long as 8 hours –
according to the above-mentioned NIST report.
Considering all of the above, there are some hard reasons to believe that:
1) Even after pressing the “final” red button the actual nuclear explosion won’t happen until the next
30 minutes at least – in case of the second demolition charge; while in case of the first (i.e. initial)
demolition charge, such an “over-insurance time” could be even longer (but not necessarily).
2) Immediately after beginning the demolition procedure (which suppose to last at least 30 minutes
more before the actual nuclear explosion), most probably even before you would reach to the
“final” button, some unavoidable alarm signal would be transmitted towards the most dangerous
area. Definitely such signals suppose to be transmitted to such a dangerous area also after you
pressed the “final” button. And logically, such alarm signals should be continuous and should be
transmitted for as long as the entire remaining time before the nuclear explosion happens (i.e.
they should have been transmitted continuously for the entire remaining 30 minutes). Of course, I
could be mistaken, but I am sure that in this case I am not.
What might happen in reality? Probably, those rogue guys, who have recently acquired control over the
WTC property, did not properly understand how the nuclear demolition scheme supposed to work out in
reality. May be they did not read its technical documentation. Due to their misunderstanding, the culprits
might have made some miscalculations. For example, they might think that once they press the red
button, the demolition process would take a much shorter time. Secondly, they might think that they could
demolish the Twin Towers in any order, but only at the very last moment it was found out that it must be
necessarily the South Tower which had to be demolished first and not earlier than in 30 minutes after the
press of a “final” button. Thirdly, they might not know that a final approval of the Department of Buildings
was required to set the entire demolition scheme to do its intended job. I guess it was so. Let’s imagine
that I am right in my presumptions here and see what would be the supposed development.
The first so-called “terrorist plane” has already “penetrated” steel perimeter columns of the North Tower
and the fires have begun. The rogue guy presses the red button and only now he finds out that the North
Tower could not be demolished before the South Tower… What could culprits do in such a case? They
could do nothing. They had to wait for the second so-called “terrorist plane” intended for the South Tower.
And only after the “second plane” has arrived they have found out that the Department of Buildings’
permission had to be obtained first. Only after they somehow managed to convince the Department of
Buildings’ representative that the Towers were about to collapse and their controlled demolition was the
only solution to avoid greater casualties, they have finally pressed the red button to demolish the South
Tower, while the long-burning North Tower has been put on hold. Then the unavoidable count-down
began – 30 minutes before the South Tower could really be demolished. That is how it looked in reality.
Probably, the only one “right” thing done by the culprits which really worked out in their favor was that
mentioned above “TEST” status for the WTC-7 Alarm System: in neither case it transmitted any alarm.
Above there was an estimated turn of events from the “conspiratorial” point of view, below (irrespectively
of the above) there is an estimated turn of events from the merely technical point of view.
The estimated turn of events was like this: when the decision to “pull” the Twins was eventually made –
the first intended nuclear charge went on its rail-way towards its target (such a “travel” of the first charge
towards its pre-designated target was itself obviously a kind of a fully automated procedure, which has
been designed as such, as to be initiated by a simple press of a button). Then the charge has arrived into
its zero-box under the South-Tower (which apparently has been pre-scheduled to be demolished first)
and then (after some pre-designated “over-insurance” period of time, which could have been 30 minutes)
– went off. Also it should be noted that the tunnel had to be sealed off first at least twice. After the South
Tower has collapsed, a nuclear specialist, responsible for the WTC demolition, should have estimated
damage (if any) sustained by the delivery tunnel, by control cables, and by the zero-box intended for the
second charge – under the North Tower (most probably, it was not even a human, but some automatic
device which has performed such a checking). When everything was found to be OK, the second nuclear
charge went by its mini rail-way underneath its target. Then it too went off (but in the second case the
explosion followed in strictly 30 minutes after the charge’s initial movement towards the target).
83
Now again, here is an estimated turn of events from the “conspiratorial” point of view:
The job has been done. Then those “big” guys, who did the job, apparently faced a dilemma – what if an
inquiry (and, of course, there would be an inquiry – what do you think?) would come into the WTC-7 to
investigate what exactly had happened? And what if that inquiry would find all that strange nuclear stuff
intended for the WTC-1 and WTC-2 demolitions – such as a special room, a control center, and those
unexplainable delivery tunnels etc? For this reason, after apparently some long hours of hesitation, they
have eventually decided to “pull” the WTC-7 as well by using the last remaining nuclear charge. They had
probably realized that there would be a lot of questions in regard to the WTC-7 “collapse” without any
seeming reason at as late as 5.30 PM, which would be very hard to answer. But they probably realized it
too that if the WTC-7 were left intact, there would be even more questions which would not be possible to
answer at all. That is why these guys obviously preferred to choose the lesser of the two evils and finally
decided to demolish the WTC-7 as well and so to destroy all evidence completely.
That is my own opinion. But, as I have honestly admitted above, I could be mistaken. I do not know for
sure why they demolished the WTC-7 and I do not know exactly about technical details of how the three
nuclear charges have been arranged in a sense of their maintenance and their delivery to the zero-boxes.
Only those involved in designing and maintaining of the actual WTC demolition scheme could give you
the exact answer in regard to its details. However, I know for sure that the WTC-7 was demolished by an
underground nuclear explosion – in the same way as its two elder twin sisters – the WTC-1 and WTC-2.
Considering all technicalities described either in the previous chapter, or in the beginning of this book,
one could be pretty sure that the WTC-7 could not have been demolished (“pulled”) by any conventional
stuff. The typical consequences of a poorly contained underground nuclear explosion under the rubble of
the WTC-7 have been also as clear as those under the rubble of the WTC-1 and the WTC-2. They were
evident for weeks and even months after September the 11th.
Perimeter columns of the South Tower that managed to survive pulverization.
There are even some more questions remain – why those adjacent to ground level parts of the Twin
Towers perimeter steel core columns were left to stand even after the Towers’ total collapse – like those
shown on the photo above which shows standing perimeter columns of the South Tower as on October 3,
2001? This effect is also clearly visible on the next big photo of “Ground Zero”: it seems, when you
carefully analyze the big photo below, that those actual nuclear charges have been indeed positioned not
right under the footprints of each of the Twin Towers, but a little bit outer – across their corners – to make
the positions of the two charges as far as possible from each other. I marked there with yellow arrows
suspected directions of displacements of the demolition charges from the exact centers of the Towers’
footprints. I guess only this little intentional displacements of the demolition charges might have caused
those effects: the farthest (from the suspected positions of the charges) corners of ground-level
perimeters steel columns have been “spared” by the crushed zone, because it was propagating upwards
not exactly vertically, but under slight angles. Those opposite corners might occur within some kind of a
“dead space”. In the next big photograph are clearly seen damaged zones within “Ground Zero”. With
84
yellow arrows and red digits there are shown suspected hypocenters of the three underground nuclear
explosions and with green lines – remaining walls. Below is some diagram that shows how such an “offcenter”
underground nuclear explosion might spare the opposite lower corners of the targeted Tower:
On this picture is “Ground Zero” on September 17, 2001. Here are clearly seen intense streams of radioactive
vapor emanating not only from spots of the former WTC 1 and 2 in the middle of the picture, but also from
the fairly remote spot of the former WTC-7. In between the Twin Towers and the remnants of the WTC-7 are
clearly seen remnants of the WTC-6 and 5 which do not release any vapor at all. The WTC-3 (then the Marriott
Hotel – formerly Vista Hotel) on the right is completely demolished. Those parts of the WTC-4, adjacent to the
South Tower (the WTC-2), are completely demolished. The WTC-5 and 6 are still standing. However, the WTC-
7 is completely demolished.
85
Now, please, look at the top of the NOAA picture that is below and note where was the exact hypocenter
of the 3rd thermo-nuclear explosion that leveled the WTC-7. It was evidently not under the middle of the
WTC-7, but closer to its longest outer wall facing Barclay Street. This was quite logical – considering the
almost trapeziform of the footprint of the WTC-7 (if you want to properly demolish a semicircle-shaped
structure you obviously have to position your demolition charge in the middle of an imaginary full-circle,
isn’t it?).
On this picture those contours of the former buildings outlined with green show those parts of the structures
which managed somehow to survive the WTC demolition, at least to a certain extent. Besides, this particular
photograph clearly shows the most damaged areas, which could help us to understand where exactly the
hypocenters of the underground nuclear explosions were. Apparently, they were not in the exact centers of
the Twin Towers’ footprints. Yellow arrows with red digits “1”, “2” and “3” show suspected hypocenters of
the three underground nuclear explosions, capable to inflict those damage – while leaving relatively intact
opposite corners of the WTC-1 and WTC-2 with some remaining walls of steel perimeter structures.
Now a very logical question arises – what happened with a building situated just across the Barclay Street
on the other side at the WTC-7 “collapse” (the building which is not visible on the above NOAA photo)?
Luckily, that building stood a little bit farther in a sense that it might constitute a second “semi-circle”
completing the abovementioned “full-circle” together with the actual WTC-7. It wasn’t within the “circle”
due to the building’s little bit farther position; otherwise, this opposite building should have been also
pulverized – in the same manner as the actual WTC-7. Still, that building must have been damaged by
the underground nuclear explosion beyond repair. Do not even doubt it. The name of that building behind
the WTC-7 across Barclay Street was “30 West Broadway” or “Fiterman Hall”. Fate of this building was
not mentioned in any official 9/11 report. But we can easily check it out in the Internet.
Here is some excerpt from later news28 (try to read between the lines, please):
“City University of New York has taken steps to demolish a contaminated building damaged in the
World Trade Center disaster and will present its plans to the Environmental Protection Agency as early as
this week. Fiterman Hall, a 15-story Borough of Manhattan Community College building, has stood
shrouded in black, with large gaping holes torn into its southern façade, since 9/11”
This University building had to be demolished later, because it can not be used anyway, due to both: its
28 Downtown Express Volume 18 • Issue 35; http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_140/worktodemolish.html
86
apparent structural damage and its admitted [radioactive] contamination. Make your own conclusions.
“Destruction zone” around the WTC-7 according to my calculations. Fiterman Hall’s actual damage to
compare.
Note that the Verizon Building (to the left of the WTC-7) and the U.S. Post Office Building (to the right of
it) were not damaged to the extent that would require their demolitions. They were both repaired and are
both operational now. However, the actual damage to these two buildings was officially different. While
the U.S. Post Office was officially “damaged”, the Verizon was officially “seriously damaged”. You can see
why it so happened: because the Verizon was dangerously close to the border of the destruction zone.
This picture represents various degrees of damage sustained by Manhattan at September 11. The grey area –
the WTC-7 plus the Twin Towers and the WTC-3 (Marriott Hotel – formerly Vista Hotel), and probably hidden
from us a corner of the WTC-4 – all completely pulverized. Red area – the WTC-5, the WTC-6 and the WTC-4 –
damaged by debris beyond repair (in fact in this picture the left half of the WTC-3 must have been grey and
its right half – red; but those who produced this diagram failed to observe this particular detail). Blue area –
damaged by either debris or a subterranean shock, or both, but still repairable (though not necessary either
of them was repaired in reality: after 9/11 some of these “blue” structures were quietly demolished – it is
especially true in regard to a building that is slightly visible behind the WTC-7 – Fiterman Hall). Yellow area –
affected only by the dust cloud to which almost 80% of the Twin Towers and the WTC-7 have been reduced.
87
Nuclear Madness 1
Here, at last, we have to come back to that “strange” book by a certain Mr. William Tahil, B.A. – named:
“Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC …” – which is downloadable from the following
Internet address: http://nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf ). As you probably remember, we have
already discussed several points of his book while disproving the last conspiracy theory (the “Conspiracy
Theory No. 7”) at the corresponding chapter of this book. It was suspected then that Mr. Tahil apparently
knew about the exact details of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. Now you will be surprised when I
prove to you that he indeed knew about it even more that you could initially expect. Look at one of his
most incriminating drawings below, taken out of the abovementioned book, and compare it with the aerial
photograph of the WTC actual demolition site (courtesy NOAA) which is above. Comments in green and
in red, and green and red arrows were added to the below drawing by me.
88
I do not have much comment, honestly. All, what I could say is that Mr. Tahil was suspiciously “too clever”
to so brilliantly figure out the exact depth and the exact orientation of the position of that nuclear “reactor”
– capable at once to destroy (he even used the word “pulverized”) both buildings – the WTC-1 and the
WTC-3 (Vista Hotel). Moreover, all of his supposedly “innocent” calculations came amidst an atmosphere
of almost universal delusion – shared by even qualified construction engineers – that the WTC was
demolished by either conventional explosives, by thermite, or at best case – by “mini-nukes”. He appears
to be so prominent in his brave way of free thinking and so much ahead of crowd, this Mr. Tahil, that we
should compare him with some geniuses – like Einstein or Newton. He truly deserves such a comparison,
this “genius” of nuclear and engineering thought… I guess he deserves even the Nobel Prize for such a
scientific break-through.
So, how come, that such a genius of the nuclear and engineering thought, who perfectly knows what kind
of radioactive isotopes could be found after a nuclear explosion, who knows the exact fission sequence of
Uranium-235, who claims to know even how different seismic waves propagate and what kinds of seismic
waves are typical after an underground nuclear explosion, who was even able to so brilliantly calculate
the exact depth and the exact horizontal orientation of the hypocenter of that particular explosion, which
has “pulverized” both – the WTC-1 and the WTC-3 simultaneously, how such a “genius” could claim that
a nuclear “reactor” could allegedly “explode”, while it is known even to a school-boy that it is impossible
and that only a nuclear charge, especially designed as such, could cause a nuclear explosion?
Just try to be realistic: Mr. Tahil attempted to cheat us and to do so in the most cynical way – much more
cynical if compared to the “plebeian” or even “patricians” versions of the “truth” concocted by the poor US
Government. Such a cynical and shameless attempt shall not be forgiven, in my humble opinion. Well, I
myself could easily answer a possible question – from where have I got that strange knowledge of the
secret nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC: I have gotten it from the Soviet Special Control Service – a
military unit 46179. My name you know, everybody could check it and find out that I indeed had served
there for almost 5 years. Moreover, I have already proven that my knowledge was not about exact details;
the supposedly exact details I managed to figure out merely by some logical guessing and by calculations
based on my definite advance knowledge of the existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. What
about Mr. Tahil? From where he has gotten his strangely exact knowledge of such a secret scheme? If he
supposed not even to know that such a thing could exist? Try to guess from where. Mr. Tahil ends his
introductory word to the abovementioned book by this phrase: “Where will be the next target of this
Nuclear Madness if they are not stopped?” It is difficult to answer your question, dear Mr. Tahil… You
probably know better than us where will be their next target... And even if you do not know yet, you could
easily ask them, because with them you are acquainted for sure. But, at least, this “nuclear madness”
towards us shall be stopped right now. Especially the important part of your notorious “nuclear madness”
which claims that a “nuclear reactor” could allegedly cause a nuclear blast.
Actually, Mr. William Tahil supposes to represent a certain interest to the FBI – and such an interest in
him supposes to be much more serious than in those who have merely speculated on the stock market
prior to 9/11, apparently counting on those imminent terrorist attacks29. But the problem is that the FBI
knows about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme probably even better than Mr. Tahil and that is why
those FBI guys won’t be interested in it anyway… But anyhow, at least, I think, I have done here a good
job – I’ve saved the “barbarians” from a very serious attempt to cheat them. It is better than nothing.
Thanks, Mr. Tahil, anyway, for your nice book – because I liked and even loved your new term “Nuclear
Madness” – and I will definitely add it to my arsenal.
There could be another question – how quickly New York City officials have learned that the demolition of
the Twin Towers was indeed a nuclear demolition, not just an ordinary one?
It is difficult to say, because they also might know about it from the abovementioned representative of the
Department of Buildings even before the actual demolition charges have been set off. However, the New
York City officials could unlikely be held responsible. They would simply defend themselves by claiming
that they are firstly not construction engineers, secondly, they are not specialists in nuclear explosions –
29 It is well-known that there were some strange speculative purchases made prior to September 11 events on the
stock-market, which could not be explained by anything else than by the exact advance knowledge of the upcoming
acts of “terrorism”; it is also known that the FBI attempted to look into those irregularities very seriously – however,
they had never published any results of their inquiries and it is unknown if any of such stock-market speculators has
ever been arrested in connection with September 11 attacks or not; it is unknown also if any of such suspected 9/11
stock-market speculators has ever revealed to the inquirers any important information – as to the exact source of his
strange advance knowledge or not.
89
so they simply do not understand what a “big” nuclear charge is and what is “small”, what a dangerous
underground nuclear explosion is and what a safe one is. You can’t actually hold responsible those who
are not specialists.
Actually, it appears that everybody who approved the demolition of the WTC whether directly or indirectly
would be able to defend himself. Firstly, an actual engineer, who was an initial source of the claim that the
Twin Towers were seriously damaged and could have collapsed any time soon (so that the controlled
demolition scheme could have been implemented to anticipate their uncontrollable demolition) now is
apparently “dead”. He did his job: he put forward his claim, probably even affixed his signature, and then
– disappeared (he presumed to find his “heroic death” in one of the Tower’s collapse – so you can not
blame a hero, especially considering that the “hero” is “dead”). Secondly, the one who already has in his
hand the abovementioned claim that the Twin Towers had to be demolished (because the responsible
WTC engineer has stated that they would otherwise collapse uncontrollably) could always refer that the
built-in demolition scheme of the WTC has been especially made for such an emergency and it appeared
to him that it was exactly the time to implement it. He was acting in apparently good faith. Thirdly, that
representative of the Department of Buildings who arrived to give his final approval to proceed with the
demolition job would also say the same thing. He was acting in good faith because the responsible WTC
engineer has already evaluated the damage and has established that if not demolished intentionally, the
Towers would soon collapse accidentally. You can’t legally blame him also. And the last – all of them,
including those from the Department of Building, the actual WTC security, engineers, and even the New
York City officials, would jointly defend themselves by simply stating that even if it were really a crazy idea
to demolish the WTC by nuclear explosions, it was not their idea. They have just simply implemented the
long-existed demolition scheme which has been a long time ago approved by some respectable
specialists who apparently understood what they were doing. Honestly speaking, you can blame neither
of them. Unfortunately.
However, the first question remains – how soon the New York City top officials have learned that it were
underground nuclear explosions? Honestly, I do not know. But there is a piece of information which could
shed some light. I am quoting: “…As New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch later describes30,
[Deputy New York Mayor Rudy] Washington also finds “heavy machinery to get downtown for the cleanup
and got the Navy to guard against a seaborne attack. He evacuated City Hall, which shook like crazy
when the second tower fell. He gathered people who could give medical help, gave the order to find lights
that could be used at Ground Zero and worked out new phone communications, since power was being
lost. Accompanied by city engineers, he went into the streets around the fallen towers, testing the
ground to make sure it would hold when the heavy equipment came in…”
One might ask this reasonable question: why would someone need to “test ground” at Manhattan, which
is known to be a kind of rock, for a reason of whether it would “hold” the heavy equipment, while this very
Manhattan’s ground is known to hold a big number of skyscrapers which are apparently millions of times
heavier that the heaviest possible equipment? The answer will be indeed very simple and the only one
answer would be logical. A huge underground nuclear explosion, cavity of which supposed to reach as
high as underground foundations of the WTC, supposed to produce not only the cavity alone, but also
some totally and partly crushed zones, surrounding the cavity. This state of the ground could seriously
complicate any deployment of the heavy equipment. Let’s say a heavy bulldozer could simply fall through
the thin remaining soil layer (and through the crushed zone under it which could not hold any thing at all)
into a blazing inferno beneath left by a recent nuclear explosion. For such a reason (and only for such a
reason, there would be simply no other reason), strength of the ground in various spots around and in the
WTC site should have been estimated first by engineers – before allowing the heavy equipment to move
in. If not because of the known underground nuclear explosions (huge nuclear explosions) there would be
no reason to proceed with such a strange measurement job. This is the answer for the first question: yes,
they knew it and they knew it immediately: huge underground nuclear explosions (3 ps) have occurred in
the WTC site and these 3 huge explosions had nothing to do with any “mini-nukes” – as they switched to
claim later. Apparently, after a “mini-nuke’s” explosion you won’t need to measure strength of a soil.
One might ask probably another question – are there any independent sources which could confirm that
there were indeed three underground nuclear explosions in the Lower Manhattan, apart from ravings of
the author of these lines and other “conspiracy theorists” of similar kind – such as abovementioned Mr.
Tahil? Firstly, I would like to state that Mr. Tahil “strangely” claims that there were only two underground
nuclear explosions, not actually three. This is, by the way, yet another clear indication that he might be
closely related to those culprits from the WTC demolition team. Because if he were an honest researcher,
considering his supernatural shrewdness, he would never fail to notice the third nuclear demolition event
30 New York Daily News, 5/20/2004.
90
– in regard to the WTC-7. To answer the actual question – yes, there are some independent sources,
which indirectly testify to the same effect as the author of these lines.
For example, an unprecedented article appeared simultaneously in several newspapers, for example, in
the UK "Mail", published online31 on September 23, 2008. The article titled "Pictured: The 40ft 'pothole'
that shows Ground Zero was once the site of an Ice Age glacier" featured quite a strange photograph
showing the excavated "bathtub" at "Ground Zero" along with an odd giant so-called "pothole" in the spot
of one of the former Twin Towers. Edges of the "pothole" appeared to be covered in molten rock. The
utterly seditious picture was apparently taken illegally, since it was strictly prohibited to bring any
photographic equipment into “ground zero” area even when these words were still spelt with low-case
letters and when there were thousands of ground zero responders clearing enormous piles of the debris
and searching for survivors. It would be even more illegal to make such pictures of "Ground Zero" when
the majority of the initial responders were banned from the site32 and only less than a hundred of the
highly trusted people remained there to fix the unexplainable underground cavities. It could probably be
said that taking and publishing such a picture was the most cynical action – tantamount to a slap at the
face of the US Government. Perhaps, one could do it more cynical only by publishing a blueprint of the
WTC nuclear demolition scheme or by publishing a patent registered in this regard. As you could
probably imagine, the US Government was caught by this picture with its pants down and had to say at
least something in explanation for what that so-called "pothole" (at that moment incompletely filled with
some concrete) might mean from the technical point of view.
Left: photograph from the above mentioned article133 Right: another photo from the same series. Link33.
The bigger photograph was originally inscribed as follows: ”Proof of ice: The giant 'pothole', seen in
the lower half of this picture, is proof the World Trade Centre towers stood on what was once
31 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1060043/Pictured-The-40ft-pothole-shows-Ground-Zerosite-
Ice-Age-glacier.html
32 On November 2nd, 2001, NY Mayor Giuliani suddenly and without any seeming reason has ordered city officials
to limit the number of rescue workers trying to recover victims' bodies to 25 each from the Port Authority police,
NYPD and FDNY, and an additional 10 firefighters for fire suppression – which caused deep resentment among the
firefighters and even some scuffles with the police – deployed to protect “Ground Zero” from those unwanted
firefighters.
33 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/080922-world-trade-glacial-hlg-7p.hmedium.jpg
91
ground covered by an Ice Age glacier”. And here are some quotations from the said article: "Proof that
Manhattan was once buried underneath an Ice Age glacier has been uncovered at Ground Zero" And "A
40-foot 'pothole' is the most arresting feature. However reports described a world of rocky colour basking
in the New York sun for the first time in thousands of years: underground cliffs, layers of steel-gray
bedrock, and thousands of cobblestones in a muted rainbow of reds and purples and greens - as smooth
as those found by the sea." As you could probably understand they are talking about molten edges of the
rock. They had no chance of explaining this "phenomenon" because it can't be caused by anything else
than extremely high temperatures - much higher than those of burning kerosene that allegedly "melted
steel" into fluffy microscopic dust, and even higher than those that could pertain to burning thermite (if
thermite could melt steel, it does not mean at all that it could also melt rock). Therefore they resorted to
the most desperate lie - by claiming that the rock was allegedly "smooth" because of the alleged "Ice Age
glacier". However, for those who are friendly with common sense, this unprecedented photograph is not
the "proof of ice", as claimed in the above article, but proof of an underground nuclear explosion that
demolished the Tower.
In fact, many more photographs showing undeniable consequences of nuclear explosions at "Ground
Zero" could have been available today for our research, if not the sad fact, illustrated in the below picture
by recalcitrant official FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld, who testified34 as follows: “Immediately after
the attacks on the World Trade Center, the entire area in lower Manhattan was sealed off to the public
and to the news media. All cameras were prohibited inside the secured perimeter and any "unauthorized"
cameras were immediately confiscated”.
The sign shown on the photograph reads: 'WARNING! No cameras or video equipment permitted!
VIOLATORS will be prosecuted and equipment seized!"
Of course, despite this warning and prospect of being really prosecuted, the ground zero responders
continued to secretly bring some small photo cameras with them. That is why now we have quite a few
"Ground Zero" images published on the Internet. However, this number of images could have been
hundreds of thousands, if not for this prohibition...
In general, actually, you have to understand one thing: you simply can not demand that “hard evidence”
must be provided (meaning published in a publicly available form) that clearly points to the WTC nuclear
demolition. Such a demand is clearly ridiculous and those, who do not realize it, do not deserve any
answer whatsoever. When you encounter such an unprecedented, well organized cheating, that involves
not even billions, but, perhaps, trillions of dollars, that involves almost all serious secret services (and not
only from the US, but from several other countries that connived), you can not expect that anything really
“revealing” would be left available for you. Add here that in the most part the real 9/11 evidence was also
CLASSIFIED (and it remains classified, meaning you can’t demand it through legal means) and you will
34 http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
92
get the point. To demand from me that I allegedly had duty to provide a blue-print of the WTC nuclear
demolition scheme to prove my points (as some people attempted to demand after watching my videopresentation)
is not just simply unfair, especially considering the circumstances; it clearly points that those
who demand such a thing are either complete morons, or, most probably, they are government shills
appointed especially to derail any positive 9/11 discussions dangerous to their masters. One have to
understand that such term as “hard evidence” works only in a purely judicial environment – when both
sides are required to swear to The Most High that they would say the truth, the only truth and nothing, but
the truth (and also providing that the Justice have reasons to believe that either of the parties who swears
as such indeed sincerely believes in God and therefore would fear to lie to the Justice). Except in this
particular case, the so-called “hard evidence” does not exist. What “evidence” could you expect to obtain
if you are merely a private person and your opponent is a powerful government who, besides of all, has
power to classify anything it deems expedient and to force any potential eye-witness to sign nondisclosure
contracts? And even power to re-print post-9/11 dictionaries? You have no chance to obtain
any “hard evidence” in this situation (except, may be, by comparing the pre-9/11 “ground zero” definition
with the post-9/11 one). Therefore in the world of secret services such thing as “hard evidence” does not
exist. All intelligence services are obliged to obtain (and to sift through) their information mostly from
various rumors, from various shady (and not necessarily trust-worthy) informants, from various slips of
tongues of officials – accidentally published in censored media, and so on. It is a very rare occurrence
when some intelligence service is so lucky that it could get hold of a stolen or a copied real secret
document of its adversaries. And even in this case such a secret service could not be 100% sure that this
secret document is indeed genuine and is not merely a part of a disinformation game played by an
adversary. In any case, analysts who work in intelligence organizations always rely more on their own
common sense and elementary logic, then on any obtained classified information about an adversary,
which could always be intentional disinformation. In fact, over 90% of classified information is obtained via
analyzing of non-classified (and, moreover, heavily censored) publications in common newspapers,
magazines, etc. Considering this common approach and especially in this particular situation when the
US Government classified everything related to 9/11 to demand from me the blueprint of the WTC nuclear
demolition scheme or some published chart of radioactivity measurements on the Manhattan “Ground
Zero” is nothing but ridiculous. And the above picture by Kurt Sonnenfeld is the best confirmation of what
I mean. The most seditious photographs of the deep underground cavities on the WTC spot that claim to
be the alleged "proof of ice" is one of the rarest opportunities to obtain any real 9/11 proof whatsoever.
Therefore, instead of criticizing such proof, you have to appreciate it. Especially, considering that it is the
really hard proof.
93
To continue with the above question - is there any independent sources, which could indirectly testify to
the same effect as the author of these lines? Besides the unprecedented photograph showing the
underground cavity with molten rock on its ages, there was a serious study undertaken in regard to the
thermal “hot” spots at Manhattan’s “Ground Zero”. Some results of this study are published on this
website: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_hotspots.html – in an article named “Thermal Hot
Spots: Fingerprint of a WTC Demolition”. Note, they do not talk about nuclear demolition, just about a
“demolition” – because it appears that those people who undertook that study themselves were not very
sure what has really happened and are inclined to suspect some incendiaries – like thermite – used in the
WTC demolition. The above one is a screenshot of a WTC Thermal Spots photograph published on this
website. It refers to it source http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html - which is a
governmental source USGC Spectroscopy Lab.
You could easily orientate the above picture by its distinct image of the WTC-6 with a black hole in its
middle. An arrow with letter A (the second “hottest” spot) points to a “hot spot” under the WTC-7 (about its
middle but under its farthest from the Twins wall), G (the first “hottest” spot) – to a “hot spot” between the
corner of the South Tower and the WTC-4; C (the third “hottest” spot) – to a “hot spot” between the North
Tower and the WTC-3 (the defunct Marriott Hotel). These three hottest spots – featuring 727 ºC, 747 ºC
and 627 ºC respectively – are positioned exactly in the suspected spots of the three hypocenters of the
three suspected underground nuclear explosions. I also would like to brag a little – I made my own
calculations of the exact spots of the zero-boxes for the 3 nuclear demolition charges without first seeing
this thermal map. I have used in my calculations only two available sources – one aerial photograph
which somehow reveals the three potential hypocenters by explicit direction of damage (the one by NOAA
shown above where building contours are outlined with yellow and green), and the fact that two corners of
each of the former Twin Towers with some remnants of adjacent walls somehow managed to survive.
When I have eventually encountered this thermal map, it only confirmed my own calculations: apparently,
I did not make any mistake and calculated everything exactly. In this map, besides the hottest three, there
are more hot spots – B, D, E, F and H – featuring various temperatures of less than 600 ºC.
Unfortunately, I can not find any reasonable explanation to the rest of hot spots – it could be that products
of underground nuclear explosions propagated by some underground tunnels, for example, and thus
reached these secondary destinations. Or because when their underground cavities reached their
maximums across, the different edges of the cavities reached different materials with different thermal
characteristics. But, honestly, I do not want to guess. I simply do not know. However, I know for sure that
there could not have been more than three nuclear explosions: there were precisely three of them – in
exactly the hottest spots shown on this map.
Actually, I had almost completed my book at the moment when I have accidentally encountered the
abovementioned thermal map – so I have decided to insert this small addition at the very last moment.
But when I looked at that screenshot again I noticed a familiar name – a certain “Mr. Loizeaux” was for
some unknown reason mentioned right below the thermal map. Once I have remembered that person, I
have decided to add here a little bit more intriguing information. Does anyone know who this Mr. Loizeaux
is? Well, I will enlighten you if you don’t know. Mr. Mark Loizeaux is a president of some famous company
named “Controlled Demolition, Inc.” This company is considered to be the most experienced company in
the world when it comes to demolition, and especially when it comes to demolition of skyscrapers. In this
particular connection (I mean a reason why his name was mentioned under the above thermal map) Mr.
Loizeaux was quoted as saying that his workers at “Ground Zero” have encountered some strangely
molten pieces of steel. But strange was not that the molten pieces of steel were encountered at “Ground
Zero”. Because one could sincerely expect these things to be found after underground nuclear explosions
and should not be surprised when they were indeed found. Strange was particularly this fact that those
molten pieces of steel were found by no one else, but by the workers of the “Controlled Demolition Inc.”.
One might ask this reasonable question: what workers of the “Controlled Demolition Inc.” were doing at
“Ground Zero”? The answer: they were hired by the US Government to clear “Ground Zero” from the
debris left after the World Trade Center collapse. Another question: why would you hire qualified highlypaid
workers from the top-ranking demolition company to clear that debris when an actual demolition job
has been already done by others? Is it logical? Demolition specialists are being so highly paid not
because they are capable of removing debris, but because they are able to perform some very difficult
and very dangerous job – controlled demolition. I guess it is clear that not everybody is capable to
calculate precisely how to demolish a skyscraper without damaging surrounding structures; this is a really
exclusive engineering job and probably there are only a few people on the entire planet Earth who could
claim to be real professionals in this particular field. You have a picture: the WTC site full of debris and
nothing else to be demolished, because everything has been already demolished. You need to remove
the debris. Would you really hire those top-class demolition professionals? Why? Won’t it be better to hire
poor Mexican immigrants and to let them to earn something also? And thus also to save the American
taxpayer’s money – by employing unqualified people to do a simple job which does not require any high
94
qualification? Just think about it. Again – why the US Government hired those guys from the company of
Mr. Loizeaux? Because there were still little demolition job to be done – to demolish those remnants of
WTC-4, 5 and 6? I don’t think so. To demolish those low-rise buildings was not a difficult job and not a big
job, what is the most important. The really BIG job was to remove the debris – so, the major part of the
payment went to those who removed the debris, and definitely not to those who performed a simple job –
demolitions of the remnants of WTC-4, 5 and 6 amidst piles of garbage, not amidst a populated area. The
question remains – why the Government hired to remove the debris those highly-paid professionals from
this company “Controlled Demolition Inc.”? Do you have any reasonable answer? I also do not have any.
From this point some reasonable suspicions arise. I guess that this company “Controlled Demolition Inc.”
could have been hired to remove the debris of the World Trade Center because of either two reasons (or,
most probably, because of both reasons together):
1. The “Controlled Demolition Inc.” was always entitled to perform this job of removal of the debris after
the WTC demolition because it was a party of a certain long-term contract which existed for many years
before 9/11 in regard to the WTC [nuclear] demolition scheme. (Guess why? Because it designed it.)
2. The “Controlled Demolition Inc.” was a primary designer of the actual nuclear demolition scheme of the
WTC and when this very scheme had proven to be a total disaster, the US Government has simply forced
this company to deal with those awful consequences of their crazy engineering ideas.
By the way – the words of Mr. Mark Loizeax under the above thermal map were not only his words said in
regard to the WTC damage. There are few more of his sayings available in the wilderness of the Internet
in regard to the WTC demolition and “Ground Zero”. Let’s take a look at some of them. To begin with, let’s
study about his actual company: “Controlled Demolition Inc.”. It was founded in remote 1947 by Jack
Loizeaux, and now it is being run by the third generation of successors. Let’s visit the company’s website:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2 (this is a sub-page named “About Us”)
I am quoting:
“A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of
well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand
untouched.” – This is the very first phrase on that page. Do you like this colorful description? I have to
confess – I could hardly suppress a very strong temptation: to slightly modify the above phrase – by
changing definition of a “waterfall” from “well-fractured steel and concrete” – to “totally pulverized” ones…
Here is the third paragraph from the “About Us” web page:
“Having imploded, worldwide, more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures than our
competitors combined, Controlled Demolition, Inc. has the technical expertise and track record to take
on projects of any magnitude.”
It is obviously a serious company – the most serious demolition company in the entire world. It absolutely
rightfully boasts to perform more demolition jobs, than all remaining demolition companies in the world –
combined together. And it claims to take on ANY kind of projects. What do you think now – if you were
Nelson Rockefeller (who with his brother David was the moving force behind the Twin Towers project) –
who needed to convince the Department of Building to permit the Twins construction by submitting them
your demolition proposals – where would you go first? Just put yourself in his shoes: you are proposing to
erect an absolutely unique pair of the tallest skyscrapers in the world (don’t forget we are talking about
the end of the ‘60s); but in order to obtain a formal permission, you must submit an equally unique
demolition project to the Department of Buildings. Otherwise, they would now permit you to build the Twin
Towers – even if you were Nelson Rockefeller. I guess you would not think for too long in such a case –
you would go right to the “Controlled Demolition Inc.” – simply because it is the most famous demolition
company in the world; and, secondly, because it bravely takes on projects of ANY magnitude – exactly
as stated today on the company’s website. Would you look for any other demolition company in such a
case? Try to be realistic when considering such a possibility… Don’t you think that Nelson Rockefeller
went straightly to that very company in order to obtain a unique demolition scheme for his unique
construction project? And don’t you think that since those times “Controlled Demolition Inc.” was a party
of the certain long term contract that concerned the future demolition of the Twin Towers? And that is
exactly why it was no one else, but the very “Controlled Demolition Inc.” that was appointed by the US
Government to remove the WTC debris from “Ground Zero”, after the actual demolition job has been
done? Or you would prefer to believe that this strange “appointment” of “Controlled Demolition Inc.” it was
just a mere “coincidence”? Just think about it.
95
New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller (left)
and NYC Mayor John Lindsay with model of Twin
Towers.
Now let’s review, at last, some other famous sayings of Mr. Mark Loizeaux in regard to “Ground Zero”.
“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the
building to help collapse the structure” ( http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html ) This is actually
nothing special. Here Mr. Loizeax is saying something simply because he was obliged to express some
“expert opinion” in regard to the Towers’ collapse “from kerosene” – since at that moment many serious
people rightly suspected that it was a controlled demolition, and, understandably, a leader of the most
experienced demolition company in the world was expected to express his opinion. And indeed he
expressed his opinion, though a little bit ridiculous (considering that the steel Twins were extremely rigid)
and strangely abound in words pertaining to subjunctive mood such as “if”, “were”, and “would”.
Here are some more of sayings of Mr. Mark Loizeaux, in connection to the WTC collapse as published on
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html I am quoting (words in bold marked out by me):
“…A similar example involves Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Inc., a key company
in the Ground Zero cleanup operation. An article published two days after the attack quotes demolitions
expert Loizeaux mischaracterizing the collapse of the South Tower (whose top only began to topple like
a tree, but then rapidly disintegrated) and expressing perplexity at the way the North Tower's top
telescoped down.
Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit
at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like fell a tree. That is what was expected, says
Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says
Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux,
regarding the cause of the telescoping35. (Massive Assault Doomed Towers Construction.com 9/13/0136)
Later, in an interview published in New Scientist magazine, Loizeaux suggested that he knew from the
beginning that the towers would pancake straight down.
When I saw what hit, that it was an airliner, that it was loaded with jet fuel, I remembered the long clear
span configuration from the central skin to the outer skin of the World Trade Center from the report I did.
And we had just taken down two 40-storey structures in New York.
I still had some cellphone numbers so when the second plane hit I said: "Start calling all the cellphones,
tell them that the building is going to come down."
And I sat there watching, I picked up the phone and I called a couple of people on the National Research
Council Committee involved in assessing the impact of explosives. They said "What do you think this
is, that they're going to fail, that they're both going to fail?" The expression around was they're going to
pancake down, almost vertically. And they did. It was the only way they could fail. It was inevitable37.”
Just read all of these with your eyes OPEN. Do you think that such a top-ranking demolition expert as Mr.
Mark Loizeaux sincerely believed that aluminum planes could penetrate the steel Towers? And that the
35 http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20010913e.asp
36 http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/retractions/contruction_massiveassault.html
37 Baltimore Blasters, NewScientist.com, 7/24/04 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18324575.700
96
steel Tower could “pancake” or “telescope”, and that such a “pancaking” or “telescoping” was inevitable?
Here is some more information, but it pertains already to the post-demolition activities:
“On September 22, 2001, a preliminary cleanup plan for the World Trade Center site was delivered by
Controlled Demolition, Inc. in which Mark Loizeaux, president of CDI, emphasized the importance of
protecting the slurry wall (or "the bathtub") which kept the Hudson River from flooding the WTC's
basement.” (Engineering News Record, October 1, 2001)
This statement of Mr. Mark Loizeax has quite a specific meaning... Of course, he was absolutely right
about the Hudson River, this perspicacious Mr. Loizeaux... He was wrong only in one sense – he sent
“his” workers to work at “Ground Zero” without issuing them lunar-looking haz-mat suits… And therefore
now rank-and-file worker of “Controlled Demolition Inc.” suffer from the same kind of leukemia and other
disorders as the rest of the ground zero responders…
Or you prefer to believe that the top demolition expert Mr. Mark Loizeaux “did not know” about the three
thermo-nuclear explosions at “Ground Zero”? He sincerely thought it was kerosene that collapsed the
WTC-1 and -2, and that if was diesel fuel that collapsed the WTC-7? Blessed are those who believe…
Someone might wander - if only the WTC Twins had the in-built nuclear demolition scheme, or there were
some more skyscrapers that had something to do with brave engineering ideas of Mr. Loizeaux? To be
honest with you, I don't know it for sure. But I have one suspicion. Moreover, I heard some rumors that
the Sears Tower in Chicago too had a similar emergency nuclear demolition scheme also designed by
"Controlled Demolition Inc." Besides, I heard that the Building Code of Chicago was similar to the Building
Code of New York in that sense and it too did not permit any construction of skyscrapers unless some
satisfactory demolition scheme is provided in advance.
However, these were only the rumors. But here are the facts: the first 9/11 victim "telescoped" (if to use
the word from the vocabulary of Mr. Loizeax) at 9.59 AM. Less than only 3 minutes later - at 10.02 AM - it
was ordered to immediately evacuate The Sears Tower in Chicago. Make sure to notice that it was not
ordered to evacuate The Empire State Building38 in New York, but The Sears Tower in Chicago. Just
think about it.
CNN Live screenshots at 10.03 and 10.04 AM EST, September 11, 2001:
After my video-presentation appeared on YouTube in March 2010, I received a lot of comments. One of
the most shocking ones came from one American journalist – Mrs. Rayelan Allen39 of the “Rumor Mill
News” who was told by her former CIA husband Gunther Russbacher years ago that a nuclear device
was built into the United Nations building's foundation for its eventual demolition. Besides of all, Mrs. Allen
used to personally work in the United Nations building for several years before that. This information was
posted first on her web site40:
38 I know that many government-appointed shills will not miss this opportunity and to accuse me of lying because
the Empire State Building was, in fact, evacuated too on 9/11. However, its evacuation had nothing to do with any
centralized order – it was merely a matter of precaution taken by the building’s management. The evacuation of the
Sears Tower was ordered by the US Government. It was the 9/11 EVENT. Therefore you can not compare the two.
39 http://radio.rumormillnews.com/rayelan.htm
40 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=170354
97
WAS THE UNITED NATIONS BUILDING BUILT WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB
IN ITS FOUNDATION?
Posted By: Rayelan <Send E-Mail>
Date: Saturday, 3-Apr-2010 21:02:51
The following arrived from a friend:
Rayelan, do you remember years ago you mentioned that Gunther told you that a nuclear device
was planted underneath the United Nations for its eventual demolition. That it was built into the
structure.
Listen to this Russian guy, because he corroborates what Gunther told you, but in a different
way. He says large structures like the World Trade Center, that the builders knew how to build
them, but not how to take them down. So it became standard policy agreed with a demolition
company in the U.S. to construct into the foundation of these large buildings nuclear devices
which would be triggered to demolition these large buildings at a future date. So you can bet the
lavish buildings being built in Dubai have nuclear devices built into their foundation.
The youtube video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0&feature=related
Bye
I was not actually surprised much, because even though I did not hear before that that there was such a
nuclear demolition arrangement in regard to the United Nations building, I heard that there was one in the
Sears Tower in Chicago. Therefore, as long as it was not only in the WTC alone, but elsewhere, it should
be considered as not anything unique and peculiar to the Twin Towers, but merely a standard approach
in the United States. Just because the Sears Tower was promptly evacuated in connection with the South
Tower’s collapse and it apparently had some hidden meaning, I decided to check in the published 9/11
timetable if the United Nations building has been evacuated at that moment or not. This was what I found:
September 11, 10.13 AM – CNN reported on The United Nations building in New York City evacuation.
Counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke apparently began arranging this evacuation a short time before41
this. The word "before" here could mean that the UN building was evacuated on personal orders of Clark
about the same time as the Sears Tower in Chicago – i.e. at the moment of the South Tower collapsed, if
not earlier than that.
Just to make sure that abovementioned information was not a "canard" I asked Rayelan Allen via an email
if she was a person who claimed that her former CIA husband allegedly told her about the nuclear
demolition charge under the United Nations building. This was her reply to my question:
"Yes / am that person.... But my husband was the second person to tell me this. The first person was a
UN worker in UNDP. He said this in front of the head of security... who nodded his head in agreement.
After I married Gunther I asked him if it was true... he said it was."
Everyone is welcome to make his or her own conclusions.
Explaining Unexplainable: the alleged “absence of damages” to “the bathtub” and to PATH:
Since my video presentation appeared on YouTube it was received differently. About 95% of “innocent”
people just loved it, with, perhaps, ~5% of skeptics. However, it was not so with the “professional” 9/11
auditorium. Only a few from among professional conspiracy theorists accepted my explanation at once.
The majority of them ignored my presentation whatsoever, pretending not to notice either my video, or the
“ground zero” definition in pre-9/11 dictionaries, which I, at last, publicly revealed. However, a minority of
the “professional” conspiracy theorists lashed out at my version with quite a spiteful criticism. The most
41 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/centerforcoop-20 [Clarke, 2004, pp. 14-15]
98
spiteful of these critics were followers of Judy Wood’s theory – the so-called conspiracy theory No.5 (or
“DEW” theory) which we have already disproved in the corresponding Chapter of this book. Those spiteful
critics that belonged to the little army of Judy Wood’s admirers attempted to “debunk” my alleged “theory”
(despite my statement that I am not a “theorist” but a “witness”) by claiming that I allegedly could not
explain why “my” alleged “underground nuclear explosions” did not damage the so-called “bathtub” and
why they did not damage PATH (the underground train system). These critics pretended not to notice the
definition of “ground zero” in pre-9/11 English language, they preferred not to notice high temperatures
that unexplainably persisted underground for almost 4 months, and they preferred not to notice leukemia
and other radiation-related cancers strangely endemic among the ground zero responders. They continue
to stubbornly insist that the WTC was demolished by mysterious “laser beams from space” which in their
opinions should successfully explain both – “dustifications” of the Towers and the underground fires
(along with “ground zero” name) – and they claim that I was allegedly hired by the US Government to
“dissolve” their alleged “truth” with a certain “plausible lie” – because I could not satisfactorily explain why
“my” underground nukes did not damage the “bathtub” and PATH trains and stations.
Well. It seems that I am obliged to address this spiteful criticism. First of all, these nukes were not “mine”.
I merely happened to know about them while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service and I wanted
to report my knowledge as any other witness would do in such a case. Unlikely I have any obligation to
explain their exact positions, their exact yields and their detailed effects. While knowing for sure that there
were nukes under the WTC I attempted to calculate their yields and positions and I presented my findings
here. If you don’t like them – don’t take them. Make your own calculations instead. Don’t forget that it is
not an obligation of a witness to provide technical explanations. A witness is obliged only to report what
he knew or what he saw with his eyes. And that’s it. Obligation to explain technicalities lies with experts
and with culprits, not with witnesses. I hope everybody familiar with law and logic agrees with that. If you
want to know more details about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme don’t ask me – ask Mr. Loizeaux
from “Controlled Demolition Inc.” Or ask Mr. Leslie Robertson, who was responsible for the WTC design.
Or ask responsible officials from the Department of Buildings of New York. You don’t know their names?
Don’t worry. Ask their names from Mr. Rudolph Giuliani – the former Mayor of New York. He knows the
names for sure. Coming back to the disputed point – “whose” nukes were under the WTC since they were
definitely not “mine” despite of so suggested by spiteful followers of Judy Wood? Well. It is difficult to
answer this question. Perhaps this question should be asked from either the Department of Buildings of
New York or from “Controlled Demolition Inc.” Or from a certain office that issues patents. Don’t even
doubt that the actual WTC nuclear demolition idea however outrageous it might be was duly patented. I
was unable to discover that patent (and I am certain that you will be unable to discover it either, because
the “good guys” apparently took care of that seditious patent making it publicly unavailable after 9/11).
However, while searching for that patent I discovered another, quite a relevant one – issued within the
same time-frames that the suspected nuclear demolition patent was issued – i.e. at the beginning of the
‘70s. It was the United States Patent- 3693731. Issued: September 26, 1972. The name of the patent:
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TUNNELING BY MELTING. According to a rather vague description it
had something to do with “nuclear reactors” that should be the source of the heat enough to melt rock.
The assembly of its inventors and their places of residence are quite revealing: Armstrong; Dale E. (Santa
Fe, NM), McInteer; Berthus B. (Los Alamos, NM), Mills; Robert L. (Los Alamos, NM), Potter; Robert M.
(Los Alamos, NM), Robinson; Eugene S. (Los Alamos, NM), Rowley; John C. (Los Alamos, NM), Smith;
Morton C. (Los Alamos, NM). Appl. No.: 05/104,872. Filed: January 8, 1971. No, it is not the patent for the
nuclear demolition of skyscrapers’ method. Don’t get me wrong. However, I am certain that these people
from Los Alamos mentioned as “inventors” in the abovementioned patent definitely know very well about
the second “Manhattan project”. Perhaps, if the court of law would summon them – along with Mr. Leslie
Robertson and Mr. Mark Loizeaux – a lot of interesting details would be revealed in their testimonies...
Coming back to the question – why PATH was not damaged? But are they sure that it was not damaged?
99
The above one is a graphic representation of the bathtub area damage and its description from the New
York Times. It clearly stated in the text visible on the above picture that three out of seven trucks of the
PATH train were “crushed”. I am inclined to believe that. I am not quite sure that it was an “empty PATH
train” as the New York Times suggests, because I know for sure that Flight 93 and Flight 77 were by no
means “empty”, and I would rather doubt this claim. If there were an alarm signal warning that the area
would be soon destroyed and anyone needs to promptly get out, it would be logical to expect that the
train would be driven to another station as soon as possible instead of forcing everybody out of the train
right at the station that is about to be destroyed. And in any case why should you leave a train, even an
empty one, in an area where it will be soon destroyed if you have a chance to drive it away and enough
time for it? Do you see any logic in such a claim? Therefore it appears to me that the there was no any
alarm signal whatsoever and the train with unsuspecting passengers just arrived to the station when the
underground nuclear explosion occurred – definitely killing everyone irrespectively of whether he or she
happened to be within the “crushed” zone, within the “damaged” zone, or just not very far away from the
latter. However, when it comes to the stated number of the crushed cars – three – it sounds very
reasonable to me. Apparently the radius of the “crushed” zone underground was not too big, because its
horizontal radius was decreased on the account of the much farther propagation of this zone upwards.
What I mean is that if you take a sphere and squeeze it trying to change its form to a form of an egg with
the longest and the sharpest end facing upwards this will automatically decrease its horizontal radius. Do
you agree with that logic? Therefore it is very reasonable that only the three cars of the train were
crushed. Perhaps it depended on the exact position of the train underground: while the three cars were
within the “crushed” zone, or partly within the “crushed” and partly – within the “damaged” zones – the
rest of the train could have been farther away from the hypocenter of the nuclear explosion, because the
train is actually quite long. In any case I don’t see anything wrong that the three cars of the train were
crushed while the other four were not. The Twin Towers were not crushed in their entirety either – as
everyone could see their very tops were not crushed because of being very far from the source of the
“crushing wave” propagating upwards. Why the train should behave differently in this sense? Especially
considering that the “crushing wave” was propagated mostly by the vertical vector and its propagation by
the horizontal vector was insignificant. The most important point is actually that there was strangely no
witness account published from among those witnesses who were in PATH station. The mere absence of
such witnesses says a lot.
I guess I successfully refuted one of the most spiteful accusations by Judy Wood’s followers who claimed
that I allegedly “could not explain the absence of any damage to the PATH trains”. I think I explained that
damage quite well. But if someone insists that the three crushed cars of the PATH train is allegedly the
“absence of any damage” than it is indeed difficult to argue further…
Coming to the second accusation by Judy Wood’s followers – the alleged “absence of any damage to the
bathtub” and my alleged inability to explain such a “phenomena”. First, I am obliged to briefly explain what
the “bathtub” is because many readers might not understand what we are talking about. “The bathtub”
was a unique engineering solution, peculiar to Manhattan, which was represented by the underground
slurry wall that kept the Hudson River from flooding the WTC's basement. It was created prior to the WTC
construction by excavating large quantities of soil and erecting these walls. Thus the WTC complex was
actually built from the bottom of “the bathtub”. Followers of Judy Wood insist that “the bathtub” was
allegedly “not damaged” and I allegedly can not explain this phenomena which in their opinion is the proof
that I am a dangerous liar hired by the US government to claim about the “alleged underground nukes”
and so to mislead the “honest 9/11 researchers” who knew long time ago that the WTC was demolished
by either “laser beams from space” or by so-called “nano-thermite”. Well. I will try to address that spiteful
criticism by asking this question – are they sure that “the bathtub’s” walls were allegedly “not damaged”?
Let’s read some appropriate news articles in order to establish the amount of truth behind the claims of
Judy Wood’s followers.
There is one very revealing article (that also hosts a corresponding video file describing the same thing)
by NY1 News named “Workers Rush To Repair Huge Hole In WTC 'Bathtub'” published online42. I quote:
“Crews at the World Trade Center site are rushing to fix a 90-foot-wide hole in the retaining wall that
keeps out ground water……The collapse of the south tower tore the large gash in the wall September 11”
Doesn’t the 90-foot-wide (near 27.5 meters-wide) hole in the wall sound like a kind of “damage” to you?
Strangely, but to the followers of Judy Wood it does not sound so. Though it is not surprising, because
the 3 cars of the PATH train crushed underground does not seem to be “damage” for them either…
42 http://www.ny1.com/?SecID=1000&ArID=20029
100
If you want to understand why the South Tower’s collapse tore “the large gash” in the wall of “the bathtub”
you can look at this picture that shows the actual outline of its walls in relation to the rest of the WTC:
I hope you remember that the position of the demolition nuke was in between the South Tower and the
Marriott Hotel – which is dangerously close to the nearest bathtub wall. Hence the abovementioned “large
gash” – comparable in size with the three crushed cars of the PATH train. When it comes to the North
Tower (the one standing on Liberty Street – i.e. in the lower part of the above drawing), as you remember,
the position of the nuclear charge intended to demolish it was in between the North Tower and the WTC-4
– which means that the closest wall of “the bathtub” must have been damaged also. In order to confirm
this, just look at the previous drawing from the New York Times that deals with damage to “the bathtub”
and PAPH. On that drawing brown color represents what is described as “collapsed or heavy damage”.
As you could notice the brown area around the North Tower extends into the nearest wall of “the bathtub”
to the right, which perfectly corresponds to the expected damage inflicted by the second nuke taking into
consideration its actual position. Now we have found at least two confirmations that “the bathtub” walls
were heavily damaged in at least two different spots – and so disproved the basic premise of Judy Wood.
However, as it is normal in judicial proceedings, one witness is not enough. We need one more witness.
Here is another interesting article “Trouble With the Water, Engineer: Site can't be rebuilt without new
wall” by Graham Rayman Staff Writer. February 7, 200243. I quote: “The World Trade Center "bathtub",
which keeps out the Hudson River, suffered so much damage on Sept. 11 that a new wall will have to
be added before permanent rebuilding can occur, the engineer who designed the wall and leads the
repair project said yesterday.”
And one more quote44: “The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center's subway station on
the 1/9 line and shut Port Authority Trans-Hudson commuter train service from New Jersey exacted a
terrible price in death and destruction… …The attack closed three stations: Cortland St., within the World
Trade Center; Rector St., a few blocks south of Ground Zero; and South Ferry, which provides access to
the Staten Island Ferry Terminal at the southern tip of Manhattan. "We had 1,800 ft of subway line
completely destroyed," says Nagaraja.” Now I think it should be sufficient – to address all the criticism.
I would like to end this chapter with the same disclaimer I have began it: I am not going to bear
any responsibility for anything I suggested in this particular chapter, and I will not accept any
arguments intended “to disprove my claims” in the future, as well as any accusations that I might
lie here, by stating in advance: I did not know for sure about anything I have said here and I was
only guessing, though based on some reasonable observations and on some elementary logic.
However, this disclaimer concerns only the current chapter. Neither before, nor after this chapter
have I allowed myself any speculation: all what I claim in the rest of the book, I know for sure.
43 http://www.hudsoncity.net/tubes/newretainingwall.html
44 Extra Effort Speeds Repair of Train Systems. September 9, 2002 Issue. By Andrew Wright and Debra K. Rubin.
http://www.hudsoncity.net/tubes/engineeringdowntownstation.html
101
Some interesting testimonies of the 9/11 witnesses.
I guess it is clear to everybody now how the Twin Towers and the WTC-7 have been demolished and no
more technical questions remains. They have been demolished by three well-calculated in advance deep
underground explosions of huge nuclear charges and not by any terrorist “mini-nukes” as the second socalled
“truth” for “patricians” claims. However, I think we are lacking some witnesses accounts to confirm
our third and the ultimate truth without quotation marks from the legal point of view (any legal proceeding
require testimony of witnesses and no one, as you remember, could be accused unless two witness will
point on him). So, to conclude with the Twin Towers nuclear demolition we need to hear some witnesses.
Witnesses are subdivided into several groups and we have to be careful when consider their testimonies,
because the witnesses themselves are just common people, who are prone to beautification of facts. And,
moreover, some witnesses could also be ordered to lie by the FBI, which forced them to do so after they
have signed certain non-disclosure contracts. Or it could be also presumed that the US Government has
instructed the FBI to provide appropriate “witnesses” to support its second “truth” for patricians – such as
those who claimed about “half-burned” by alleged EMP passenger cars around the WTC, for example. Or
those, who concocted those fake seismograms which we have already considered above.
All important witnesses in the case of the WTC collapse are divided into several groups:
1) A group which claims that they allegedly “heard explosions on every floor” of the Twin Towers before
and during their collapse. This group is apparently innocent. Such “witnesses” simply could not abandon
the “Conspiracy Theory No.1” (that the Towers were brought down by multiple charges of conventional
explosives – allegedly positioned on every floor) and such a pre-occupation with this “theory” apparently
forces them to fantasize. Even though these witnesses are obviously innocent, we do not need to listen to
their fantasies. Some other witnesses said that sounds during the Towers’ collapse indeed resembled not
sounds of explosions, but sounds of avalanche. This is much more reasonable and therefore – much
more believable. The Tower’s structures were reduced to that special “dustified” state. When the tops of
the Tower’s were falling down, crushing such a finely pulverized material (particles of which were mostly
not exceeding 100 microns in size), sound of such a process would most likely resemble a sound of an
avalanche – because in that case it is crushing snow, which is quite a similar “fluffy” stuff. Here is, for
example, one eye-witness’ account: Journalist Pete Hamill is describing how the South Tower begun to
collapse: “We heard snapping sounds, pops, little explosions, and then the walls bulged out, and we
heard a sound like an avalanche.”45 It seems that in this particular statement expressions such as
“snapping sounds”, “pops” and “avalanche” are all genuine, but those “little explosions” are apparently
added because of a little fantasy. These were, perhaps, some “cracking” sounds, and not “explosions”.
2) Another group which claims that they allegedly “heard explosions somewhere on the basements” of the
Twin Towers before they started to collapse. Statements of “witnesses” from this particular group should
be treated with a maximum of precaution. It shall be suspected that such claims could only be in support
of the “confidential” so-called “truth” of the US Government intended for the “patricians” – namely its
“mini-nukes” theory. When it comes to my own humble self, I simply suspect that such “witnesses” have
been hired by the FBI to claim such a thing – in the same manner as those “seismic specialists” were
hired from the Lamont-Doherty seismic station. Normally, deep underground nuclear explosion (such as
in the case of the Twin Towers demolition) does not produce any sound of explosion, so there was
nothing like that in reality. Anyhow, it is a matter of choice – if someone wishes to believe these
“witnesses” – it is up to him. However, do not forget, that some “witnesses” also claimed to see with their
very eyes how some Arabic Ace – Hani Hanjour – managed to direct on a hedge-hopping flight his
“Boeing-757” into the Pentagon…
3) Yet another group of witnesses claims to see even fireballs of explosions, allegedly bursting out of the
basements of each of the Towers shortly before their beginning to collapse. These claims are particularly
suspicious because they again could be in support of the second so-called “truth” (a/k/a the “mini-nukes”
theory) and everything which is suspected being in support of lie shall be automatically presumed to be lie
of itself. Some of witnesses even claim to escape these fireballs while the flames were “chasing them”.
Here is, for example, one of the witness’ accounts about those fireballs: “Ronald Di Francesco is the last
person to make it out of the South Tower before it collapses. As he is heading toward the exit that leads
onto Church Street, he hears a loud roar as the collapse begins. According to the Ottawa Citizen, “Mr. Di
Francesco turned to his right in the direction of Liberty Street, to see a massive fireball – compressed as
45 http://www.petehamill.com/nydnews91101.html ; Published in: New York Daily News, 9/11/2001.
102
the South Tower fell – roiling toward [him].” He bolts for the exit, before being knocked unconscious and
blown many yards across the street.”46 Let’s consider these claims about fireballs, particularly in a sense
that if it could be true that those fireballs were caused by an explosion of a “mini-nuke”. What could be a
nature of these alleged “fireballs”? There are only 2 answers: 1) it was allegedly fireballs from a “mininuke’s”
explosion; and 2) it was allegedly fireballs from a diesel fuel’s explosion (because it is believed
that some huge stock of diesel fuel intended for emergency reasons has been kept somewhere in the
basements of the WTC Twin Towers). There are no other explanations. Let’s talk about “mini-nuke’s”
fireballs first. Was there any Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) noticed? No. Were there immediate multiple
deaths from radiation injuries? No. Were there multiple cases of acute radiation sickness reported? No.
Were there any cases of heavy burns from such nuclear fireballs reported (a lot of people supposed to
have been burned over like 45% of their bodies or to have at least some Beta-burns)? No. Were there
any cases of photo-materials being overexposed? No. Were there any cases of temporary blindness
reported (since nuclear fireballs supposed to outshine our Sun by several folds)? No. Would anyone be
really capable of running away while fireballs from a nearby nuclear explosion are chasing him? No. Our
final answer to it: a claim that it might have been “fireballs” from an alleged “mini-nuke” explosion is lie.
Let’s consider a second possibility – these alleged “fireballs” were from an explosion of those stocks of
diesel fuel kept in the basement. What could cause an explosion of such a diesel fuel? Let’s imagine that
it was the crushed zone which with a speed of over 2.5 km/sec propagated upwards and instantly
reduced the entire Tower’s structure into a “dustified” state. Would such a thing cause an explosion of
diesel fuel tanks with which, supposedly being kept in basements, also underwent a process of
“dustification” by a “crushing wave”? Honestly, I do not know. It is difficult to imagine. It could be true,
however, because the diesel fuel is known to be self-inflammable when it is in the conditions of the highpressure.
Actually, it is the very principle of a diesel-type engine, which does not have any sparking-plug,
unlike a carburetor-type engine: diesel-fuel is being injected into a combustion camera where there is a
highest pressure achieved already and at that moment a portion of injected diesel-fuel inflames of itself,
because of that very pressure. Thus it could be true that this diesel-fuel kept in the Tower’s basement
after being pressurized by a tremendous pressure of an underground nuclear explosion has instantly
inflamed and this resulted in those visible fireballs suddenly bursting out of the Tower’s basement and
even chasing some people on the adjacent streets. This sounds believable. However, I can’t be sure
about it. Some specialists apparently have to study this deeper.
Here are, for example, some witnesses’ accounts: “…People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate
as if a small earthquake were occurring.… The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were
knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply
tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path.
Minutes later, at 9:59 a.m., the tower collapsed…”47 What could we say about it? It sounds plausible, with
only exception of two things: it should be not “minutes later”, but “seconds later” the Tower collapsed after
the “shaking”. And it could not have been felt by the people inside the South Tower, because they would
be instantly killed by the “dustification”. They would have no chance to escape to tell us what they have
actually felt – do not even doubt this. Even you don’t believe the author of these lines concerning this
“dustification” – which only in milliseconds “dustified” everything up to the upper floors of the Tower, then
use your logic and think about exploding diesel fuel “consuming everything on its path” as claimed in this
quotation. What do you think – what material should have been that tough guy made of – if he, while
being inside the South Tower’s lobby, miraculously managed to escape both deadly factors – an instant
“dustification” which actually destroyed the very Tower, and, in addition, also survived an explosion of the
diesel fuel, which claimed to burst out of the doors of the South Tower “consuming everything on its path”,
and now is still alive and kicking and telling us what he felt? I wish to be a superman also made from the
same kind of stuff as that tough guy, since I am really envious... As you could see, witnesses’ accounts
are not always reliable. You have to treat them with a great amount of care.
However, something in that account sounds reasonable: probably, it was the people inside the North
Tower’s lobby who felt and saw those things; then it sounds believable. Particularly reasonable in that
account of events is that a “small earthquake” was felt, but what is the most important is that “the
doors were knocked out”. Here we at last caught those liars from the Lamont-Doherty Earth
observatory of the Columbia University at the pay of the FBI, who attempted to cheat us with their false
seismograms. Those “doors knocked out” is nothing else than an indication of a certain magnitude. As
you remember, those cheaters from the Columbia University drew a magnitude of the first seismic event
46 USA Today, 12/18/2001; http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm ; Ottawa Citizen,
6/4/2005; Ottawa Citizen, 6/5/2005; PBS NOVA, 9/5/2006; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
47 Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 16
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm
103
in connection with the South Tower’s collapse at 2.1 on the Richter scale. It is known that a feeling of an
earthquake with the magnitude 2 is this: “A few people might notice movement if they are at rest
and/or on the upper floors of tall buildings.” It could be said that an earthquake with magnitude 2
goes largely unnoticed by human beings. This is how people feel an earthquake with the magnitude 3:
“Many people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing back and forth. People outdoors
might not realize that an earthquake is occurring”. Note, that 2.1 is much closer to 2, than to 3, so
noticeable effects of 2.1 in magnitude earthquake would not differ much from the first description.
However, even an earthquake with the magnitude 3 could still be unnoticed by many people who are not
inside their rooms and can not hear their swinging objects. Those cheaters from Lamont-Doherty put the
seismic event of the North Tower’s collapse at 2.3 and the South Tower at 2.1, as you remember. Make
your own conclusions. Here is what people usually feel when an earthquake with the magnitude 4
occurs: “Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing. Dishes, windows, and doors
rattle. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hitting the walls. A few people outdoors may feel
movement. Parked cars rock.” But still even this one falls short of the above description. Here is what
people feel when an earthquake of the magnitude 5 occurs: “Almost everyone feels movement.
Sleeping people are awakened. Doors swing open or close. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the
wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of
open containers.” Now, at last, we get to the “doors which swing open or close”. And, to complete it,
here is a description of an earthquake with the magnitude 6: “Everyone feels movement. People have
trouble walking. Objects fall from shelves. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls
might crack. Trees and bushes shake. Damage is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural
damage.” (Source48)
See the difference? Those “doors knocked out” is a little bit stronger effect than “doors swing open or
close”. You could be absolutely sure that before the South Tower’s collapse an earthquake was definitely
stronger in magnitude than 5 and could have been even close to the magnitude 6. As we have already
discussed this subject in the beginning of this book while disproving “Conspiracy Theory No. 6” and those
falsified seismograms published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth observatory of the Columbia University,
you could probably remember that a fully contained deep underground explosion of a nuclear charge of 1
kiloton in TNT yield would cause a seismic signal (and corresponding feelings of an earthquake) of the
magnitude 4. Even if judging by the abovementioned witness’ testimony alone, it is already clear that it
was not a “mini-nuke”, because even if a fully contained (i.e. with a maximum of the possible energy
communicated to the earth) 1 kiloton explosion would never cause “doors to swing open or close”, not
even to say about the “doors knocked out”. However, considering that “terrorists” would never be able to
conduct a really contained explosion of their alleged “mini-nuke” and a maximum of what they could do is
to hide it somewhere in the underground parking, there will not be any seismic event (that one could feel)
at all, because the energy of its explosion would be largely decoupled by empty spaces available around
the mini-nuclear charge.
Here are two more witnesses’ accounts concerning the beginning of the South Tower’s collapse. “Port
Authority Police Officer Will Jimeno is in a corridor leading toward the North Tower. “Suddenly the hallway
began to shudder,” and he sees “the giant fireball explode in the street,” when the South Tower begins to
collapse.”49
As you can see, everybody here is talking not only about the fireballs, which are not actually proof of an
underground nuclear explosion, but also about the ground shaking, hallways shuddering and other signs
of an apparent earthquake – which is very hard proof of an underground nuclear explosion. For this
reason let’s consider another group of witnesses.
4) The most important group of witness for our particular case are those whose testimonies are consistent
with the real causes of the Twin Towers demolitions – i.e. those, whose testimonies could confirm that the
two underground nuclear explosions have indeed taken place a moment before the upper parts of each of
the Twin Towers begun to fall down. As you probably understand after all extensive explanations above
as to the nature of deep underground nuclear explosions, such an underground explosion is not really
noticeable, because there are no visible factors of a nuclear explosion: no fireballs, no air blast-wave, no
sound, no radiation in either visible or invisible spectrum and no Electromagnetic Pulse. There is actually
only one thing that you could notice: a shaking of the earth. If this explosion was so powerful that it even
managed to send the “crushing zone” several hundred meters upwards and the “damaged zone” – even
higher than that, it would be reasonable to presume that people in the immediate vicinity to the WTC
48 http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/mercalli.html (this web page has been removed by the US
authorities after the author’s of these lines video presentation referring to it appeared on YouTube in March 2010)
49 Bowhunter, 1/2003; http://www.bowhunter.com/feature_articles/BN_FromTheRubble/
104
should feel something like a major earthquake with a magnitude of at least 5.5 – considering that the
charge was 150 kiloton.
One witness account which proves that it was apparently much more than 5 in magnitude we have just
encountered in the previous section. Here are some more witnesses’ accounts to the same effect.
“EMT Joseph Fortis is heading across West Street, when, he says, “the ground started shaking like a
train was coming.” He then looks up and sees the South Tower starting to collapse.” 50
What we could say? A feeling of a passing train is a sign of an earthquake stronger than 5 in magnitude –
probably, close to 6.
“Lonnie Penn, another EMT, is outside the Marriott Hotel, which is adjacent to the North Tower. He and
his partner “felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway and then it just came down.””51
“Bradley Mann is at the EMS staging area on Vesey Street. He says, “Shortly before the first tower came
down I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying
everywhere.””52
When CNN producer Rose Arce reported from the WTC site at 10.30 AM how the North Tower has
collapsed, she mentioned, besides of all, extremely important information: the top of the Tower before its
collapse “suddenly started to shake”.
Here is one more interesting account of events:
“Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty is walking into the lobby of the Marriott Hotel. He says, “I hear a noise.
Right after that noise, you could feel the building start to shudder, tremble, under your feet.” He then
hears the “terrible noise” of the South Tower collapsing.”53
Now it is very clear that the earthquake was definitely over 5 in magnitude, because when you feel that a
building shudders and trembles – this is an indication of an earthquake close to 6 or even over than that.
Note, that the Marriott Hotel (the WTC-3) has not been pulverized at the moment of the South Tower’s
collapse – so at that moment described above the building has not suffered any explosion intended to
demolish the actual Marriott Hotel, but another explosion intended to demolish the neighboring building,
because it was the second charge under the North Tower which would finally destroy the Marriott Hotel
30 minutes later. Here are some more witnesses’ accounts describing the earth’s shaking prior to the
North Tower’s collapse.
“Fire Patrolman Paul Curran is in front of the US Customs House (WTC 6), next to the North Tower. He
says, “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.… The
next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.””54
“EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann is heading toward the EMS staging area on Vesey Street. He’d felt the
ground shaking prior to the first collapse. He says, “The ground shook again, and we heard another
terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down.””55
Besides of all, an unexplainable shaking of the top of the North Tower moments before its collapse is
distinctly visible on video footage – made by professional cameras fixed on tripods and riveted to the top
of the North Tower. Several movies of this kind are widely available on the Internet – particularly the
famous 9/11 footage by Etienne Sauret, which is available, for example, on YouTube here56.
Below is an official table57 describing seismic events, their magnitudes according to the Richter scale and
corresponding TNT yields required to achieve such events.
50 City of New York, 11/9/2001
51 City of New York, 11/9/2001
52 City of New York, 11/7/2001
53 City of New York, 1/9/2002
54 City of New York, 12/18/2001
55 City of New York, 11/7/2001
56 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
57 http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html (this web page has been removed by the US
authorities after the author’s of these lines video presentation referring to it appeared on YouTube in March 2010)
105
Richter TNT for Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield (approximate)
-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado (total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn., NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, Japan Quake, 1995; Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center, or Earth's daily receipt of solar energy)
There are only two lines here mentioning nuclear explosions – those of 1 kiloton (1.000 ton) – which has
magnitude of 4.0 (exactly as we presumed before, based on the explanation from the US Governmental
web site); and another one – that of the 32 megaton thermo-nuclear explosion – which causes seismic
event with the magnitude 7.0. However, even there is no exact mentioning of particular nuclear weapons
in those lines against magnitudes 5.5 (equivalent to 80 kiloton in TNT yield) and 6.0 (equivalent to 1
megaton or 1.000 kiloton in TNT yield), we could easily estimate that nuclear charges used to demolish
the WTC Towers 1 and 2, supposed to cause seismic events with magnitudes definitely over 5.5, but less
than 6.0. Now, if you read again those testimonies of the witnesses above and try to analyze what kind of
magnitudes they were talking about when referring to the feelings of “coming train”, “building shuddering”
and “doors knocked out”, you will probably understand that it was very close to 6.0, but probably a little bit
less than that, while definitely more than 5.0 and obviously more than even 5.5. So, it is about the right
estimation: it was charges over 80 kiloton used to destroy the WTC Twin Towers and by no means could
it have been laughable “mini-nukes”. In fact, besides the above table, there is another important data
published by specialists, moreover, on the very same web site58. On the page 27 of this document156 a
seismic magnitude of 5.89 is ascribed to a 120 kiloton underground nuclear explosion, which slightly
improves understanding of the above table and might give a clue as to how powerful the actual nuclear
demolition charges could have been… Do you still believe those cheaters from the Lamont-Doherty Earth
observatory of the Columbia University who implied that it were two “mini-nukes”?
There are also interesting witnesses’ testimonies in regard to “Ground Zero”. Here are some:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations
at “Ground Zero”, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal
dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.”59
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have an unrestricted access to “Ground Zero” during the
cleanup operation, describes, “…in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot
cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”60
A nice account of events is available in the November 2001 LiRo report, originally placed on the LiRo web
site http://www.liro.com/lironews.pdf , but removed from there and now only available somewhere in the
web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20050520232345/http://www.liro.com/lironews.pdf Remarkable
in this document is not only mentioning about red hot metal, but also the fact that the term ground zero is
still used in it’s text with low case letters and without any quotation marks – despite the document being
dated by November 2001. I quote: “…Having worked closely with LiRo on other City projects, Tully called
58 http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~richards/my_papers/khalturin_NZ_1-42%20.pdf
59 http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm
60 Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865476756/centerforcoop-20
106
upon the firm to provide demolition support, structural engineering, scheduling, accounting, and interface
with the City’s primary engineering consultants, LZA/Thornton & Thomasetti, and Mueser Rutledge. In
response, LiRo is supplying Tully with a broad range of personnel: structural engineers, architects,
construction managers, accountants, and safety inspectors. Over a dozen of LiRo’s top personnel –
including the firm’s president, John Lekstutis – now spend most of their time at ground zero. The tasks
have been difficult and varied.
Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed areas requires the safe lifting and maneuvering
of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled
from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that
temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.”
I could only wonder if the person who composed this report had any clue what ground zero used to mean
in the then English language and why the beams pulled from the wreckage were still red hot even after
more than 7 weeks after the attack… But I have no doubt that all those people supplied by the
abovementioned company to work on ground zero worked there without any lunar-looking haz-mat
suits…
One of the most famous “Ground Zero” photographs which shows a red-hot chunk of metal being removed
from the North Tower rubble amidst streams of radioactive vapors eight weeks after September the 11th.
By the way, we need, perhaps, one more witness, in addition to John Walcott mentioned in the beginning
of this book, who could testify that some people indeed wore full haz-mat suits at ground zero. Because in
proper judicial proceedings a minimum of two witnesses is required to testify to every important point. A
very nice article titled “40 Hours in Hell” by a certain Katherine E. Finkelstein is published here:
http://ajr.org/article.asp?id=2381 in the American Journalism Review web site. The article is dated by
November, 2001, but, unlike in the LiRo report mentioned above, in this one Ground Zero is used with
capital letters, which by then apparently became a “politically correct” option. However, some thing is not
“politically correct” in that article which is actually an eye-witness account, because Katherine E.
Finkelstein was trapped at ground zero from the very beginning and was forced to spend there overnight
before being banished from the site by the next morning. In fact, it is a very interesting account of events,
but, unfortunately, we need only one paragraph from it – particularly what Ms Finkelstein saw at ground
zero (by then still in low-case letters) early in the morning: “More rescue workers had come with the light:
men in those lunar-looking hazmat suits, K-9 units with their dogs, military uniforms from many
divisions, parajumpers with equipment strapped around their legs. Men everywhere, alive and dead.” This
is all we needed. Now we have two eye-witnesses who could testify that they saw people wearing full
protection gear at ground zero. And this is enough from the judicial point of view.
Let’s continue to hear witnesses who could testify in regard to molten metals and high temperatures:
107
“The rubble pile was so hot in places that it melted the soles of work boots. Companies donated supplies
of work shoes, and construction workers laboring on the hotter parts of the rubble pile reportedly went
through a pair a day. A boot wash was established where workers could cool their feet.” (This most
shameless statement comes from an official document named: “Protecting Emergency Responders”61)
Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following62 to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff
Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks
after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated63 that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel
being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far
beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still
burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.64 (though, you have to realize that Leslie
Robertson, being “responsible for the design of the WTC” knows it perfectly well about the in-built nuclear
demolition scheme of his actual brain-child and, even though he mentions the very truth here which could
be counted as an eye-witness testimony, his moaning implying an intentional WTC demolition sounds no
more sincere than the “sincere” bumbling of Mr. Mark Loizeaux abound in words pertaining to subjunctive
mood such as “if”, “were”, and “would” and described in the previous Chapter).
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires
are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are
finding molten steel.”65
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at ground zero on September 12, 2001, said that “feeling
the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.66
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at “Ground Zero” from
September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the
towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at
the surface to melt their boots.”67
Five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted
from deep underground at “Ground Zero”, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”68
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for
the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC
towers.69 He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to
result in melting of large quantities of metal.”70 (The testimony of Prof. Steven E. Jones does not have
actually any value in a sense of bringing us any closer to the truth, because being a nuclear scientist, he
knows it for sure what “ground zero” used to mean before 9/11 and his claims about so-called “hightemperature
explosives” such as “thermite” are no more sincere that the moaning of Leslie Robertson
described above, or that of Mark Loizeaux from “Controlled Demolition Inc.”; however, the mere fact that
such a prominent 9/11 scholar as Prof. Steven Jones voices the “molten metal” being available at
“Ground Zero” could be counted towards accumulating necessary evidence anyway.)
Now, I guess, the reader understands, at last, that nothing could cause those unexplainably high
temperatures persisting for several months underneath “Ground Zero” – neither any thermite, nor any so-
61 http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2006/CF176.pdf (ISBN: 0-8330-3149-X)
62 http://web.archive.org/web/20030521104203/http:/www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
63 http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-11-01/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-130539.asp
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001nyc/Fire_at_WTC_Site_May_Smolder_for_Months
64 SEAU News, 10/2001; http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
65 Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001; http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
66 National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40; http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf
67 National Guard Magazine, 12/2001; http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/
68 Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002; http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messengerinquirer.
com/news/attacks/4522011.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html
69 MSNBC, 11/16/2005; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
70 Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005; http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
108
called “nano-thermite”, nor a laughable 1 kiloton “mini-nuke” would ever be able to cause such an effect.
But a thermo-nuclear charge (at least 8 times the size of that used to bomb Hiroshima71) detonated deep
underground would be about the right thing. Normally, after an underground nuclear explosion, people do
not undertake any immediate studies, due to it being too dangerous to their health. Usually, a place
where a recent underground nuclear test had taken place is being sealed and also some warning sign is
set: “Do not open! Nuclear hazard!” Usually, the earliest time when scientists begin to study the
underground cavities etc. left by such a nuclear test is 3 years (the very minimum – 2 years). It is known,
however, that in one instance there was an attempt to send people in haz-mat suits to study effects of an
underground nuclear test of about 100 kiloton in TNT yield after only 6 months since the time of the
explosion. The people reported that temperatures inside the cavity were still too high even to approach it,
and levels of radiation were still too high to remain there even for a few minutes, so the attempt was
abandoned. The temperatures in that case were registered as several hundred degrees Celsius. It was
six months after the 100 kiloton explosion.
There is a very revealing article named “SH&E at Ground Zero” that was originally available here72, on the
web site of The American Society of Safety Engineers, but has been removed since removed. Luckily, it
was saved by some 9/11 researchers and re-published on their own web site73: I am quoting:
“The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by
helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400oF to more than 2,800oF. The
surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our
safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for
the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13).
More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The
underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.”
There is actually one very interesting piece of information from the same “prohibited” article above. It is
not about the molten metal, but about some safety measures implemented at ground zero (actually it is
merely a description of a photograph in that article that shows a truck being intensively sprayed with
streams of water under high pressure from several directions simultaneously:
“Photo 8 (below): A vehicle wash station at Ground Zero. No vehicles were permitted offsite without first
being washed.”
You don’t have to doubt that this “precautionary measure” – to wash all trucks thoroughly before they
could be allowed out of ground zero was indeed very important – much more important than to issue
lunar-looking haz-mat suits to the gullible ground zero responders. Because the trucks could carry
radioactively contaminated soil out of the area and some of it could accidentally fall to the streets and
there it could be collected by some vicious 9/11 researchers who could later use these radioactive
samples in legal proceedings. While those live human beings in capacity of the ground zero responders
were not dangerous in this sense – they were simply too gullible… And even later when their chronic
radiation sickness would become apparent and they would suffer from leukemia and other kinds of
radiation-related cancers, it would be still easy to convince them that they are suffering because of
“benzene” and “asbestos dust”…
There is yet another important quotation from the above “prohibited” article. All you have to do is to read it
“between the lines” and you will get the point:
“For the most part, normal worksite OSHA compliance was not possible or even feasible at the WTC. The
fundamental principles that form the basis for OSHA rules, regulations and standards certainly helped the
team analyze hazards, perform evaluations and make decisions. However, strict “compliance” with OSHA
requirements simply was not an option at this stage of the emergency effort. We encountered hazards
that no rule, regulation or standard had ever addressed. The entire site could have been considered
71 According to various sources the exact yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb varies. According to the President
Truman’s 1945 official declaration it was allegedly 20 kiloton. According to official digits provided by the US own
nuclear weapons manufacturers it was designed to explode at 18 kiloton; while according to some other sources – at
only 15 kiloton. However, all observers (including the US military ones) agreed that in reality the Hiroshima bomb
achieved a yield of only 13, perhaps even 12 kiloton. Therefore it is difficult to say how many times more powerful
than the Hiroshima bomb a single 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge used in the WTC demolition was. It could be
at minimum 8 times as powerful, and at maximum – 12 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb.
72 http://www.asse.org/professionalsafety/archive.php
73 http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm
109
“immediately dangerous to life and health,” but the work had to be performed. The SH&E group’s
task became one of real-time hazard identification, analysis and control. Team members had to quickly
evaluate the hazards and associated risks of a pending task and attempt to determine the safest possible
way to perform what was often an unsafe task.”
And it appears that the utmost danger for them was to allow the unwashed trucks out of ground zero.
Therefore the trucks were thoroughly washed. Another danger was that some unauthorized people could
enter ground zero and collect some samples of debris or soil directly from there. Therefore ground zero
area was heavily guarded. It would be easier for an unauthorized person to enter a secret military base
than to sneak into ground zero in Manhattan those days. As a result of these tough measures no 9/11
researcher has in its hand any piece of radioactively contaminated soil or WTC debris that could be used
as solid evidence. The only remaining evidence is apparent chronic radiation sickness strangely endemic
among the ground zero responders, and the very nuclear name: ground zero…
Let’s hear some more witnesses, because there are some more of them waiting to testify before our
inquiry and some of these are indeed very important witnesses due to their high-ranking positions.
There is one remarkable article titled “Rudy Today” published by The New York Magazine online74. This
article is not only remarkable because the term ground zero in relation to Manhattan’s “Ground Zero”
used in it “as is” – i.e. without any quotation marks and without any capitalization – as if it would in any
civil defense manual, but because of the actual statement of the former Mayor of New York Rudolph
Giuliani. I think it is such a masterpiece of the important 9/11 evidence and such an important witness’
testimony from the point of view of psychology, that I have to quote here the entire part of the article “as
is”, without modifying any thing – except only that I removed paragraphs to make the text more compact.
The important things that should not miss your attention are, however, made in bold by me. Make sure to
notice that in the aftermath of the unprecedented WTC kerosene-pancake collapse the Mayor of New
York for no apparent reason “went nuclear” and began his speech with silly comments about nuclear
reactors and continued it with his claims that he KNEW on top of WHAT the ground zero workers (whom
he sent to clean ground zero without issuing them lunar-looking haz-mat suits) were actually standing:
“Right, 9/11. Out in the dining room, after the salads are served, Delaware congressman Mike Castle
takes the microphone. He talks about Rudy and the squeegee men. BlackBerrys continue scrolling. But
then Castle tells of the ground-zero tour the mayor gave him and other congressmen in the days after the
terror attacks. People start to pay attention. “He attended most of the funerals; he was there in every way
possible,” says Castle. “I don’t think we can ever thank him enough for what he did.” Now Rudy strides to
the podium. The room rises. Suits at the cheap tables stand and a banker type sticks his fingers in his
mouth and gives a loud whistle. Initially, Giuliani squanders the goodwill. A bit on immigration lands with a
thud. He notes that China has built more than 30 nuclear reactors since we last built one. “Maybe we
should copy China.” What? You can see the thought bubbles forming over people’s heads: Can this be
the same guy we saw on television? The guy who was so presidential when our actual president was
MIA? But then Rudy finds his comfort zone. Along with McCain and Mitt Romney, his best-known fellow
Republican presidential contenders, Giuliani is out on the thin, saggy pro-surge limb with the president.
But Rudy can spin the issue in a way McCain and Romney, not to mention Hillary and Barack Obama,
cannot. And now he does just that: Iraq leads to 9/11, which leads to the sacred image of construction
workers raising the flag over ground zero. “I knew what they were standing on top of,” Giuliani says.
“They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that
raged for a hundred days. And they put their lives at risk raising that flag.” The room is silent. Not a
fork hits a plate, not one gold bracelet rattles. “They put the flag up to say, ‘You can’t beat us, because
we’re Americans.’ "The mayor pauses and, as if on cue, an old woman sniffles. He continues. “And we
don’t say this with arrogance or in a militaristic way, but in a spiritual way: Our ideas are better than
yours.””
O yes, witness Giuliani. The jury believes you. The jury does not even doubt that you knew for sure about
the “cauldron” with the 2000 degrees fires that raged for a hundred days. The jury does not doubt either
that you knew about the actual physical nature of this “cauldron” on top of which the gullible ground zero
responders were standing. And the jury does not doubt that you knew it for certain – that those workers
indeed put their lives at risk while standing on top of the “cauldron” and raising that flag – exactly as you
stated in your testimony. The jury even believes that it was correct – to spell ground zero with the lower
case letters when recording your speech – as it should be in any document dealing with nuclear weapons
effects. The jury believes everything you stated – even that you believe about the 9/11 Iraqi lead; and the
jury will definitely count your testimony as the most important 9/11 evidence. Thank you, witness Giuliani.
74 http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/
110
And to complete our witnesses’ hearing let’s listen to one of the most interesting witness’ testimonies:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110210.PDF
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT RICHARD SMIOUSKAS
Interview Date: November 27, 2001
"…All of a sudden there was this groaning sound like a roar, grrrr. The ground started to shake.... It
looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The
cameras went skidding across the floor. The windows started exploding in…. [pp. 8-9]
...I didn't know exactly what was going on outside. I'm thinking maybe the building snapped in half. I'm
thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I'm thinking it could have been a nuclear…." [p. 9]
The fact that Lieutenant Richard Smiouskas made a seemingly “accidental” allusion to a “nuclear” bomb
should not deceive you. Unless you are a specialist in nuclear explosions and knew it for sure that there
were nuclear charges under the WTC you would never ever make such an allusion to a nuclear explosion
just because the ground started suddenly to shake. Just try to use your common sense. If you are merely
a Fire Department’s Lieutenant how much do you know about underground nuclear explosions? And why
on earth should you think about an alleged “nuclear bomb” if the ground suddenly starts to shake and it
feels like a strong earthquake? Wouldn’t you just think that it is an earthquake? An underground nuclear
explosion produces no sound whatsoever. It produces only an earthquake. Logically, a person could get
an impression that it might be an explosion of a bomb only if there is a combination of the shaking and the
sound. Isn’t it? Therefore Smiouskas by no means could get a sudden idea that it might have been a
bomb merely because he felt the ground shaking without any sound of explosion (the “groaning sound”
described by him does not sound like a sound of a bomb, isn’t it?). So, why should he make any allusion
to a “bomb” and why should he make any allusion to a “possibly” nuclear bomb if the occurrence had any
and every property of a typical strong earthquake? Try to guess why…
It is because he was close to some high-ranking people in the Fire Department as appears from his
actual testimony. It appears from his testimony that Smiouskas was not a typical “Lieutenant” who
commands firemen, but a photographer in the Fire Department and apparently due to his specific position
he was very close to the leadership of the Fire Department (it also appears from his actual testimony that
he was on friendly terms with at least some Fire Chiefs). That is why he learned from his high-ranking
friends that the explosions were nuclear. Apparently, he had no right to testify as if it were indeed
“underground nuclear explosions”, because he was obliged to keep this secret. But it does not prevent
him from making allusions as described above. Obviously, anyone has right “to believe” it was a “bomb”
when he fells to the floor because of a sudden strong ground shaking. Isn’t it? And anyone has right “to
believe” that such a “bomb” might have been a “nuclear” because the ground shaking was indeed very
strong. Isn’t it? That is why the eye-witness Lieutenant Richard Smiouskas “thought” that it might have
been a “bomb” and a bomb, perhaps, was a “nuclear” one. He did not say to us the entire truth and,
moreover, he attempted to “beatify” his account of events, but we still got the point…
This was just an example of how to treat a witness’s testimony properly. Actually, many eye-witnesses
are prone to this fault. Instead of plainly saying the truth, the only truth, and nothing, but the truth – and to
leave making conclusions to inquirers and to judges – the majority of eye-witnesses will try to adjust “what
their eyes saw” to an already established version of events or even to rumors. That is why many of them
“saw” how aluminum planes penetrated steel perimeter columns of the Twin Towers and completely
disappeared inside. It is because this peculiar trend of lay commoners to “beautify” their witness accounts
is well-known to professionals specialized in mass-cheating. It was enough therefore to plant only a
couple of actors who would shout that they “saw the planes” during the explosions in the Twin Towers
and the rest of gullible flock will immediately claim that they “saw” the “planes” too – because they want to
appear “important witnesses”. Even worse, after that they can’t retract their claims and confess that they
did not actually see any planes disappearing inside the steel Towers, because these so-called “important
witnesses” would be ashamed to admit that they lied in the first instance – thus greatly complicating any
future inquiry. They would maintain that they “saw the planes” even later, even when the rest of the
people would eventually realize that aluminum can not penetrate steel and the king was indeed naked...
Lieutenant Smiouskas did the same – he adjusted what he “thought” to the already established version of
events. He later got to know that the bombs were nuclear therefore he “thought” they were “nuclear”.
Thank you, witness Smiouskas. Even though you attempted to present to the jury a slightly “beatified”
account of events, instead of plainly saying what you saw and what you felt, the jury, nevertheless,
accepts your testimony and will treat it as one of the most important pieces of 9/11 evidence anyway.
111
Levels of radiation and personal radiation doses received at
“Ground Zero”.
Some readers might wander – how high were levels of radiation at “Ground Zero” in Manhattan and how
heavy were personal radiation doses received by the people who worked on those grounds. It would be
indeed quite a reasonable question to ask. But, honestly, I do not know. It is simply too late to go there
today to measure radiation, since more than seven years have passed since and radiation has property to
subside in the course of time. Not to say that protective sarcophaguses have been created over spots of
the three nuclear explosions at the end of the clean-up operation. I am certain that the levels of radiation
at “Ground Zero” even today, in 2010, exceed the normal radiation background by at least several folds,
but it is not possible to measure even these, because it is prohibited to bring with you dosimeters while
visiting this area. I read in one Internet discussion that it was reported by New Yorkers that an attempt to
bring a dosimeter onto “Ground Zero” could lead to serious legal actions undertaken against an offender
(though, to be honest, I don’t know whether it is true or not, because I do not leave in New York and have
no chance to check if the guards would confiscate my dosimeter upon entering “Ground Zero” or not).
We could only guess today what the true levels of radiation were during clean-up works at “Ground Zero”.
Unfortunately, we have no other choice than to guess. So let’s guess. It is better than nothing: apparently
no US official would ever publish the exact measurements of radiation made by those ABC guys dressed
in “lunar-looking” has-mat suits…
It is extremely difficult, not to say practically impossible, to calculate exact levels of radiation in that case,
but still, we could try to figure them out at least approximately, by comparing to other similar events where
levels of radiation were measured. As in several other instances before this Chapter, we need some basic
data to base our guessing upon. Let’s find some comparable examples. Actually, it was not easy to find
these examples, I would say… Do not forget that almost all data on nuclear explosions is classified. It
simply does not exist in the wilderness… Anyhow, may be I was lucky. After an extensive search on the
Internet and everywhere else, I eventually managed to find one comparable event. It was an underground
nuclear test of exactly 150 kiloton; and it was exactly in granite rock – so its main basic features coincided
with our particular demand. The explosion took place on July, 23, 1973, at the Hole No. 1066, Balapan
Test Site, at Semipalatinsk nuclear testing ground, then Soviet Union. A nuclear device with a 150 kiloton
yield was detonated at a depth of 465 m in granite rock. The depth was sufficiently deeper than in our
case (since three nuclear explosions under WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 all occurred at depths of only 77
meters), but it was actually only one property that differed it from the three 9/11 explosions. But this
particular property that differed made that explosion “contained” – meaning that it met official safety
standards. Here I simply site the report75:
“…Radioactive gases escaped into the atmosphere 25 hours after the shot. In the first hours after
radioactivity was noted in the atmosphere, slow free-flow discharge of radioactive gases was observed,
mainly through annular cracks formed on the periphery of the subsidence crater. Filtration of gases ended
after about a day. During filtration of radioactive gases, levels of radiation [at the surface] were 200-
300 mR/h. After filtration had ended, the radiation background within the confines of the subsidence
crater and on the crest of the upheaval mound was 10-50 mR/h for the first few days…”
What could we see from here? First of all, this nuclear explosion formally met safety standards, unlike the
9/11 explosions in Manhattan. It was detonated sufficiently deep underground and the mentioned escape
of the radioactive gases occurred not immediately, but after some time (25 hours later). It was because
those gases had to find their way to the earth’s surface first, being filtered on the way by relatively sick
layer of soil remaining above the cavity left by the explosion at the depth of 465 m. These radioactive
gases have not been released into the Earth’s atmosphere “as is”. They were filtered first. And this fact
sufficiently decreased amounts of radioactivity. Still, even “200-300 mR/h” (meaning “milli-Roentgen per
hour”) is quite a serious level of radiation. Note, that mR/h is 1/1000th of R/h. 200 - 300 mR/h is nothing
else than 0.2 - 0.3 Roentgen per hour. As I have mentioned before, in the former Soviet Union it was 25
Roentgen maximum allowed radiation dose for combat conditions, and 12.5 Roentgen – for non-combat
conditions. While doses over 50 Roentgen already cause acute radiation sickness (although in light
forms, not in life threatening forms, but 50 R doses cause definitely acute, meaning immediately
noticeable sickness – you will feel really sick if you get over 50 Roentgens either at once as a result of
penetrating radiation, or as an accumulated dose during short period of time). You can calculate how
75 “The Containment of Soviet Underground Nuclear Explosions” – by Vitaly V. Adushkin, Institute of Dynamics of
Geospheres of the Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia.
112
many hours you need to stay in there to get acute radiation sickness in a light form. 50 R / 0.3 R/h = 166
hours. If you spend only 7 days in that area you will get twice as much as the maximum allowed radiation
dose set for combat conditions (or 4 times as much as the maximum allowed radiation dose for peaceful
life) and that would be enough to have light radiation sickness. If you spend there only three weeks you
will get over 150 Roentgen which is enough to develop acute radiation sickness with the life-threatening
condition (probability of death is around 50% during one month since first hospitalized). If you spend there
only 5 weeks you will get > 250 Roentgen (probability of death is well over 90%). End if you spend there
only 6 weeks, you practically have no chance to survive, unless you get a bone marrow transplant. Make
your own conclusions – whether the above-mentioned 200-300 mR/h levels of radiation are dangerous
levels or not. However, as you can see from the above report, these levels did not persist for long time.
“Filtration of radioactive gases” continued in the abovementioned case only one day. After that levels of
radiation subsided to a maximum of 50 mR/h, which is 6 times less than in our former calculation. And
then the radiation levels subsided to even less than that – only 10 mR/h, which is 30 times less than in
our former calculation. Now we can make a new calculation – how much maximum could a person obtain
in that case, if he really wishes to catch absolutely all possible doses available in that location. During the
first 24 hours – when levels were 0.3 R/h he could get a maximum of 7.2 R. During the second two days
he could get a maximum of, let’s say, 0.05 R/h X 48 hours = 2.4 R. During the next 10 days he could get
another, let’s say, 0.01 X 240 hours = 2.4 R. These are rough estimations, as you could see, because I
presumed that levels of 0.05 R/h sustained only 48 hours, and then sharply fell to only 0.01 R/h, while in
reality it was not so – levels fell first to 0.04 R/h, then – to 0.03 R/h, then – to 0.02 R/h, and so on. A
maximum of what a person, who spent there around two weeks could accumulate is only 7.2 + 2.4 + 2.4
= 12 Roentgen; quite a reasonable dose – just only half of the formal “safe” dose set for combat
conditions in the former USSR. Considering that no person would be crazy enough to pitch his tent right
at ground zero and to spend in that tent the entire 2 weeks, no one could accumulate even those
maximum available 12 Roentgens in reality. That is exactly why the abovementioned explosion was
considered “contained” – which meant that it met safety standards of the former USSR. But that was only
a rough estimate – merely an example to base our future calculations upon.
The problem of the nuclear explosions in Manhattan was that they were not conducted at the depth of
465 meters like in the above sample. They were conducted at depths of only 77 meters. You have to
note that the radius of the cavities created by these explosions was about 50 meters. It was only ~25
meters of remaining soil in between the upper end of the cavity and the earth’s surface. While in the
abovementioned example it was well over 400 meters of remaining soil. The sickness of it has crucial
importance in our case, because it is nothing else than the thickness of the very “filter” that would filter
radioactive gases before they reach the surface. Now you could probably guess that a quality of filtering
offered by the 400 meters and that offered by the 25 meters of remaining granite rock is different. Levels
of radiation at ground zero (or “Ground Zero” with capital letters if you wish) would be very much higher in
the Manhattan’s case. But the problem was that even these supposed 25 meters did not really remain
above hypocenters of the three explosions in Manhattan. These 25 meters above the spots of nuclear
explosions were nothing but the “crushed zone” (a/k/a “dust”) – as well as the Tower’s structures above it
for another 300 meters or so. These 25 meters of fine dust did not provide any filtering at all – they simply
fell into a blazing inferno underneath and melted there at once. From only a next second after the Towers’
collapse all radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere above “Ground Zero” totally unfiltered.
That is why the above method of estimating radioactivity levels is obviously invalid for Manhattan’s case.
What other data is available as to radioactivity levels after nuclear explosions? Here is some other data –
it pertains to a well-known atmospheric nuclear blast during the only known atomic military exercises that
involved Soviet regular army units - who acted as if during a real nuclear war during those unprecedented
exercises which took place on September 14, 1954, at Totskoe training grounds, the then USSR. An
aviation atomic bomb of 40 kiloton in TNT yield exploded in the air 380 meters above the earth’s surface.
A radiation reconnaissance platoon arrived at ground zero after one hour (to send it there before 1 hour
would be simply too dangerous for its personnel).
The levels of radiation at ground zero after the 40 kiloton airburst were measured as follows:
- 1 hour after the explosion – 50 R/h;(note, it is not “milli-Roentgen-”, but “Roentgen per hour”)
- 6 hours after the explosion – 26 R/h;
- 21 hours after the explosion – 10 R/h;
- 33 hours after the explosion – 6 R/h;
- 48 hours after the explosion – 3 R/h;
- 73 hours after the explosion – 850 mR/h (but this one is already “milli-Roentgen per hour”).
From here you could get not only the actual digits, but also an idea as to dynamics of how the levels of
113
radiation typically subside in the course of time. Though, unlikely we could use these digits, because they
pertain to a nuclear explosion of 40 kiloton which occurred 380 m above ground zero, while in Manhattan
there were 3X150 kiloton explosions that occurred 77 m below Ground Zero. Besides, we have to note
the following: an underground nuclear blast causes much more radioactive contamination compared to an
airburst; and such a radioactive contamination after an underground nuclear blast lasts considerably
longer too – compared to that caused by an airburst. Because in the case of an airburst winds will always
contribute to the subsidence of the radioactivity levels – by blowing away at least some radioactive
particles.
Still, it will be very interesting to get some digits in regard to radiation levels belonging to poorly contained
underground nuclear explosions. Actually, it is near impossible to get these digits, because all materials
of this kind are traditionally classified and only in case of a real good luck you can accidentally encounter
some of them. Perhaps, we have a good luck: during a relatively lax period (when new Russian secret
services after the USSR’s disappearance have not imposed any strict security regime yet) – in the early
‘90s – there were quite a few books published by former Soviet nuclear scientists and some of these
books were even translated to English.
Here is one of them: “A Review of Nuclear Testing by the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, 1955--
1990” by Vitaly I. Khalturin at al. This book in pdf format is available for download from here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~richards/my_papers/khalturin_NZ_1-42%20.pdf
Let’s open its chapter “ACCIDENTS AND RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION” (page 26). I am quoting:
“…The first accident occurred on 14 October 1969, when two nuclear charges totaling 540 kt (the
announced yield) were detonated in separate adits at Matochkin Shar (A-7 and A-9). This was the most
serious accident of the UNT program at NZTS. A gas-stream jet burst to the surface one hour after the
test from a tectonic fault on a mountain slope at some distance from adit A-9. The level of gamma
radiation jumped to several hundred roentgens per hour. For some 40–50 minutes, many test
personnel were exposed to the resulting radiation hazard. Most were subjected to a radiation dose of
about 40–80 roentgens…”
Now we have some comparable digits, at last. The two charges with a total yield of 540 kiloton described
above were, of course, more powerful than those used to demolish the WTC, but still comparable. Don’t
even doubt that when the Twin Towers and the WTC-7 collapsed it was only piles of debris (and no any
soil layer) that were actually separating the underground cavities filled with radioactive materials and the
atmosphere above. So, the situation was more than comparable with that described above. You can be
sure that in Manhattan’s ground zero (at that moment still not in Capital Letters yet) the radiation levels
were several hundred Roentgens per hour. And when it comes to the dynamics of the subsidence of the
radioactivity levels, you can use the abovementioned table (pertaining to the 40 kiloton airburst) – just to
have a general idea of how quickly the levels of radiation usually subside.
Now you have at least some basic data to base your guessing upon and now, at last, you can make your
estimations as to the possible levels of radioactivity after the WTC demolition and during various stages
of 9/11 rescue efforts and Ground Zero clean-up operations…
I hope, now you should understand why the Ground Zero responders suffer now from leukemia and need
bone marrow transplantations.
114
More information about radiation sickness: why not too
many cases of acute radiation sickness were noticed among
“Ground Zero” responders?
It might sound strange, but indeed not too many cases of acute radiation sickness were reported after the
extensive ground zero clean-up operation that involved thousands of totally unprotected responders who
worked without any “lunar-looking hazmat suits” and often even without any respirators on Manhattan’s
Ground Zero. Logically, it might appear to everyone that any and every worker who spent at Ground Zero
some time should end-up with some acute radiation sickness (ARS) and such a development would be
unavoidable. Strangely enough it was not so. Practically all Ground Zero responders and also some local
residents suffer from chronic radiation sickness, rather than from acute one. Why it happened?
In order to understand this phenomenon, you have to understand first of all what is the actual difference
between acute- and chronic forms of radiation sickness. Let’s consider acute radiation sickness first: in
order to develop an acute form of radiation sickness (noticeable one) you have to receive at least a 50
Roentgens dose of ionizing radiation (in this particular case meaning only its gamma-rays component and
penetrating neutrons component, while practically disregarding its alpha- and beta- components). You
could receive these minimum of 50 required Roentgens by either means:
1) Because of being instantly struck by a hard front of penetrating radiation of certain strength (measuring
in Roentgens) that momentarily comes from a nuclear explosion’s hypocenter simultaneously with its
initial flash and propagates to every direction with a speed of light. Let’s call it “Factor 1”.
2) Because of being exposed for some periods of time to ionizing radiation (represented by residual
radiation, or by induced radiation, or by both) on radioactively contaminated areas (in this case radiation
levels are being measured in Roentgens/per hour, rather than in Roentgens). Let’s call it “Factor 2”.
3) Because of the combination of the two (means that number of acquired Roentgens would be a sum to
which both – Factor 1 and Factor 2 have contributed).
Examples: some one has been struck by a 500 Roentgen penetrating radiation front because of standing
in the open some 350 meters away of a mini-nuke’s explosion hypocenter. He would develop the heaviest
condition of acute radiation sickness and would die in a maximum of 10-11 days without any chance to
recover. Another example: someone has been struck by a 100 Roentgen-strong penetrating radiation
front because of standing several hundreds meters away from the above hypocenter. He will develop an
acute radiation sickness of a medium form in which his chances to die will be not too high, but still, can
not be discarded: some people might die even after receiving only a 100 Roentgens dose. Third sample:
someone got only 30 Roentgens after being struck by a 30-Roentgen-strong penetrating radiation front
because of standing very far from the above nuclear explosion hypocenter. He will not feel sick at all,
because even though a 30 Roentgens radiation dose does harm his body to a certain extent, this harm
will not be noticeable. However, if someone who had already obtained this 30 Roentgens dose from the
penetrating radiation front has decided to visit ground zero in an immediate aftermath while levels of
radiation there were, let’s say 10 Roentgens per hour, and he has spent there 3 hours, he has additionally
obtained another 30 Roentgens due to residual/induced radiation at ground zero. These newly acquired
30 Roentgens will be added to the first 30 Roentgens he has had already, and his summary dose will be
now 60 Roentgens. To feel sick one need to have over 50 Roentgens. 60 Roentgens is more than
enough to feel sick right away (but not enough to die). This person would feel sick on the 2nd-3rd day and
unlikely in such a situation he would continue visiting ground zero and to accumulate more radiation
doses. He would rather prefer to stay in bed or to visit a doctor trying to seek some medical treatment for
his current illness.
Let’s now imagine that there is someone who was not subjected to a penetrating radiation front from any
nuclear explosion (which is the easiest way to instantly obtain a huge number of required Roentgens) –
i.e. he escaped being subjected to the abovementioned Factor 1. This person in our sample would try his
best to obtain a number of required Roentgens exclusively from Factor 2 – i.e. on account of some
radioactive contamination. Let’s imagine that such a “clean” person visits ground zero for the first day and
spends there 14 hours going here and there while levels of radiation are 10 Roentgens per hour (don’t
forget that these levels are not equal – somewhere they could be 10 R/hour, somewhere – 7 R/hour,
somewhere – 5 R/hour, and so on. What will happen with him? He will obtain 80 (or may be even 100)
Roentgens during the first day. The next day he might likely feel sick, because what he got corresponds
to medium acute radiation sickness. Thus unlikely he would continue to work at ground zero in these
115
circumstances. But if he did not feel sick on the very next day and attempted to work there again the next
day and spent there another 14 hours and get another 70-80 Roentgens, in addition to what he got during
the first day, then this person has a good chance to die. He would definitely feel very sick on the third day
but by then he would accumulate an extremely dangerous dose of radiation. But this sample of mine was
rather extreme. Let us consider some more realistic example. Let’s imagine that someone works at
ground zero while approximate levels of radiation are 2 Roentgen per hour and that person spends there
two days, 14 hours a day. By the end of the second day he will acquire more than enough radiation dose
to feel sick, but not enough to die. So, at the worst case even if he attempts to work there during the third
day and he will get, let’s say another 20 or 30 Roentgens, without any doubt he will not be there on the 4th
day, because he will by then definitely seek medical treatment and being unable to work. His chances to
acquire a really dangerous dose of radiation would not be too high considering the circumstances.
Considering all of this, as well as information available at the end of the previous chapter, we can try to
figure out what kind of people might have been subjected to extreme doses of residual radiation in a very
short time that would lead to acute radiation sickness. The most dangerous levels of radiation, of course,
were during the very first hour after each of the Twin Towers’ collapse, and that of the WTC-7 collapse
(see info at the end of the previous Chapter for guidance). Presumably, levels of radiation during very first
minutes after the Towers’ collapse in areas close to their footprints might likely exceed 300 Roentgen per
hour, though these levels relatively quickly dropped to be somewhat over 100 Roentgen per hour. This
would be our rough estimation for the very first hour. Anyone who was there from the moment of the
Towers’ collapse and did not run away immediately might likely get a dose exceeding 100 Roentgen or
even more than that (it depended on how many minutes this person actually spent there and also
depended on how far he or she was from the Towers’ footprints). That should be the first and foremost
group of risk, because these people would develop the heaviest condition of acute radiation sickness
which was in their case absolutely unavoidable.
Example of the “first and foremost” group of risk as seen on one of the most famous 9/11 photos. This man
who stood not too far from one of the Twin Towers footprints soon after its collapse (it should be presumed
that at least 30 minutes have past since its actual collapse, because the WTC dust was no longer airborne at
that moment) might get at minimum 20-30, and at maximum – 200-300 Roentgens of acquired radiation dose
– it depended on how far he was while waiting for dust to descend and how fast he run away after a moment
this picture has been taken. A photographer how took this picture should have received some comparable
digit of Roentgens (also depending on where he was hiding while the dust was still airborne and depending
on how long time he spent there in total).
The next groups of risk are those who spent at ground zero several hours entering these grounds on the
2nd hour or so after the Towers’ collapse – when levels of radiation subsided and were measured in tens
of Roentgens per hour, rather than in hundreds of Roentgen per hour like in the above case. These
groups were represented by professionals rather than casual passers by – i.e. by firefighters and other
116
rescue workers who attempted to search for survivors in the immediate aftermath of the Towers’ collapse.
These groups might miss the most dangerous first minutes (in this sense they were somehow “saved” by
dust that was still airborne and so severely decreased visibility preventing any rescue efforts). By the time
the dust has descended, the most dangerous initial levels of radiation have subsided too. We can roughly
presume the following – that these initial groups who entered ground zero after one or two hours, were
prevented from visiting the most dangerous areas by some “knowledgeable guys” from the ABC service –
who, in turn, supposed to appear in their “lunar-looking hazmat suits” in that area as soon as all Geiger
counters around simultaneously began to bark so alerting them that something truly awful has just
happened in the WTC area. You don’t actually have to doubt that it was exactly like we presume here,
since it would be just logical to presume so. These initial rescuers groups who entered ground zero in
search of survivors would unlikely approach areas that were too close to original sources of radiation
(since there areas were most probably marked as “no go zones” immediately). That is why these groups
were most probably subjected to ionizing radiation levels measuring, let’s say, from 10 to 80 Roentgens
per hour or so (our rough estimation). But the problem was that these groups were not in a hurry to leave
– they were eager to do all they could to find all survivors, as well as to retrieve dead bodies. That is why
they spent at ground zero long enough to accumulate summary radiation doses comparable with those
received by the first abovementioned group during first minutes and first hours – i.e. the doses that likely
exceeded 100 Roentgens. Which was more than enough to develop acute radiation sickness ranging in
seriousness of the condition from medium to heavy and, probably, even to very heavy.
Example of the “second” group of risk as seen on one of the most famous 9/11 photos – from the same set
as the above photo, i.e. it was apparently taken by the same photographer. Firefighters enter area close to
one of the WTC Towers’ footprint almost immediately after the dust descended. While a man on the above
photo unlikely remained at ground zero for long, these firefighters apparently spent there several hours at
minimum, after this picture has been taken.
And the third, probably the most unfortunate group of the highest risk were, of course, those who were
trapped under debris or knocked down unconscious by falling debris and regained their consciousness in
a few hours (if ever at all). Because by the time these people were found and taken out of ground zero,
they most likely got all radiation that was available – i.e. a maximum of what could be obtained by the first
group, plus a maximum of what could be obtained by the second group. These people might easily get a
few hundreds of Roentgens doses – likely some of them exceeding even nominally lethal doses of
radiation. It shall be presumed that some of these were badly injured by ionizing radiation with no chance
to recover and they indeed succumbed to their radiation injuries, but it would unlikely be reported as the
cause. As you might sincerely expect, their deaths that were caused by acute radiation sickness were
officially blamed on either mechanical injuries caused by debris, or, where available – on their burns.
These are the three main groups that were subjected to huge doses of radiation over a very short period
of time that could likely lead to acute radiation sickness. There would not be any further large group with
117
the risk to develop any acute radiation sickness, but only chronic one. Partly it was because radiation by
the end of the first evening has subsided even more (please, review information at the end of the previous
Chapter for comparison), and partly – because along with the radiation levels, initial panic and chaos at
ground zero have subsided too, and some sort of order and control, at last, was restored. Beginning from
the second day of this disaster, some radiation safety measures were apparently (although discretely)
implemented by the US authorities at ground zero preventing as much as possible any further cases of
acute radiation sickness. But before we move to consider these “apparent-but-discreet” measures, let’s
find some confirmation as to acute radiation sickness definitely suffered by the abovementioned groups.
There is one utterly seditious document named “THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: HEALTH
EFFECTS AND COMPENSATION MECHANISMS” published by certain John Howard, M.D., J.D. and
available on the Internet for download in .pdf format:
http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjlp/jlp16i_howard.pdf
Let’s try to read this document. Of course, as you might expect, “politically incorrect” words such as
“radiation” and “acute radiation sickness” would not be available in its text, but since we already know
how to read between the lines, we will try to read this document between the lines too. To begin with, we
have to formally establish the fact that here we deal with a cheater, and so we have our right to read his
concoction “between the lines”. In order to prove that this is nothing but cheating, let’s take a look at these
words: “The combustion of 90,000 liters of jet fuel at high temperatures led to the weakening of the
WTC’s structural steel members and within two hours resulted in their dramatic collapse. The collapse of
the towers pulverized the cement exterior of two of the largest buildings in the United States as well as
much of their interior contents.” I guess, this statement constitutes more than enough evidence to deliver
our final judgment to this concoction: it is a deliberate and the most shameless lie. This apparently leaves
us only an option to read it “between the lines” – in order to extract from this concoction at least some
particles of the truth.
What we need to find is this: according to our presumption, a few hundreds of people (most of them
firefighters) must accumulate dangerous doses of ionizing radiation during the first hours at ground zero –
which would unavoidably lead to their suffering from acute radiation sickness that would be immediately
noticeable. Thus, we could presume that these people should begin to seek medical treatment on the 2nd
and 3rd day after being exposed to huge doses of radiation, since it would be logical to presume so. Let’s
try to find some confirmation of this presumption in the above mentioned report.
I am quoting (from page 72 of the report): “…WTC exposures can best be understood as a temporal
sequence of five exposure categories of varying intensity. The first exposure category occurred during the
first 12 hours after the collapse, during the most intense exposure to rescuers, residents, commercial
building occupants and people in transit and when they were exposed to the highest concentration of
large and small particles and various gases. The second exposure category occurred twelve hours after
the collapse up to the first rain on September 14, 2001 at which time WTC-affected groups were exposed
to large and small particles that were periodically resuspended, as well as to gases which were
emitted from intense fires at Ground Zero...”
We make here our first attempt to read “between the lines”. As you might sincerely expect the author of
this report “forgot” to explain to his gullible reader what “ground zero” really meant those days. This is
understandable, indeed. Let’s follow his advice and try to “understand” the WTC “exposures” using the
abovementioned time frames. Why “the most dangerous” exposure occurred during first 12 hours after
the collapse? What do you think? To get an answer to this puzzle, please, look again at the dynamics of
how typically radiation levels subside in first hours after a nuclear explosion – mentioned at the end of the
previous Chapter. Why the “second exposure category” mentioned by this report is placed in a time-frame
between September 11 and September 14? You can get an answer to this second puzzle from the same
source – just look again at the digits available at the end of the previous Chapter and you will get the
point. Because during first 3 days the levels of radiation are the highest – so the people exposed to these
levels could likely develop some acute radiation sickness. While it is very unlikely that the people would
accumulate such large doses after the first 3 days have been passed. Still, this report mentions three
more categories of “exposure”, but in our case we can neglect them. Because here were are looking only
for causes and available victims of acute radiation sickness, leaving chronic radiation sickness and its
victims aside for a while.
I am quoting again (from page 73): “During these five periods of exposure, WTC-affected populations
sustained varying, but largely unknown, levels of exposure to a long list of toxic agents generated by the
collapse of the WTC. Among these were asbestos fibers (from insulation and fireproofing materials);
concrete and the crystalline silica it contained (made from Portland cement and used in the Towers’
118
construction); carbon monoxide (from fires and engine exhaust); diesel particulates (from vehicle engine
exhaust); mercury (from fluorescent lights); heavy metals such as aluminum, titanium, chromium, zinc
and manganese (from building materials and furnishings); hydrogen sulfide (from sewers, decomposing
human remains and spoiled foodstuffs); inorganic acids; volatile and semivolatile organic compounds
(“VOCs”); polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”); polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”);
polychlorinated dioxins (“PCDDs”) and furans (“PCDFs”); various pesticides; and other toxic agents.”
As you might sincerely guess in our case we can disregard with a light heart all those alleged “toxic
agents”, except only the very last one, vaguely defined in this shameless report as “other”.
Quote from page 79: “…Surrogates such as time of arrival at the WTC site, time exposed to the plume,
distance from Ground Zero, and specification of activities involving exposure to debris, dust, and smoke
could be used as semiquantitative determinants of exposure.” You don’t have to doubt that this is exactly
the case. As earlier you arrive at ground zero, as closer to ground zero you will be, and as longer you will
be there, as more radiation you will be exposed to.
And, at last, on the page 84 of this report we found what we were looking for. Here is a confirmation about
acute radiation sickness: “…In the first 24 hours after the WTC attacks, 240 FDNY personnel sought
emergency medical treatment. Of these, 28 were hospitalized and 50 received treatment for acute
respiratory symptoms caused by inhalation of airborne smoke and dust. Several firefighters had
respiratory problems that started within hours of the disaster, and they were treated for serious, newly
onset lung diseases. Others had respiratory symptoms that arose weeks or months after their work at
Ground Zero began...” In this statement all – figures and time-frames are quite believable and correspond
to our estimation of radiation doses received during the first, the most dangerous hours. All you have to
do here is to change words “respiratory symptoms” to words “radiation sickness” while leaving the word
“acute” in its place. And you will get about the right picture: 240 firefighters got serious doses of ionizing
radiation – definitely exceeding 50 Roentgens (probably even exceeding 100 Roentgens in many cases),
they felt seek and sought emergency medical treatment. Some of them with the most heavy condition
were hospitalized (and you could guess that some of them died), while some other might require only outpatient
treatments – typical to light- and medium-light cases of acute radiation sickness (though even they
could die later). You can add here that some civilians who were trapped in the immediate vicinity of the
Towers during their collapse and spent there some time before being able to run away also got their tensand
hundreds of Roentgen doses of ionizing radiation, also felt sick the next day and they also sought
emergency medical treatment, but they were not embraced by this report. It happened because they
sought their treatment in a variety of hospitals around and nobody bothered to count all of them, unlike
the FDNY – which had more or less centralized approach when monitoring health conditions of its staff.
Now we understand, at last, that it was not that there were no cases of acute radiation sickness at ground
zero in Manhattan. There were hundreds of cases of acute radiations sickness – as expected, but they
were not honestly reported as such. However, practically all those cases of acute radiation sickness
occurred only during the first day; that is why there were only hundreds of them, rather than thousands.
Now let’s imagine that the US officials who knew for sure what happened at “Ground Zero” in reality were
not completely ignorant when it comes to radiation effects. And even if they were ignorant they would be
advised by those ABC specialists who visited “Ground Zero” in “lunar-looking hazmat suits” – since those
guys apparently knew about radiation and its properties very well. Actually, you don’t have to doubt that
responsible (or to be more exact “irresponsible”) US officials by one way or another knew it very well that
if they let people wonder at “Ground Zero” and around it without any control, it will soon (in only 2-3 days)
result in multiple cases of acute radiation sickness, ranging from light- and medium- to heavy- and even
very heavy cases. But in any case even light forms of such acute radiation sickness will be immediately
noticeable. In only a couple of days thousands will feel sick and an awful truth about severe radioactive
contamination of Manhattan would spread out. I guess it is easily imaginable what would happen if some
5-6 thousands of the people would feel immediately sick and would be hospitalized with “strange” but
well-known symptoms after obviously obtaining their “sickness” at “Ground Zero”.
That is why we shall presume that some crafty US officials were obliged to find some solution on how to
prevent Ground Zero workers and nearby Manhattan residents from being subjected to doses of residual
radiation that could exceed 50 Roentgens and so to prevent them from feeling feel sick right away. How
they did it in regard to the Manhattan residents is well-known – they simply evacuated them and did not
allow them to return until dangerous levels of radiation have naturally subsided. Once they judged that
radiation levels were as low as not to allow anyone to accumulate the required 50 Roentgens in, let’s say
a whole year, the residents were allowed to return (and to continue to inhale deadly radioactive vapor that
would in only a couple of years cause chronic radiation sickness rather than acute one). This is clear how
the US officials prevented acute radiation sickness among Manhattan residents. But it was not so easy to
119
prevent it among gullible Ground Zero responders, as anyone could probably imagine. Still, those crafty
US officials managed to do it either even in regard to the responders.
Here is an extremely seditious article from John Hopkins Public Health Magazine published on the
Internet76. Of course, you have to read it as usual – meaning “between the lines” (note what is in bold).
“Mobilizing Public Health - Turning Terror's Tide with Science
Danger in the Dust
It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the
School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on
foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of airmonitoring
equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the
tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast.
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very
intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now
being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Geyh, an assistant scientist with the School's Department
of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), heads the team of scientists sent by the School in
response to a request by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for a
coordinated study of the disaster's potential health effects to those in the immediate environment.
By attaching personal air monitors to the workers and by placing stationary air sampling
pumps outside the periphery of Ground Zero, Geyh (pronounced "Guy") and her colleagues can
determine the density of the particulate matter in the air, the size of those particles, and any
short-term health effects to those at and around the site.
"This is an incredible situation," she reports. "The recovery and clean-up efforts are going on
around the clock. Hundreds of people are at the site every day; and many of them have been
there since Sept. 11. Workers at the site want to know what they are breathing and what to do to
protect themselves."
Since the drivers and equipment operators are working in
two 12-hour shifts, the researchers must start early and stay
late. "None of the monitors can be left out overnight," says
Geyh, "so around midnight we retrieve everything and take
the equipment back to the hotel, where we recalibrate it
before going to bed." The whole thing recommences at 4
a.m.
"People have been coming back really frazzled," says John Groopman, PhD. "It's clearly among
the most energy-draining experiences of their lives." Groopman, Anna Baetjer Professor and
chair of EHS, knows of no analogous research situation. "The fact that thousands of bodies are
still hidden in the rubble makes the work very tense [and] changes the tenor of everything."
At every stage of the clean-up operation, plumes of dust and smoke are sent skyward. The
Hopkins scientists are also gearing up to measure air quality in the nearby neighborhoods and
to enter residences around Ground Zero to collect and study samples of the dust originally
produced by the collapse, which has sifted into buildings throughout lower Manhattan. - Rod
Graham”
76 http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm - page 1; and
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch2.htm - page 2.
This project is "clearly among
the most energy-draining
experiences of their lives."
- John Groopman
120
No one shall be duped by this article. There is no “air-monitoring equipment” that needs to be attached to
each worker and, moreover, taken from him at the end of the day to be allegedly “re-calibrated”. Just try
to be realistic… There is a certain “radiation monitoring equipment” namely “individual dosimeters” that
must be issued to everyone who is exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. And these individual
dosimeters, of course, must be collected from the people at the end of each day in order to get their
meter readings and to calculate each worker’s total radiation dose he managed to accumulate on the last
day + on all previous days. It is pretty self-evident what kind of so-called “air-monitoring equipment” they
are talking about in this shameless article. They just used complete ignorance and gullibility of the
“Ground Zero” responders and used them more like cattle, than like humans. Now, at last, you can
imagine why not many Ground Zero responders were able to accumulate 50 Roentgens – in order to get
sick immediately from light form of acute radiation sickness. It happened because some crafty people –
like July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh – were appointed to clandestinely monitor their personal acquired
radiation doses. Once they saw that a radiation dose of a certain worker was getting close to the
dangerous digit and his acute radiation sickness would be noticeable probably tomorrow if he only gets a
few more Roentgens, they quickly took some measures to prevent him from working at “Ground Zero”.
For example, they either permanently or temporarily shifted such a person to some other location – for
example to the Staten Island Landfill where levels of radiation supposed to be negligible. That is, by the
way, the very reason why so many Ground Zero responders were routinely shifted from one location to
another – seemingly without any valid reason. But there was a reason, apparently. And the people like
July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh, as well as those “good guys” behind them, knew that reason very well.
Apparently, they performed their clandestine duties very diligently. They only “forgot” to explain their
gullible patients whom they treat like cattle that acute radiation sickness was just one part of ground zero
dangers, while their another part was chronic radiation sickness – which no “secretly” issued individual
dosimeters would be able to prevent…
What is chronic radiation sickness, why it occurs, and what is the difference between chronic and acute
radiation sickness? First of all, when we talk about “radiation exposure” we usually mean only a
momentarily exposure to a hard front of penetrating [ionizing] radiation that in its most dangerous part is
represented by gamma-rays and high-energy neutrons, plus long-times exposure to residual and induced
[ionizing] radiation while being in radioactively contaminated environment – and here again we only count
gamma-radiation, while totally disregarding beta- and alpha- radiations. When we talk about threshold of
50 Roentgens that is the minimum required dose to begin to feel sick immediately, what we mean is 50
Roentgens of gamma-radiation only. We do not count alpha- and beta- radiations in this case. Why it is
that alpha- and beta-radiations are always discarded? It is because only gamma-radiation has enough
penetrating capability to penetrate our entire body and to strike cells of internal organs in order to cause
them to dysfunction. And why we always disregard alpha- and beta- radiations? It is because neither of
them could cause any radiation injury to our internal organs, irrespective of their actual intensities. Alphaparticles,
although extremely dangerous, can not penetrate our skin – they are all stopped by a thin layer
of dead skin tissue that always covers every human being as his “outer skin”. Since alpha-radiation is not
penetrative enough to get to inside our bodies, we simply ignore it. Beta-radiation is more penetrative and
it can penetrate the outer “dead” layer of our skin and cause burns to inner “live” layers of our skin. These
skin burns (called “beta-burns”) could be quite serious if this beta-radiation was intense enough. Still, we
usually ignore even beta-radiation, along with alpha-radiation. We ignore it because even though betaradiation
in huge quantities could cause “beta-burns”, still, it can not get deep inside our bodies and so to
cause any damage to the cells of our internal organs. Besides, beta-radiation can not penetrate our thick
clothes, so one who wears enough clothing is protected from beta-radiation anyway. That is why since we
feel protected from both – alpha- and beta- radiations we don’t even count them when we calculate “safe”
and “dangerous” radiation doses in general. During calculations only gamma-radiation levels are counted.
However, the above consideration is true only for the case when you are subjected to alpha- and betaradiations
when these radiations originate from outside of our bodies. It is not the case when you inhale
or ingest some radioactive materials that emit these alpha- and beta- radiations. Because in the latter
case these alpha- and beta- radiations would originate from inside your body, and not from outside of it.
You will no longer be protected from most dangerous alpha-radiation by your skin, since you are being
irradiated from inside. Neither will you be protected from still very dangerous beta-radiation, because you
are being irradiated by it from inside your body. Here is an example: let’s say that there is a radioactively
contaminated area – a/k/a “ground zero”. You have to perform some job on it and you have to calculate a
safe radiation dose. You sent there a dosimetrist first (in lunar-looking hazmat suit) who reports that levels
of radiation in that area are, let’s say, 10 Roentgens per hour. I don’t know what an acceptable radiation
dose in the United States is, so I will use here a former Soviet standard. In the Soviet Union it was
believed that even though only doses of 50 Roentgens up could cause noticeable radiation sickness (i.e.
do visible harm to one’s body), doses in between 20 and 50 Roentgens could still cause harm to one’s
body (although invisible one). That is why it was the following “safe” radiation doses (per gamma121
radiation, of course, because only gamma-radiation is counted in such case) established in the Soviet
Union for the cases of emergency: 25 Roentgen maximum summary doses for combat conditions, and
half of it – i.e. 12.5 Roentgens – for non-combat conditions. In this case “combat” and “non-combat”
conditions could be perceived as follows. If someone who received 12.5 Roentgens dose must be
immediately taken away to prevent him from any further radiation exposure (even from a potential one), in
combat conditions – i.e. when there is an ongoing fighting, even the one who has already received 12.5
Roentgens could be left on the front-line even though he could be subjected to some more exposure –
let’s say arising from radioactive contamination after nuclear explosions. However, even in combat
conditions someone whose acquired radiation dose gets close to 25 Roentgens must be removed from
any further potential radiation exposure. These “safe” doses were applicable for emergency cases – such
as a necessity to stop some radioactive leakage immediately and at any cost, or to continue fighting, and
so on. For non-emergency cases, though, these maximum acceptable radiation doses were often set
much lower – let’s say only 3-5 Roentgens – depending on the actual situation.
We come back to our sample above. Let’s base it on the former Soviet standards, since we do not know
the American ones for sure. We have: “ground zero” where levels of radiation are currently ~10 Roentgen
per hour, according to our dosimetrist’s report. We have to establish first whether this work is really an
“emergency” work or not. Regarding the removal of debris it is apparently not an “emergency” – because
debris could be removed even a few months later, when the levels of radiation at “ground zero” would
subside considerably. However, regarding rescuing the people who might be trapped under the debris, it
must be considered as an “emergency”. Thus we decided that this is an “emergency” work. So, we have
to stick to the maximum allowed radiation doses for emergency cases. We know that levels of radiation
are ~10 Roentgen per hour, while the maximum allowed radiation dose set as 12.5 Roentgens. Besides,
we apparently have a lot of people at our disposal that could do the work, so it is not really necessary to
expose each worker to the maximum allowed radiation dose. That is why, after some consideration, we
decided that we will set the maximum allowed dose for 10 Roentgens, rather than for 12.5 – just to be on
the safe side and not to abuse our emergency powers at the cost of the workers health. What we have to
do in this case? We have to bring to the workers’ attention following information and to act as follows:
1) We have to tell them that to work in this area is allowed for a maximum time of 1 hour per person
– and no one and under no circumstances shall remain at ground zero any longer than 1 hour.
2) Every worker must have an individual dosimeter attached to his body – so we will be able to
measure his exact radiation exposure and able to take immediate measures if someone gets
accidentally overexposed.
3) Every worker must be issued a full hazmat-suit that will limit his exposure to only outer radiation
and will prevent deadly radioactive particles from being deposited on his hair and his skin, and,
God forbid, from inhaling or ingesting such radioactive particles.
4) Every worker upon completing his 1 hour shift must be thoroughly decontaminated by specialists
before allowed to remove his hazmat suit – so to prevent him and other people around him from
accidentally inhaling radioactive particles that were deposited on outer parts of his hazmat suit.
5) Each worker who completed his shift must be forever (at least for the next few years) removed
from any work that contain even slightest possibility to be exposed to radiation; and he himself
must be well aware of it and he must be warned and acknowledge it in written not to seek any job
that has anything to do with such things as radiation or radioactive materials.
As you can probably guess, it is not enough to establish only a “covert” radiation control and to issue to
each worker an individual dosimeter in the disguise of the alleged “air monitoring equipment”. Because
unless each worker understood that radiation dangers are involved, this “secret” dosimeter will not save
him. It will only save us and it will allow us to formally “observe” a certain “safe” radiation dose received
by this worker in regard to gamma-radiation. What about the worker – he will never exceed 50 Roentgen
(or whatever other dose we set as maximum) acquired radiation dose per gamma-radiation, but nothing
more than that. He will still inhale and ingest not just “some”, but “all” deadly particles of radioactive dust
and of radioactive vapor available at ground zero. And while his dose per gamma-radiation (which we in
this case “secretly” monitor) would not be enough to develop any acute radiation sickness and to feel sick
right away, it does not mean that he will be “saved” from radiation by our “covert efforts”. Because this
worker (as well as a Manhattan resident when he eventually returns) would deposit inside his body some
quantities (in some cases some absolutely enormous quantities) of deadly radioactive particles that would
continue to irradiate him from inside by most dangerous alpha-radiation (as well as by beta- and even by
gamma- ones) for months and years to come. Depending on the severity of this internal irradiation, in a
couple of years (or later, or sometimes, even earlier) a hidden (or “latent”) period of his chronic radiation
sickness would end and his radiation sickness would be obvious. He will suffer from leukemia, various
cancers, secondary infections, and eventually he will die. And that is what really happened in Manhattan.
122
Powerful “ultra-violet absorbers” and the longest-burning
“structural fire” in history.
On 03 December 2001 the strangest article was published on-line by the NewScientist.com. It still existed
in the Internet as on May 2010, but I am afraid that it might be removed after I publish this book. So, in
order to preserve this unprecedented publication for both – history and may be even for a future inquiry –
I decided to place 2 screenshots of that article – as it appeared in my browser. Obviously, I would need a
permission to reproduce the entire actual article here, which I would never get. But it is very unlikely that
anyone could prohibit me from photographing my own computer (with whatever contents) and from using
my own photos in any way I wish. Here is the article (sorry, not actually the “article”, but only the two
photos of my computer with its Internet Explorer browser loaded – with some strange webpage it shows):
This is a photograph of my computer with the upper part of strange contents of my Internet Explorer. Below
is part 2 – photographed with web-contents scrolled down. The picture of a girl on the black background was
part of the original screenshot. I don’t know what it was intended to signify, but it looked meaningful to me.
123
End of the webpage, I mean, the end of the photograph.
I don’t have much to comment, honestly. And I guess a reader, who reached this Chapter, already knows
how to read between the lines. Please, only read all of the above carefully – about the “50 meters deep”
certain “combustible mass”, about strange “underground” fires still lasting as on December 3, 2001, about
two powerful “ultra-violet absorbers”, designed “to absorb high-energy emissions from the fire” – that were
mixed into the water used by the unsuspecting firefighters, and also about the alleged “terrorist atrocity”.
Please, don’t miss to notice also that the “underground fires” were roaring not only under the WTC-1 and
-2, but under the WTC-7 as well – since the latter also required the two “powerful ultra-violet absorbers” to
be used against. Just read it all.
And make your own conclusions. I hope now, at last, you can properly compare “Ground Zero” works with
the Chernobyl “nuclear catastrophe” and with the way it was handled by Soviet specialists. This time I am
abstaining from helping you to conclude. Just do it yourself. But try to be unbiased when concluding.
(End of the free edition of the book. Even though it is free it provides the most important 9/11 information.)
124
Contact info
Dear reader,
It was not easy at all – to conduct this research, to write the book and to create the corresponding
video presentation. Besides taking several years to collect evidence, it also took several years of
fighting with various secret services who opposed this work in one way or another. None of it
was at all cheap… It cost me a few hundred thousand US dollars and a few years of my precious
life – to be able to produce all of it (not to mention that a few of these few years I spent behind
bars due to various bogus criminal charges and extradition proceedings instituted against me by
the so-called “good guys”).
In addition to all of that, it requires considerable expense to continue distributing the video and
other materials, arranging their proofing and translations to other languages, and maintaining my
web sites.
As a result of these efforts, you got to know, at last, the truth about the most complicated and the
most incredible event of the 21st century – 9/11. It is unlikely that anything else could be
compared with the importance of this knowledge you have received free of charge.
However, it was free of charge for you, but not for me. I still have to pay from my pocket to
bring this information to you. Not to mention that I simply need some cash for my living
expenses – as any other human.
If you want to express your gratitude or support these efforts, or both, please, consider donating.
Funds are badly needed to keep things moving. When you donate to this particular cause you can
be sure that you support the very Truth.
WebMoney purses: Z285632610819
R384502243216
E266344985402
U327130392143
Thanks to PayPal who blocked my original PayPal account intended for donations, I can no
longer received any donations via this system. So, donate@911thology.com PayPal account is no
longer operable. I heard even before that the PayPal guys were obedient lackeys of the so-called
“good guys”, but it was the first time I encountered a proof of it. Please, consider an alternative
way of donating – for example, using the Russia-based WebMoney system which is not as
“politically correct” as the PayPal, or you could do so by contacting me directly – in this case
you will be provided some bank account details. Perhaps I will find another alternative channel
of receiving donations later. If so happens I will publish information about it on my web site. But
so far a “normal” transfer to the bank account works perfectly OK. You are welcome to donate.
You can contact me directly as well if you have any offers of cooperation, or if you require any
copies of documents that I mentioned in my research but which are no longer available on-line.
Contact information could be always found on these web sites: www.dkhalezov.fromru.su
www.dkhalezov.com | www.911thology.com | www.911thology.cn | www.3truth911.com
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
125
Copyright © 2008 by Dimitri A. Khalezov
dkalezov@fromru.com
All rights reserved.
126
No comments:
Post a Comment