Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot

[Foolmewunz]

(Some tagger may want to change the tags before I get another write up.)

Normally I don't share my toys real well, but you guys deserve a new treat now and then.

How's this? Fresh meat, guys, and it isn't from a lunatic conspiracy site site. Let's all give a resounding welcome to the uh, .... interesting.... yeah, interesting ideas of 911thology. He says he'll be happy to elaborate, so here's your chance to get all the answers you've been so sorely missing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5769849#post5769849

Hi to everyone. I found this Forum because of my search for a place where ideas about the 9/11 could be exchanged. I registered here sometime ago, but was an 'inactive' member ever since. This one is my first post. About myself - I am a serious 9/11 researcher because of 2 different reasons. Firstly, I am a former commissioned officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, so I understand quite well about nuclear explosions, their properties, effects, and I know very well about their actual relevance to the WTC -1, -2, and -7 demolitions. Secondly, because I was somehow acquainted with certain real 9/11 planners, which even resulted in the American FBI's attempt to arrest me and to obtain my extradition to the United States in 2003. Recently I have published my video documentary on YouTube where I explained a lot of details about the WTC Twins and the WTC-7 so far unexplainable pulverizations and about many other aspects of the 9/11, the Pentagon's missile name, the Doomsday plane's mystery and the Sears Tower's evacuation inclusive. So far most of visitors found this extremely interesting. Anyone is welcome to watch the documentary and to ask me questions, if any. I will be pleased to answer them. Because as a new user I have no right to post links here, I can’t give any direct links to YouTube. However, all 26 parts of my documentary could be easily found by searching for '911thology' keyword on YouTube search or on Google search. Thanks.

[dtugg]

LOL.

[Foolmewunz]

Dang, I just realized I didn't edit my title completely. Oh, well.... it's not "realistice", but it'll do. This guy deserves a whacked out title to his thread, anyway. (Just seems fitting.)

[aggle-rithm]

It's comforting to know there are people out there who are so passionate about The Truth that they're willing to lie through their teeth to disseminate it. Also a little ironic.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok.


... so I understand quite well about nuclear explosions, their properties, effects, and I know very well about their actual relevance to the WTC -1, -2, and -7 demolitions.


Well... either he means:

He knows enough to understand that nuclear explosions aren't relevant to the World Trade Center buildings. In which case: http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/thumbs.gif
He's trying an appeal to authority to make it sound as if the whole "nukes at the WTC" proposal has merit. In which case: http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/cuckoo-1.gif

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hi to everyone. I found this Forum because of my search for a place where ideas about the 9/11 could be exchanged. I registered here sometime ago, but was an 'inactive' member ever since. This one is my first post. About myself - I am a serious 9/11 researcher because of 2 different reasons. Firstly, I am a former commissioned officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, so I understand quite well about nuclear explosions, their properties, effects, and I know very well about their actual relevance to the WTC -1, -2, and -7 demolitions.

Self debunked in his first post.

While that's not a record here, it is unusual. Most of them don't self-destruct until they reach double digits.

[Foolmewunz]

Self debunked in his first post.

While that's not a record here, it is unusual. Most of them don't self-destruct until they reach double digits.

Hey, but this was in the Welcome thread! That's gotta be some sort of record.

[Travis]

Well, he's posted on Youtube. That's all I need to give his "ideas" complete credence.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey, but this was in the Welcome thread! That's gotta be some sort of record.

Good point. :D

[ElMondoHummus]

What's amazing is that he put "911" in his forum nickname, wrote a very first post bragging up on 9/11 mythology, then went... straight to Religion and Philosophy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5770770#post5770770) to talk about the soul.

I'm sorry, but that deserves a special smiley:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/smileys_wtf.gif

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What's amazing is that he put "911" in his forum nickname, wrote a very first post bragging up on 9/11 mythology, then went... straight to Religion and Philosophy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5770770#post5770770) to talk about the soul.

I'm sorry, but that deserves a special smiley:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/smileys_wtf.gif

That's... odd.

I don't know if he's an intelligence officer (I'd bet money that he isn't) or even "rooski". But his appearant hostility against paragraph breaks indicates "english as a second language".

[Oystein]

No, he is quite likely not a Rooski. I know several Russians who speak english well, they share some peculiarities of wording and phrasing that I don't notice in 911thology's post.

[Björn Toulouse]

Lists under "occupation" on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/911thology#p/a/u/2/FQDHAN3aQAg)"commissioned military officer; criminal mastermind; book writer".

[sylvan8798]

His hobbies include: Occasionally I might have some other interests - which are typical to a normal man.

lol

[Mancman]

I'm watching his video now.

He's a no planer.

LOL.

[Drudgewire]

:popcorn1

[scissorhands]

Looks like hes been trying to pimp his book,The Third Truth, on various ct forums for a while now.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470592/pg1

At a price of $ 51.74, it sounds like a bargain.

This bozo actually pmed me on youtube to spam his videos, thats dedicated marketing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm watching his video now.

He's a no planer.

LOL.

All the micro-nukers (and space-beamers) are.

It's weird. It's like there's an unwritten law that when you take the stupidest possible option from column 'A', you are automatically locked into the stupidest option from column 'B' as well.

[ElMondoHummus]

Looks like hes been trying to pimp his book,The Third Truth, on various ct forums for a while now.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470592/pg1

At a price of $ 51.74, it sounds like a bargain.

This bozo actually pmed me on youtube to spam his videos, thats dedicated marketing.

$51.74?? :jaw-dropp OMG... Who's this guy kidding?

Barnum's quote about suckers being born every minute might be apocryphal, but I'll be damned if it doesn't ring true sometimes. All it takes is one actual believer to buy the book to prove it (I'm of course excluding certain academics - say, psychology researchers researching paranoia. That would be a legitimate and sane buyer who's not forwarding that conspiracy fantasy with a purchase).

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm watching his video now.

He's a no planer.

LOL.

Has he got any unique arguments, or is he just spouting the standard truther canon?

As an aside, I'm telling you all, I'm damn disappointed with YouTube/Google Video and all the other vid hosting services. So much on there is so repetitious it's insane, and I'm even talking non-truther stuff. When you get to the conspiracy peddling stuff, that is practically nothing but repeats, so much so that it makes each of the 30 billion "different" captures of some actresses nude scene look unique.

[Mancman]

Has he got any unique arguments, or is he just spouting the standard truther canon?



A summary of the first half hour:

Aluminium can't penetrate steel

WTC steel was as thick as tank armour

Repeat of September Clues nonsense about nose out and fade to black on chopper 5 footage

Claims the flightpaths of UA175 contradict in different videos - ('proves' this by comparing a shot showing the last second of flight with the 'divebomber' shot showing the last 12 seconds)

Jet fuel can't melt steel

Edna Cintron couldn't have stood in the impact hole

South Tower shouldn't have collapsed first if it was hit second

Hani Hanjour couldn't perform the necessary manouvres nor could 'the best pilot in the world'

Pentagon was hit by a Soviet made granit missile launched from the Atlantic Ocean, it weighed over 7 tons and hit at mach 2.5,and penetrated 6 walls of the building.



So, revolution starts now? :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

The stupid. It burns.

[NutCracker]

The stupid. It burns.

Is the stupidity hot enough to melt steel? That is the question.

[twinstead]

Is the stupidity hot enough to melt steel? That is the question.

Normally, the stupid only has to be hot enough to weaken the steel, but in this case it's hot enough to create an uncontrolled fusion reaction.

[Drudgewire]

Hani Hanjour couldn't perform the necessary manouvres nor could 'the best pilot in the world'


Yeah, attempting such maneuvers would result in a crash.

Oh wait...

[NutCracker]

Normally, the stupid only has to be hot enough to weaken the steel, but in this case it's hot enough to create an uncontrolled fusion reaction.

Sandia can sell it's Z-machine for scrap metal, then. The same goes for the NIF. ITER need not be completed. Just throw a Truther or 10 in a swimming pool. (But first check they can actually swim.)

[fess]

A summary of the first half hour:

Aluminium can't penetrate steel

WTC steel was as thick as tank armour

Repeat of September Clues nonsense about nose out and fade to black on chopper 5 footage

Claims the flightpaths of UA175 contradict in different videos - ('proves' this by comparing a shot showing the last second of flight with the 'divebomber' shot showing the last 12 seconds)

Jet fuel can't melt steel

Edna Cintron couldn't have stood in the impact hole

South Tower shouldn't have collapsed first if it was hit second

Hani Hanjour couldn't perform the necessary manouvres nor could 'the best pilot in the world'

Pentagon was hit by a Soviet made granit missile launched from the Atlantic Ocean, it weighed over 7 tons and hit at mach 2.5,and penetrated 6 walls of the building.



So, revolution starts now? :rolleyes:

It looks like he is pretty good at copying and pasting from various “truther” web sites… and charging for it.
Hey, maybe I could write a book.:)

[ElMondoHummus]

A summary of the first half hour:

Aluminium can't penetrate steel

WTC steel was as thick as tank armour

Repeat of September Clues nonsense about nose out and fade to black on chopper 5 footage

Claims the flightpaths of UA175 contradict in different videos - ('proves' this by comparing a shot showing the last second of flight with the 'divebomber' shot showing the last 12 seconds)

Jet fuel can't melt steel

Edna Cintron couldn't have stood in the impact hole

South Tower shouldn't have collapsed first if it was hit second

Hani Hanjour couldn't perform the necessary manouvres nor could 'the best pilot in the world'

Pentagon was hit by a Soviet made granit missile launched from the Atlantic Ocean, it weighed over 7 tons and hit at mach 2.5,and penetrated 6 walls of the building.



So, revolution starts now? :rolleyes:

Oh. Standard conspiracy fantasy canon then. Got it.

Color me disappointed. Unsurprised, but disappointed. Just another run-of-the-mill truthing, nothing original.

[Alferd_Packer]

WTC steel was as thick as tank armour


Wow, Soviet tanks really suck, then.

[Horatius]

Pentagon was hit by a Soviet made granit missile launched from the Atlantic Ocean, it weighed over 7 tons and hit at mach 2.5, and penetrated 6 walls of the building.




Actually, this HushaSonicBoom(tm) sounds new to me. Are there others who have made this assertion?

[NutCracker]

Actually, this HushaSonicBoom(tm) sounds new to me. Are there others who have made this assertion?

Soviet tanks may suck, but its sonic boom and exhaust plume surpression technologies are unparalleled.

[Alferd_Packer]

I am a former commissioned officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, so I understand quite well about nuclear explosions, their properties, effects

try reading that with a "Checkov" voice.

[Mancman]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature. :rolleyes:

[Thunder]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement.

:p

and yet, i have no residual effects from the radioactive fall-out.

[Dave Rogers]

Good grief, it amazes me that anyone can listen to such drivel without laughing out loud. How gullible do you have to be to take this idiot seriously?

Dave

[firecoins]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature. :rolleyes:They allowed nuclear weapons in Manhattan??? Thats believable.

[dudalb]

Good grief, it amazes me that anyone can listen to such drivel without laughing out loud. How gullible do you have to be to take this idiot seriously?

Dave

Not as gullible as the idiots who pay Fifty DOllars for his book.

[commandlinegamer]

Wow, Soviet tanks really suck, then.

Maybe he's just confusing them with these classic German models from WWII:

http://www.lonesentry.com/features/f4_german_dummy_panther_tanks.html

[ElMondoHummus]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature. :rolleyes:

Oh, yeah. Built in demolitions. That one just came around again last month (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5631469#post5631469). And this very myth's been in circulation since at least 2006, when Christophera had to invent it to get around the "prep the buildings" issue (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996107#post1996107) (as a flashback, that's a link to the one and only "Realistice" thread... THE epic adventure in the JREF 9/11 CT subforum).

Funny how mere speculation on the part of some truthers suddenly becomes absolute knowledge for others to build on. :rolleyes:

[Alferd_Packer]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature. :rolleyes:

No way dude, Chicago has been a "Nuclear Free Zone" since 1986.

[Debaser]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement. Khalezov knew about this as early as 1984, and apparently this was mentioned in American newspapers.

The Sears Tower also has this feature. :rolleyes:

Well that's property developers all over. Always going for the cheapest, laziest option. :boggled:

The number of times I've sat before a council planning committee, dreading THAT question...'so, how are you going to demolish this building at the end of its life'...and having to admit that, yet again, it's the 'nuke in the basement' option. It's just so embarassing. :eye-poppi

[ElMondoHummus]

Well that's property developers all over. Always going for the cheapest, laziest option. :boggled:

The number of times I've sat before a council planning committee, dreading THAT question...'so, how are you going to demolish this building at the end of its life'...and having to admit that, yet again, it's the 'nuke in the basement' option. It's just so embarassing. :eye-poppi

I thought nanothermite was supposed to be the cheapest option. :duck:

[Debaser]

I thought nanothermite was supposed to be the cheapest option. :duck:

Nah, you're thinking normal bog-standard thermite, which is admittedlly cheap as dirt.

But it's my understanding that to create yer actual 100% pure nano-thermite requires the strenuous efforts of dozens and dozens of young boys imprisoned in Bohemian Grove or someplace.

It's like gold-dust if you''re not in the...you know who.

[Drudgewire]

It's like gold-dust if you''re not in the...you know who.


The KISS Army. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rock.gif

[fitzgibbon]

Good grief, it amazes me that anyone can listen to such drivel without laughing out loud. How gullible do you have to be to take this idiot seriously?

Dave

I present you the 9/11 'Truth' movement. 'Nuff said? :D

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0) he claims that the NYC building codes required the WTC to have an in-built demolition plan. The developers chose a nuclear device in the basement.


Sounds more like a demolition plan for lower Manhattan.

[JoeyDonuts]

Wow.

What he's calling the "Granit" is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile as it's known to NATO. This weapon is about 10 meters end-to-end. It also has no waypoint "turn-to-target" capability like the US's Harpoon, so I don't see how it could have impacted the Pentagon where it did unless it was fired from the Ohio River. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't a submarine-launched weapon, either...it's only fielded on Kirov-class cruisers and the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Not exactly the most stealthy of oceangoing warships.

I highly doubt this person's credentials, although my phony-busting powers don't extend to the Russian Navy.

ETA: Correction - this weapon does have a submarine-launched variant. Just because it exists doesn't mean that's what hit the Pentagon.

[portlandatheist]

The truth movement was so much more entertaining when they came up with new and crazier ideas every week. There hasn't been any new material in a very long time so its nice and refreshing to have something new to laugh at.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just because it exists doesn't mean that's what hit the Pentagon.

Agreed. Whatever the variants are that happen to exist, I doubt that any of them carry a payload of human beings. :rolleyes:

And if this "new" truther happens to allege that those bodies were planted... well, like I said earlier, he's simply parroting standard trutherisms at that point.

[defaultdotxbe]

The truth movement was so much more entertaining when they came up with new and crazier ideas every week. There hasn't been any new material in a very long time so its nice and refreshing to have something new to laugh at.
hate to break it to you but nuclear bombs at the WTC and a cruise missile at the pentagon arent new

[MattTheTubaGuy]

What kind of damage would 10 tons of TNT do to one of the twin towers?
because that is approximately how powerful the smallest possible nuclear weapon would be.

I would imagine it would probably completely destroy a tower (or both) rather than causing it to collapse.

[defaultdotxbe]

What kind of damage would 10 tons of TNT do to one of the twin towers?
because that is approximately how powerful the smallest possible nuclear weapon would be.

I would imagine it would probably completely destroy a tower (or both) rather than causing it to collapse.
also, the low-yield weapons are notoriously inefficient, it would produce a large amount of radioactive fallout

[Mongrel]

I present you the 9/11 'Truth' movement. 'Nuff said? :D

Got to admit though, they're very green. That's a helluva lot of recycling going on there :p

[JoeyDonuts]

Got to admit though, they're very green. That's a helluva lot of recycling going on there :p

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7644/bizmarkie.jpg
OHHH Snap!

[catsmate1]

also, the low-yield weapons are notoriously inefficient, it would produce a large amount of radioactive fallout
True, basically such low yield weapons are nuclear weapons with a higher yield modified to have a less efficient fission process (no tritium injection, less optimal implosion sequence, no neutron stimulation) and hence use the same amount of fissile material as a more powerful weapon.

What he's calling the "Granit" is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile as it's known to NATO. This weapon is about 10 meters end-to-end. It also has no waypoint "turn-to-target" capability like the US's Harpoon, so I don't see how it could have impacted the Pentagon where it did unless it was fired from the Ohio River. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't a submarine-launched weapon, either...it's only fielded on Kirov-class cruisers and the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Not exactly the most stealthy of oceangoing warships.It's deployed on (at least) the "Oscar" class missile subs. It's believed to have mid course update capability (FAS agrees on this) but terminal guidance is radar/IRH, which I'm doubtful would be useful against a single building in a city.......

The Granit has a 750kg HE warhead and ~4.8GJ of kinetic energy on impact (assuming it's burned 3 tonnes of fuel, I don't have a source for it's impact mass to hand). Even if the ramjet powered version, which hasn't entered service, was used (~8.6GJ of KE on impact) with the FAE warhead, also not used in service, I'm dubious.

That's not to mention:
(a) the stupidity of attempting such an attack
(b) the missile looks nothing like a passenger jet
and
(c) the impact damage and debris pattern would be rather different.

Maybe Ultima has a new hobby?

[Travis]

Actually supersonic Russian missiles are probably the most original thing we've seen in here in some time.

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually supersonic Russian missiles are probably the most original thing we've seen in here in some time.
a cruise missile by another name...

[Thunder]

the mushroom cloud at the WTC is proof-positive, that a nuclear event may have occurred.

remember folks, absence of evidence...is NOT evidence of absence!!!!!

[fess]

the mushroom cloud at the WTC is proof-positive, that a nuclear event may have occurred.

remember folks, absence of evidence...is NOT evidence of absence!!!!!




I think if you do a little research, you will find that the mushroom cloud from a nuclear weapon would be higher, much higher than the dust cloud after the collapse. Not to mention the blinding flash and incinerated surroundings.
Lets not forget that HE and nuclear warheads leave distinctive fingerprints, none of which were found.

[ktesibios]

I think if you do a little research, you will find that the mushroom cloud from a nuclear weapon would be higher, much higher than the dust cloud after the collapse. Not to mention the blinding flash and incinerated surroundings.
Lets not forget that HE and nuclear warheads leave distinctive fingerprints, none of which were found.

Parky's lately been making sarcastic truther-mode-parody posts from time to time. If the tone isn't a giveaway, he seems to prefer to use italics for these posts.

[Liszt]

try reading that with a "Checkov" voice.

funniest post in JREf history - well done!

[Orphia Nay]

I just PMed 911thology with the link to this thread, so the poor guy has a chance to respond. :)

[Foolmewunz]

Well, contrary to his original posts in the Welcome Thread, he isn't quite so available to explain. He's got the same five posts he notched a week ago. I think that he's hitting as many sites as he can to try to drum up hits for his videos and/or sales for his book.

[twinstead]

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I say!

[911thology]

I just PMed 911thology with the link to this thread, so the poor guy has a chance to respond. :)
Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

[Jackanory]

Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

You want us to ask questions about nuclear devices but wont permit questions that raise issues with regards to the effects of said nuclear devices? I think this will be short a sweet then. lol.

No blast, no heat wave and no fallout. Kinda dispels any nuclear device whatsoever. No first responders or NY locals reporting any illnesses related to a nuclear device. None that I am aware of anyway. Full heads of hair, no increase in still borns, no increase in deformaties etc etc etc. China hasnt reported anything either. Not looking good.

What is the weather like in Bangkok? I hear it is quite barmy this time of year.

[uk_dave]

Gotta love it when the man with a story to sell won't take questions he doesn't like.

Methinks he hasn't thought this through properly.

[sheeplesnshills]

Gotta love it when the man with a story to sell won't take questions he doesn't like.

Methinks he hasn't thought this through properly.

Ironically I think he has..........he has identified his audience very accurately as since when did truthers ask tech questions and listen to the answers. They like to to be told "facts" that match their story and will simply not even see those that don't.:(

[sheeplesnshills]

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.

Which of the 26 parts contains the reference to the source data to the radiation levels on and shortly after 9-11.?

[twinstead]

Methinks a more correct venue for "blowing the lid off the conspiracy" would be in the offices of a major respected news organization or some law enforcement agency, evidence in tow, instead of YouTube videos and posts on relatively obscure internet forums detailing what questions can and can't be asked.

But that's just me.

911thology, I claim BS.

[911thology]

So, I don't see any question. Only silly talking about nothing. Is that I was called here for?

[911thology]

Methinks a more correct venue for "blowing the lid off the conspiracy" would be in the offices of a major respected news organization or some law enforcement agency, evidence in tow, instead of YouTube videos and posts on relatively obscure internet forums detailing what questions can and can't be asked.

But that's just me.

911thology, I claim BS.
Hi, Twinstead. You also have no questions? Even in regard to why the video is published only on YouTube and nowhere else? Are you shy to ask this question directly from me and prefer to ask it from 'virtual nobody'?

[ElMondoHummus]

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube...

If you will not explain your stance, then there is nothing to discuss. I for one am not about to visit some YouTube video just to improve someone's hit count. You either deign to bring your argument here and allow questions on it, or there simply will be no debate, and you will lose by default.

Your condition is not acceptible.

[garethdjb]

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day.

How many people have been treated for radiation sickness arising from exposure to this radiation on 9-11-01?

To what degree were the most serious cases affected?

How large was the nuclear device used and what was the delivery method?

[tj15]

Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?

[DavidJames]

Hi, Twinstead. You also have no questions? Even in regard to why the video is published only on YouTube and nowhere else? Are you shy to ask this question directly from me and prefer to ask it from 'virtual nobody'?
To which major media, police, insurance fraud investigators, lawyers, DA's, official investigative organizations, domestic or foreign, have you presented your evidence?

[911thology]

If you will not explain your stance, then there is nothing to discuss. I for one am not about to visit some YouTube video just to improve someone's hit count. You either deign to bring your argument here and allow questions on it, or there simply will be no debate, and you will lose by default.

Your condition is not acceptible.

I am very sorry that my condition is not acceptable, but this is the condition. I have already over 75.000 views on YouTube and I will not become any richer in this sense if you watch these 26 series and I will get just extra 26 views. And even if 10 of you will watch all these 26 series and make it 260 additional views it will not add much either. Don't make me laugh. But I can't afford spending my precious time answering silly questions of 'busy bodies' while these questions are perfectly answered in the movie in the most illustrative way. What I see here is a complete lack of interest and nothing else than this. If you have lack of interest in the subject whatsoever I have to presume that all your potential questions will not be inspired by curiosity, but by malicious desire to argue at any cost. I do not participate in this kind of argumentation, simply because those who usually indulge in such things do not observe general rules of argument and lack common politeness. They resort to personal insults and illogical and unfair argumentation practices. I have a lot of experience in this field. Hence the conditions mentioned above – in order to anticipate all of these negative things mentioned above. So, if you have any questions – ask them. Go ahead. If not - there is no problem for me at all.

[ElMondoHummus]

I am very sorry that my condition is not acceptable, but this is the condition. I have already over 75.000 views on YouTube and I will not become any richer in this sense if you watch these 26 series and I will get just extra 26 views. And even if 10 of you will watch all these 26 series and make it 260 additional views it will not add much either. Don't make me laugh. But I can't afford spending my precious time answering silly questions of 'busy bodies' while these questions are perfectly answered in the movie in the most illustrative way. What I see here is a complete lack of interest and nothing else than this. If you have lack of interest in the subject whatsoever I have to presume that all your potential questions will not be inspired by curiosity, but by malicious desire to argue at any cost. I do not participate in this kind of argumentation, simply because those who usually indulge in such things do not observe general rules of argument and lack common politeness. They resort to personal insults and illogical and unfair argumentation practices. I have a lot of experience in this field. Hence the conditions mentioned above – in order to anticipate all of these negative things mentioned above. So, if you have any questions – ask them. Go ahead. If not - there is no problem for me at all.

A question has been asked above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5805296#post5805296):
If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?

You should answer it.

[911thology]

How many people have been treated for radiation sickness arising from exposure to this radiation on 9-11-01?

To what degree were the most serious cases affected?

How large was the nuclear device used and what was the delivery method?

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.

[911thology]

If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?

No witness actually saw any plane, because the missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. Real witnesses (not liars who 'saw everyting' and not liars hired by the FBI to lie to the same effect) saw nothing at all. They believed that generator malfunctioned and exploded. I still have that footage in my personal collection of the 9/11 movies.

[ElMondoHummus]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.

Your evidence, please?

[911thology]

To which major media, police, insurance fraud investigators, lawyers, DA's, official investigative organizations, domestic or foreign, have you presented your evidence?

I live in Bangkok, not in the US. I presented it to the following Embassies in Bangkok:
US Embassy (Justice Department and military intelligence).
French Embassy (intelligence and the Ambassador).
Italian Embassy (the Ambassador)
Australian Embassy (to whom it may concern)
CNN
BBC
ABC
NBC
ITV
Associated Press
AFP
Reuters

[tj15]

No witness actually saw any plane, because the missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. Real witnesses (not liars who 'saw everyting' and not liars hired by the FBI to lie to the same effect) saw nothing at all. They believed that generator malfunctioned and exploded. I still have that footage in my personal collection of the 9/11 movies.

Lots of people saw an airplane. Over 100 people, I think.

So the eyewitnesses that saw the airplane are liars or paid government agents?

[911thology]

Your evidence, please?

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

[911thology]

Lots of people saw an airplane. Over 100 people, I think.

So the eyewitnesses that saw the airplane are liars or paid government agents?

Either 'innocent' liars from among those who typically 'saw everyting' or paid liars hired to lie by the government.

[tj15]

Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?

[911thology]

Which of the 26 parts contains the reference to the source data to the radiation levels on and shortly after 9-11.?

No open source data on radiation is available. It is all classified.

[beachnut]

(Some tagger may want to change the tags before I get another write up.)

Normally I don't share my toys real well, but you guys deserve a new treat now and then.

How's this? Fresh meat, guys, and it isn't from a lunatic conspiracy site site. Let's all give a resounding welcome to the uh, .... interesting.... yeah, interesting ideas of 911thology. He says he'll be happy to elaborate, so here's your chance to get all the answers you've been so sorely missing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5769849#post5769849


Nukes did it! The most insane claim made about 911; pure stupidity.

[911thology]

I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?

Clearly explained in the movie. Can't explain here better.

[I Ratant]

No open source data on radiation is available. It is all classified.
.
And yet, you, in the third world, have winkled this out.
Amazing powers of...... delusion.

[911thology]

Nukes did it! The most insane claim made about 911; pure stupidity.

This one is just an example of what I meant. Hence my tough conditions.

[Sabrina]

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

Hardly. We prefer evidence and sources that we ourselves are able to peruse and compare with what you are saying. Got any of those?

[ElMondoHummus]

No witness actually saw any plane, because the missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. Real witnesses (not liars who 'saw everyting' and not liars hired by the FBI to lie to the same effect) saw nothing at all. They believed that generator malfunctioned and exploded. I still have that footage in my personal collection of the 9/11 movies.

This is incorrect. As Mark Roberts pointed out:


104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.


15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.


3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.


3 took photographs of the aftermath.


Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."


0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
Furthermore, the object tracked by radar was most definitely not moving at supersonic speeds. On top of that, post-crash debris was that of a jet, not a missile. Furthermore, no missile carries humans; corpses of passengers known to have been on Flight 77 were found in the debris, still strapped to their seats.

On top of that, FL77 was indeed witness by another airplane, with the pilot testifying to what he saw (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro).

911thology's claim is not only presented here with zero supporting evidence (in other words, he merely states the claiim, he provides no proof for his statement), but is contradicted by the weight of the evidence that has been recovered.

Flight path study:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Pentagon witness statements:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

Mark Roberts' collection of links to evidnece:
Summary of evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

This claim is demonstrably untrue.

[911thology]

.
And yet, you, in the third world, have winkled this out.
Amazing powers of...... delusion.

This makes the difference between humans and zombies.

[beachnut]

This one is just an example of what I meant. Hence my tough conditions.
You can't provide on piece of evidence! Therefore your delusion is a delusion. You can't do anything about it but spew more lies.


No open source data on radiation is available. It is all classified.
That is a lie. You can't provide proof. Oops, you have a delusion and can't save your failed conclusion.

[ElMondoHummus]

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

No. That is not only insufficient, you provide no reason for us to think you have truly seen such "open source" publications. Provide real evidence; innuendo is insufficient, and no better than fiction.

[911thology]

Hardly. We prefer evidence and sources that we ourselves are able to peruse and compare with what you are saying. Got any of those?

If you prefer these then I could only wish you good lack. Satisfy yourselves with the most publicly available 'Report of the 9/11 Commission' and with memories of former presidents. I wish you all the best. Sincerely.

[911thology]

No. That is not only insufficient, you provide no reason for us to think you have truly seen such "open source" publications. Provide real evidence; innuendo is insufficient, and no better than fiction.

As I said your book is the 'Report of the 9/11 commission'. Find all answers in it.

[tj15]

Clearly explained in the movie. Can't explain here better.

Which part is your answer in of the 26 parts?

[ElMondoHummus]

Clearly explained in the movie. Can't explain here better.

Insufficient. If you cannot explain it, summarize the points. But once again, do not refer us to a video. We do not have the time nor inclination to wade through videos.

Compromise: Tell us at which point (i.e. "It's at the 4 minutes, 30 second mark") of the video contains your evidence, and possibly one of us will relent to view it. But simply steering us towards the video is not acceptible.

[ElMondoHummus]

As I said your book is the 'Report of the 9/11 commission'. Find all answers in it.

No more dodging. Provide evidence. Name your sources, quote from them. Provide support for your statements. As you can see above, I did so for mine.

[911thology]

This is incorrect. As Mark Roberts pointed out:


104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.


15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.


3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.


3 took photographs of the aftermath.


Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."


0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
Furthermore, the object tracked by radar was most definitely not moving at supersonic speeds. On top of that, post-crash debris was that of a jet, not a missile. Furthermore, no missile carries humans; corpses of passengers known to have been on Flight 77 were found in the debris, still strapped to their seats.

On top of that, FL77 was indeed witness by another airplane, with the pilot testifying to what he saw (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro).

911thology's claim is not only presented here with zero supporting evidence (in other words, he merely states the claiim, he provides no proof for his statement), but is contradicted by the weight of the evidence that has been recovered.

Flight path study:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Pentagon witness statements:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

Mark Roberts' collection of links to evidnece:
Summary of evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

This claim is demonstrably untrue.

Then is bad luck for you, guys. Go to buy the Report of the 9/11 Commision. I suggest you take it in a hard cover. It lasts longer and more suitable for home library. Find all answers to your questions there.

[Jackanory]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.

You owe me a new PC monitor. Just spat radioactive coffee all over mine. My ribs hurt and I broke my chair.

Wow. 150 kiloton delivered by the fat controler on Thomas the tank engine from beneath WTC7. Cool. When do you release the sequel?

[DavidJames]

I live in Bangkok, not in the US. I presented it to the following Embassies in Bangkok:
US Embassy (Justice Department and military intelligence).
French Embassy (intelligence and the Ambassador).
Italian Embassy (the Ambassador)
Australian Embassy (to whom it may concern)
CNN
BBC
ABC
NBC
ITV
Associated Press
AFP
ReutersHow was the evidence presented, to whom and in what format and do you have any documentation to prove you presented it?

[beachnut]

... missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. ...
No sonic boom! This is as dumb as your nuke did the WTC in. Dumber.

BTW, you can see an object flying 2.5 MACH; you lied again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-pBXw9kR0 MACH 3

The sonic boom would be a big deal and there was no sonic boom. Like your nuke delusion, you can add this as your next moronic delusions about 911.

[911thology]

Which part is your answer in of the 26 parts?

In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.

[ElMondoHummus]

Then is bad luck for you, guys. Go to buy the Report of the 9/11 Commision. I suggest you take it in a hard cover. It lasts longer and more suitable for home library. Find all answers to your questions there.

That is the second time you dodged. I provided links to witness statements, a video of a pilot's testimony, a link to the flight path study which includes the radar data, as well as a general summary of the evidence, including pictures taken in the immediate aftermath.

You, on the other hand, have provided zero proof. Here is your opportunity. Take any element of the above - the images, for example, or the pilots statement - and explain why it is wrong. Provide proof for why you are right and the images do not show a Boeing jet, or why the pilot did not see an American Airlines jet. Don't just state, and don't just write off. Defend your argument.

[911thology]

No sonic boom! This is as dumb as your nuke did the WTC in. Dumber.

BTW, you can see an object flying 2.5 MACH; you lied again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-pBXw9kR0 MACH 3

The sonic boom would be a big deal and there was no sonic boom. Like your nuke delusion, you can add this as your next moronic delusions about 911.

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

[Sabrina]

If you prefer these then I could only wish you good lack. Satisfy yourselves with the most publicly available 'Report of the 9/11 Commission' and with memories of former presidents. I wish you all the best. Sincerely.

So we're simply supposed to take your word for it? And exactly who are you again? An anonymous poster on a message board, from what I can tell. Why should I trust you over the many hundreds of experts who have studied the events of 9/11 and have found not a shred of evidence to support your odd idea that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers and a missile was used to hit the Pentagon?

[911thology]

How was the evidence presented, to whom and in what format and do you have any documentation to prove you presented it?

In a form of DVD with video files recorded on it. For the US - also my book in paper form printed out and as a file. No, I did not claim any receipt. I simply gave the stuff to the officials and that's it.

[911thology]

You owe me a new PC monitor. Just spat radioactive coffee all over mine. My ribs hurt and I broke my chair.

Wow. 150 kiloton delivered by the fat controler on Thomas the tank engine from beneath WTC7. Cool. When do you release the sequel?

I didn't quite understand your new question. Could you make it in a form suitable to undersand and to answer?

[911thology]

No more dodging. Provide evidence. Name your sources, quote from them. Provide support for your statements. As you can see above, I did so for mine.

In my book actually I have a lot of references, but they are too multiple to mention them here. In the movie too there are some most important references. Watch the movie and you will see them.

[911thology]

Insufficient. If you cannot explain it, summarize the points. But once again, do not refer us to a video. We do not have the time nor inclination to wade through videos.

Compromise: Tell us at which point (i.e. "It's at the 4 minutes, 30 second mark") of the video contains your evidence, and possibly one of us will relent to view it. But simply steering us towards the video is not acceptible.

You don't have time to watch the movie, but demand I have to answer you questions? It is unfair and disrespectful to my precious time. I can tell you 'which point' providing you ask me precisely which answer you wish to hear.

[ElMondoHummus]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Homer-Facepalm.jpg

http://www.sky-flash.com/boom.htm


As an aircraft flies at supersonic speeds it is continually generating shock waves, dropping sonic boom along its flight path, similar to someone dropping objects from a moving vehicle.

... The sound heard on the ground as a "sonic boom" is the sudden onset and release of pressure after the buildup by the shock wave or "peak overpressure."


The overpressure generated by a flying object leading to a sonic boom is constant, it does not disappear once the object reaches the sound barrier.

[911thology]

So we're simply supposed to take your word for it? And exactly who are you again? An anonymous poster on a message board, from what I can tell. Why should I trust you over the many hundreds of experts who have studied the events of 9/11 and have found not a shred of evidence to support your odd idea that mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers and a missile was used to hit the Pentagon?

You don't owe me anything and it is precisely vice versa. Don't like my ideas? Get lost. Don't want to watch my movies? Get lost. Don't like who I am? Get lost. I am not going to marry you anyway. I want me to get lost? I will oblige you and do so any time.

[Drudgewire]

This makes the difference between humans and zombies.


Well, that and the whole "brain eating" thing. :zombie:

[tj15]

In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.

Why did the pulverization stop at the outer walls? It pulverized stuff inside the outer walls, but the outer walls did not get damaged?

I don't see where in part 16 you talk about the outer walls. Why didn't the nuclear blast break through the outer walls of the towers?

[ElMondoHummus]

You don't have time to watch the movie, but demand I have to answer you questions? It is unfair and disrespectful to my precious time. I can tell you 'which point' providing you ask me precisely which answer you wish to hear.

tj15 asked it above:
I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?
Your answer was not precise:
In part 16, but you will not be able to understand it clearly without watching at least parts 7 to 11.
Where in part 16? And yes, we do not have time nor inclination to view multiple movies. Do no play the disrespect card here; you are the one failing to respect us by not providing proof and dodging questions with references to your videos. You bring the evidence to us. It is your claim to prove.

[I Ratant]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.
.
What a maroon!
The very high Mach sonic boom from the Space Shuttle as it approaches from over the Pacific Ocean to land at Edwards Air Force Base is heard/felt by millions of people for hundreds of miles along the flight path.
A Mach 2.5 sonic boom at sea level would break all the windows in all the cars along the flight path of the object, for quite some distance to either side of the flight path... at the very least.
The size of the object making the sonic boom has a major effect on the amount of disturbance that is created.
The Shuttle passes over my house many miles up on landing, yet my house shakes in a manner similar to a nearby earthquake.
You really don't know jack about anything, do you?
I wonder why ignorance if not willful stupidity is a characteristic of the typical truther?

[911thology]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/Homer-Facepalm.jpg

http://www.sky-flash.com/boom.htm



The overpressure generated by a flying object leading to a sonic boom is constant, it does not disappear once the object reaches the sound barrier.

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject. I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.

[twinstead]

You don't owe me anything and it is precisely vice versa. Don't like my ideas? Get lost. Don't want to watch my movies? Get lost. Don't like who I am? Get lost. I am not going to marry you anyway. I want me to get lost? I will oblige you and do so any time.

Sir, it's not like you are demanding we convert to Hindusim or telling us to become vegetarians. You are accusing people of mass murder. You don't want to provide evidence? YOU get lost.

[911thology]

Why did the pulverization stop at the outer walls? It pulverized stuff inside the outer walls, but the outer walls did not get damaged?

I don't see where in part 16 you talk about the outer walls. Why didn't the nuclear blast break through the outer walls of the towers?

This all explained in the movie (parts 7 up) in the most comrehensive, illustrative and otherwise understanable way. Can't explain here better. Watch the movie. Don't wan't to watch? Up to you. I don't care.

[sheeplesnshills]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.

Ok thread over....this guy has not got a clue what he is talking about. I think it likely he is simply a troll as no could really be that dumb as to think a 150 kiloton blast under each tower is even remotely possible as a cause for the towers collapse. Thats 10 ten times the power of the bombs dropped on Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

[911thology]

Sir, it's not like you are demanding we convert to Hindusim or telling us to become vegetarians. You are accusing people of mass murder. You don't want to provide evidence? YOU get lost.

I am not accusing anyone in mass murder. I explain in purely technical terms why the steel Twin Towers were pulvezied. This is number one. What hit the Pentagon - number two. The rest is of very little importance. I am not a judge to accuse anyone. Neither I am a public prosecutor. You want me to get lost? I am quite near to it. Any more questions before I get finally lost?

[tj15]

This all explained in the movie (parts 7 up) in the most comrehensive, illustrative and otherwise understanable way. Can't explain here better. Watch the movie. Don't wan't to watch? Up to you. I don't care.

I watched until about part 18 or so. Give me the exact part and time in that part where you discuss the outer walls of the towers.

[911thology]

I watched until about part 18 or so. Give me the exact part and time in that part where you discuss the outer walls of the towers.

Part 16.

Any other question?

[beachnut]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.
This is pure nonsense. Zero radiations death after 911 due to the WTC falling due to impacts and fires.

You have zero knowledge about nuclear weapons, and even less about radiation sickness. Your job as an Intelligence Officer is very ironic as you post the biggest lies and delusion that exist about 911 save the beam weapon insanity.

150 kiloton device would kill over 100,000 people within seconds of detonation, your delusion is so stupid is why no one takes you seriously and your failed idea with not earn the Pulitzer Prize. 150 kiloton devices would damage the other devices and would render them useless.

The size of the hole would be massive; you failed to study nuclear weapons and made up one of the dumbest scenarios about 911. UBL is laughing at you.

[tj15]

Part 16.

Any other question?

Nope... Not there. Specifically, what time in part 16?

[Jackanory]

I didn't quite understand your new question. Could you make it in a form suitable to undersand and to answer?

You ignored my first questions. I was the first to respond to your post in this thread. In post #66 i asked you specific questions. You ignored them. I knew you would. Ridicule is all that is left.

[Sabrina]

You don't owe me anything and it is precisely vice versa. Don't like my ideas? Get lost. Don't want to watch my movies? Get lost. Don't like who I am? Get lost. I am not going to marry you anyway. I want me to get lost? I will oblige you and do so any time.

Do you not understand that this is YOUR claim and therefore YOU must provide the evidence to support it? So far you have dissembled and prevaricated and have not directly answered one question that I can see. You claim we are wasting your precious time; does it not occur to you that perhaps we feel YOU are wasting OUR precious time by refusing to summarize your points in a coherent manner? By refusing to provide your sources? You have already (ostensibly at any rate) done the research; what can you lose by simply providing your sources without this constant bleating for us to "watch your movie" or "read your book"? Do you not understand that, in order for us to make the attempt to understand your theories, we need to see what you have seen? Watching your movie will only give me your skewed perspective on the matter; by providing me with your sources and references, however, I can perhaps check your statements and maybe, just possibly, come to realize that you have a point somewhere. If you cannot understand this, then I'm sorry, but your presence here is pretty useless. This is a place of open DEBATE, where everyone provides clear evidence to support their theories if they can lay their hands on it; this is not a forum where you state your case with no supporting evidence and we simply take you at your word. If that's a problem for you, perhaps you should leave; but I for one hope you provide your sources instead.

[911thology]

Nope... Not there. Specifically, what time in part 16?

from the very beginning and within first three minutes.

[tj15]

from the very beginning and within first three minutes.

Looks to me like you talk about the nuke being off centered. You also say that nothing would happen when the crushing wave (or whatever you call it) hits the air.

My question: How does stuff inside the building get turned into dust while the outer walls have no visible damage or exit holes from the energy that is turning everything into dust on the inside of the towers?

[tj15]

Everyone watch the first 3 mins. of part 16... Am I missing something? Where does he explain the outer walls?

[Jackanory]

Where does he explain the outer walls?

His walls are padded. Therefore the WTC walls must have been padded too. I think someone mentioned Kevlar blankets. lol.

[DavidJames]

In a form of DVD with video files recorded on it. For the US - also my book in paper form printed out and as a file. No, I did not claim any receipt. I simply gave the stuff to the officials and that's it.Thank you, please provide the names and I will contact them to find out their response.

[911thology]

Dear listeners. I would like to close this discussion with the following 'optimistic' note:
1) I noticed that not even one of you was genuinely interested in the topic.
2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.
3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.
4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.
If you re-view my very first (big) post on this thread where I set my conditions you will notice that this discussion has gone not the way I wished it to go and none of the conditions of mine was honored. Therefore I would like to wish you all the best and quit this discussion. If anyone appears here later with genuine interest he is always welcome to find my e-mail on the Internet and send his personalized questions to me. Otherwise I could be contacted via YouTube ‘911thology’ channel. Best wishes. Dimitri.

[911thology]

Thank you, please provide the names and I will contact them to find out their response.

Pesonally for DavidJames: I already quit this discussion, but as a matter of curtecy I will send you names and contact details you ask - please contact me over my e-mail (available on my web site) and remind me who you are and what you want.

For the rest - good bue.

[beachnut]

A summary of the first half hour:

Aluminium can't penetrate steel

WTC steel was as thick as tank armour

Repeat of September Clues nonsense about nose out and fade to black on chopper 5 footage

Claims the flightpaths of UA175 contradict in different videos - ('proves' this by comparing a shot showing the last second of flight with the 'divebomber' shot showing the last 12 seconds)

Jet fuel can't melt steel

Edna Cintron couldn't have stood in the impact hole

South Tower shouldn't have collapsed first if it was hit second

Hani Hanjour couldn't perform the necessary manouvres nor could 'the best pilot in the world'

Pentagon was hit by a Soviet made granit missile launched from the Atlantic Ocean, it weighed over 7 tons and hit at mach 2.5,and penetrated 6 walls of the building.



So, revolution starts now? :rolleyes:

The 2.5 MACH missile is funny, the 757 at 540 mph has more kinetic energy. When the delusional ideas come out, they come out stupid.
If only the intel officer could do math and physics, or understand nukes.

His work is complete nonsense and offers zero evidence. His knowledge on nuclear weapons is nonexistent and proved by his own work.

[twinstead]

Dear listeners. I would like to close this discussion with the following 'optimistic' note:
1) I noticed that not even one of you was genuinely interested in the topic.
2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.
3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.
4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.
If you re-view my very first (big) post on this thread where I set my conditions you will notice that this discussion has gone not the way I wished it to go and none of the conditions of mine was honored. Therefore I would like to wish you all the best and quit this discussion. If anyone appears here later with genuine interest he is always welcome to find my e-mail on the Internet and send his personalized questions to me. Otherwise I could be contacted via YouTube ‘911thology’ channel. Best wishes. Dimitri.

Can I assume your next stop will be a law enforcement agency or respected news organization with your evidence? Or will you, when asked for evidence, direct THEM to your videos as well?

[sheeplesnshills]

Looks to me like you talk about the nuke being off centered. You also say that nothing would happen when the crushing wave (or whatever you call it) hits the air.

My question: How does stuff inside the building get turned into dust while the outer walls have no visible damage or exit holes from the energy that is turning everything into dust on the inside of the towers?

you forget the "squibs" they look just like a venting nuclear bomb :D

And since there were survivors in both one of the towers and in the passage between the towers, how did two 150Ktonne bombs fail to kill or even irradiate them?:confused:

[The Almond]

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour.

This is a pretty bold claim. 115 Roentgens is equivalent to 1 Gray (Gy), and 2 Gy is the point at which some rather nasty radiological effects begin to occur. At your arbitrary "several hundreds" definition, about 50% of the people in the vicinity of GZ should have died from radiation poisoning.
So, a few questions:
1) What was the type of radiation being measured, and what detector was being used? You mention a geiger counter, which would indicate that you're measuring gamma radiation. You could be measuring both alpha and gamma if you don't have a plastic cover in front of the detector. But then again, Geiger counters don't output in Roentgens, they output in the arbitrary "counts" unit. It requires a radioactive standard to translate counts into one of the SI units (rads/REM/Sievert, or Grays).
2) Where were the measurements being taken? As you know, radioactive intensity varies with the square of the distance to the source.


Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks.
The radiation drop off you note here is not consistent with radioactive decay of any of the "nukular bomb" type fission materials (U235 or Pu241). How do you explain this?

Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.
Were there any actual radioactive material at GZ, any person should be able to go there and measure approximately 1/4th the radiation you measured on 9/11 (I'm assuming for the sake of argument a Pu241 isotope). That would be about 0.5 Gy, which would be more than sufficient to make any Geiger counter go nuts.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.
You know it for sure, but you want us to believe it. Why? Why should we trust you?

All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.Dimitri, let me level with you. It takes no more than 10 minutes to investigoogle radiation effects, dose rates, half lives of fissile materials, conversion rates from the now defunct Roentgen to the SI Gray, etc. You've gotten every single major fact about fissile materials wrong, including the decay rate, which I assume you made up. If you can't be bothered to get the facts you make up correct, it is futile to continue this discussion.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok thread over....this guy has not got a clue what he is talking about. I think it likely he is simply a troll as no could really be that dumb as to think a 150 kiloton blast under each tower is even remotely possible as a cause for the towers collapse. Thats 10 ten times the power of the bombs dropped on Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Furthermore, studies conducted after September 11th surveying hospital responses to the event did not list a single case of radiation induced trauma or illness. Here's one such article from the Journal or Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care:
"Two New York City Hospitals’ Surgical Response to the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack in New York City (http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2003/01000/Two_New_York_City_Hospitals__Surgical_Response_to. 18.aspx)"

I have the .pdf, if anyone is interested in it.

What is remarkable is the distinct lack of noting of any symptoms of radiation induced illnesses in direct studies of people trapped within the buildings themselves:
"Surveillance for World Trade Center disaster health effects among survivors of collapsed and damaged buildings (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16601667)"

Given that those survivors would be trapped in the very buildings that were supposedly demolished by nukes, you'd think they'd be the first to get irradiated. But, no reports... Well, anyway, you all see my point. There are other articles on this subject; a search on Google scholar can lead you to them. The two I'm listing are merely examples of what's available. The ultimate point is that all of that hooey about radiation victims is just that: Hooey. Any evidence that is ultimately provided to butress this claim of radiation victims at Ground Zero must not merely support the claim, but it must explain why other studies examining general health effects from the disaster did not cover the radiation induced health problems. Or in short, if there were radiation victims there, why did general health studies on 9/11 victims miss them?

[Sabrina]

Furthermore, studies conducted after September 11th surveying hospital responses to the event did not list a single case of radiation induced trauma or illness. Here's one such article from the Journal or Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care:
"Two New York City Hospitals’ Surgical Response to the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack in New York City (http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2003/01000/Two_New_York_City_Hospitals__Surgical_Response_to. 18.aspx)"

I have the .pdf, if anyone is interested in it.

What is remarkable is the distinct lack of noting of any symptoms of radiation induced illnesses in direct studies of people trapped within the buildings themselves:
"Surveillance for World Trade Center disaster health effects among survivors of collapsed and damaged buildings (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16601667)"

Given that those survivors would be trapped in the very buildings that were supposedly demolished by nukes, you'd think they'd be the first to get irradiated. But, no reports... Well, anyway, you all see my point. There are other articles on this subject; a search on Google scholar can lead you to them. The two I'm listing are merely examples of what's available. The ultimate point is that all of that hooey about radiation victims is just that: Hooey. Any evidence that is ultimately provided to butress this claim of radiation victims at Ground Zero must not merely support the claim, but it must explain why other studies examining general health effects from the disaster did not cover the radiation induced health problems. Or in short, if there were radiation victims there, why did general health studies on 9/11 victims miss them?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ah, he's chickening out.

Notice that there's a direct lie in his good-bye:

2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.

Untrue. Poster tj15 had watched it, and was pressing for exact timestamps in the videos for support for a specific claim. 911thology chose to obsfucate. Furthermore, Mancman had also watched them, and listed his general claims (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5774324#post5774324).


3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.


No, actually, we have proof now.


4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.


Yes. You owe anyone you make a claim to proof for your claim. You failed to do this.

This truther is vanquished by dint of his own failure to support his argument.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?

Well, I was actually blowing by the yield of the bomb to post what I knew of regarding the medical studies post 9/11 (recall, I once went on a hunt for barotrauma reports a couple of years ago). I do believe you're right, though; something that powerful probably would've left nothing but a big, fat hole in the ground. I'll need to defer that judgement to people more familiar with nuclear explosions than I am, but my admittedly limited understanding tells me that something that powerful wouldn't have left any debris, and therefore no survivors to be rescued within any debris. I, too, think they all would've been vaporized.

Someone better versed in the subject willing to elaborate or correct Sabrina and me here?

[Mangoose]

Devices were 150 kiloton.


The yield of Little Boy was 15 kt. Devices plural. So 300 kt total = the equivalent of 20 Hiroshimas at Ground Zero. Is that what you are claiming?

[Drudgewire]

Yes. You owe anyone you make a claim to proof for your claim. You failed to do this.


And cookies. He owes each of us seven chocolate chip cookies. And no, we will NOT accept nilla wafers. :mad:

[ElMondoHummus]

And cookies. He owes each of us seven chocolate chip cookies. And no, we will NOT accept nilla wafers. :mad:

Will you NOT bring up chocolate chip cookies to a diabetic :mad:!! Don't you know how bad I miss those? :cry1

[Drudgewire]

Will you NOT bring up chocolate chip cookies to a diabetic :mad:!! Don't you know how bad I miss those? :cry1


If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes. :brk:

[The Almond]

Well, I was actually blowing by the yield of the bomb to post what I knew of regarding the medical studies post 9/11 (recall, I once went on a hunt for barotrauma reports a couple of years ago). I do believe you're right, though; something that powerful probably would've left nothing but a big, fat hole in the ground. I'll need to defer that judgement to people more familiar with nuclear explosions than I am, but my admittedly limited understanding tells me that something that powerful wouldn't have left any debris, and therefore no survivors to be rescued within any debris. I, too, think they all would've been vaporized.

Someone better versed in the subject willing to elaborate or correct Sabrina and me here?

I think there still would have been debris, but nothing "building" shaped. Also, alpha, beta and gamma radiation leave extremely distinct burn marks in addition to radioactive materials. I mean, the list of things that a nuclear explosion creates that was not present at GZ goes on and on. Frankly, I'm ready to declare that nuclear weapons truthers are crazier than space-microwave hologram truthers. I know, it's shocking to think that anyone could be crazier than that.

[beachnut]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?
The melt zone would be 53 meters. The crush zone over 200 meters. (For underground explosions.) But there is no underground, there are buildings, subways systems, basements.

The blast would destroy most of the area, and I think he has three weapons doing the damage. The first weapon would destroy the other two.

[Mangoose]

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject.


Yet you want us all to watch your 25+ part Youtube video....how much of a time commitment is that, as opposed to you spending a few minutes to answer some simple questions.

I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.


If you don't care, then why are spending any time at all posting here? If you are here to drum up interest in your Youtube videos, you should show us that you are not the average random Youtuber who just posts stuff, and show that you have evidence or logical reasons behind the claims you make. All you have done is make an assertion. Anyone could do that. So why should we invest the time in watching your videos? A better way to garner interest is to explain your reasoning or evidence that shows that you are different from all the others.

Heck, even Craig and Aldo of the CIT squad make an effort in trying to supply what they regard as evidence for their claims.

[sheeplesnshills]

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

Thats called hearsay and is not evidence acceptable in any court. So no, not remotely "enough".:rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes. :brk:
I can't even have too many rice cakes. Glycemic index rating is too flippin' high. :(

Thank goodness meat doesn't have a GI rating. If I was denied steak or bacon, I'd have killed myself when I got diagnosed. :D

[sheeplesnshills]

If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes. :brk:


Bojangles sausage biscuit :cool:

[Drudgewire]

Bojangles sausage biscuit :cool:


While I can get away with one of those, their steak biscuit is sooooo much better...

...and twice as fattening. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/gonk.gif

[Macgyver1968]

Here is a video of an actual 15KT nuclear explosion. Which is 10 times smaller than one of your devices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obd0yAodLXk#t=39s

What characteristics do we see in the explosion? A blindly bright flash, followed by a shock wave.

There are many videos of the collapse...why don't we see these same characteristics? If the bombs were under the towers, why did the collapse begin near the top?

One of members here, Triforcharity, was a NY firefighter and spent weeks at GZ during the cleanup...why does he still have all of his hair and no radiation burns?


@Elmondo...and why does this pecan pie topped with 2 scoops of "death by chocolate" ice cream that I am eating right now taste so good? (sorry, El...I'm pure evil for rubbing it in.)

[Seymour Butz]

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject. I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.

IOW, you got pwned.

[Macgyver1968]

Wait...I'm confused. The Granit is a Russian missile. Why would "the perps" use a Russian missile? Were they trying to blame it on the Russians?

[DavidJames]

Pesonally for DavidJames: I already quit this discussion, but as a matter of curtecy I will send you names and contact details you ask - please contact me over my e-mail (available on my web site) and remind me who you are and what you want.You came here, you can PM me the names or post them here, I'm not going to your site to email you.

[ElMondoHummus]

Bojangles sausage biscuit :cool:

I hates youse.

While I can get away with one of those, their steak biscuit is sooooo much better...

...and twice as fattening. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/gonk.gif

You are just trying to kill me with food, aren't you. :mad:

*Sob*... steak biscuit... http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/gonk.gif

[ElMondoHummus]

One of members here, Triforcharity, was a NY firefighter and spent weeks at GZ during the cleanup...why does he still have all of his hair and no radiation burns?


Not to mention Mark Roberts led many tours there, and as far as I can tell, he's not wearing a toupee either.


@Elmondo...and why does this pecan pie topped with 2 scoops of "death by chocolate" ice cream that I am eating right now taste so good? (sorry, El...I'm pure evil for rubbing it in.)

And you, you... you... GAAAAAAH!!! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/123864877beae15535.gif

[twinstead]

I wonder what kind of reception the guy EXPECTED on this skeptics forum, considering his extraordinary claims.

[DGM]

I think we need to introduce this guy to jammonius so they can both discuss their "theories". Can anyone imagine the two best paid "dis-info" agents going head to head (we could sell tickets). :D

[ElMondoHummus]

I wonder what kind of reception the guy EXPECTED on this skeptics forum, considering his extraordinary claims.

Doesn't really matter. Someone who provides a claim like this:
5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.

... and doesn't provide any proof - such as actual measurements, instead of blank assertions as to what the levels were - is going to get lambasted in practically any forum he posts in.

Besides, as is common in conspiracy peddler circles, 9/11 truthers tend to turn on one another when their claims clash. As is the case here; recall that nanothermite pusher Steven Jones said he did in fact go measure radiation levels in New York, and didn't find anything above background:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

... and I think either Bill Deagle or Ed Ward took their own measurements too, although I'm fuzzy on that memory. If anyone knows for sure, sound off. The point here is that our fantasy peddler here is engaging in BS.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh... heh... whaddaya know? There was a confirmed, non-truther measurement of radiation at Ground Zero. Sad to say that I had to look up one of my own posts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4111644#post4111644) to remember this :o, but OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration for you non-Yanks) did in fact do some sampling:
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/summary.html

The EPA backs this up too (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/summaries/epa-osha01.htm), although I don't know if they did their own sampling, or merely relied on OSHA's measurements.

--------

Let's recall that the idea of 150Kt nukes being used is in fact not new. I recall that figure (150 kilotons) being given back in 2009 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147558), although discussions about nukes at the WTC range futher back than that (here's one from 2008 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104832), and we were already responding as if we've seen this before, so there are probably threads even further back than that). And there were insinuations about nukes even before that; here's one from 2007 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86972) where the OP doesn't directly blame a nuclear bomb, but rather discusses illnesses in firefighters and implies that it must be tied to radiation. This supposed Russian intelligence officer :rolleyes: may be acting like he's breaking new ground, but the fact of the matter is that he's only recycling old and very tired myths.

[Sam.I.Am]

His whole "Story" is a massive piece of fail. It fails like this pizza of fail does when placed in the oven of scrutiny...

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3590/11inzbq1185801.jpg

Enough said.

[ElMondoHummus]

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3590/11inzbq1185801.jpg


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/smileys_wtf.gif

--------

'Kay, Sam, fess up: You used a bit too much water in your dough, didn't ya? :D

[Sam.I.Am]

Someone did (not me, I just happened upon that picture awhile back and found it appropriate to both the topic and the food mentioned here in this thread).

[Foolmewunz]

I think we need to introduce this guy to jammonius so they can both discuss their "theories". Can anyone imagine the two best paid "dis-info" agents going head to head (we could sell tickets). :D

Actually, this is reminiscent of Lily Tomlin's suggestion for what to do with the shopping cart crazies in NYC. "Pair them up. They'd still be talking nonsense to no one in particular, but it'd look like they were having a conversation. And we'd feel so much better."

We could have Jammo and 911th talk on different planes (or plains) and give them their own locked thread. It'd keep them from infecting other borderline crazies and would at least look like we found them something productive to do.

[garethdjb]

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.


There is a description at this site (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml) of the effect one 150 kiloton nuclear bomb would have on NYC. It seems to indicate a higher level of destruction than occured on 11/9/01. . . .

[Mangoose]

Okay, so I took 5 minutes of my time to look at one of 911thology's videos, No. 10 in his 26 part series, where he explains how the nuke blasts destroyed each tower. Here is his image of the process:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=461&pictureid=2854

He says everything up to 300 meters was dustified, including people, steel, office furniture, etc. People huh? So does Dmitri claim that men from Ladder Company 6 and Engine 39 were never in the towers at the time of the collapse and were never rescued from the rubble? Would he claim that they are liars? Billy Butler, Tommy Falco, Jay Jonas, Michael Meldrum, Sal D'Agastino, Matt Komorowski, Mickey Kross, Jim McGlynn, Rob Bacon, Jeff Coniglio, Jim Efthimiaddes, Dave Lim, Rich Picciotto, and also Josephine Harris. Actually he can't even claim that they are liars because the stairwell still stood for a long time afterwards, regardless of whether it was inhabited or not during the collapse.

[Orphia Nay]

Coming soon to the Truth Movement: Directed Nano-Nukes.

[Macgyver1968]

I guess we scared the Russian off. :(

[ElMondoHummus]

I guess we scared the Russian off. :(

It was probably more that he expected people to just be wowed by his claims and not indulge in the pesky habit of asking for real evidence. Saying "it's in my video" doesn't cut it around here, and neither does making baldfaced, unsupported claims. But he just tossed out randomly generated claims and expected an uncritical audience to just accept, or ask softball questions. Typical truther.

I also think he was dismayed at being hit with actual data; recall how he dismissed my posting of Gravy's summary of witness statements by sarcastically telling me to go buy the 9/11 Commision Report (why buy it, I don't know, given that it's frikkin' available for free (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm)...). He totally missed the fact that those witness statements were taken from a variety of sources, and not from the 9/11 Commision Report. Which is something he should've figured out had he actually read either the report or Gravy's links.

Note, too, his nonexistent defense of his inaccuracy regarding sonic booms, as well as his complete glossing over of the summary of evidence totally refuting his Pentagon claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5805531#post5805531). There's a great opportunity to say "No, these witnesses are wrong for this reason", but he chooses to be indignant instead.

Anyway, another case of much heat but no light. Someone who indulges in typical dodges and does his best to keep things unspecific is normally a run-of-the-mill charlatan who has no real evidence.

Mancman or tj15: Are his vids worth a point-by-point refutation, or is it just the same old crud regurgitated? From Mancman's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5774324#post5774324), it seems like it's the latter.

[W.D.Clinger]

It was probably more that he expected people to just be wowed by his claims and not indulge in the pesky habit of asking for real evidence. Saying "it's in my video" doesn't cut it around here, and neither does making baldfaced, unsupported claims. But he just tossed out randomly generated claims and expected an uncritical audience to just accept, or ask softball questions. Typical truther.
I don't think so. He was even worse than a typical truther.

From his very first post, he seemed to expect what was coming. I think he came here just to count coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup). He will now brag of his visit to JREF, where he proved that none were willing to take an honest look at the evidence. His visit here was a marketing ploy from the get-go.

[twinstead]

I don't think so. He was even worse than a typical truther.

From his very first post, he seemed to expect what was coming. I think he came here just to count coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup). He will now brag of his visit to JREF, where he proved that none were willing to take an honest look at the evidence. His visit here was a marketing ploy from the get-go.

I vote for this as well.

He knew exactly what to expect. He'll now get to brag that we didn't even want to listen to him. Watch my video indeed...:rolleyes:

[tj15]

It was probably more that he expected people to just be wowed by his claims and not indulge in the pesky habit of asking for real evidence. Saying "it's in my video" doesn't cut it around here, and neither does making baldfaced, unsupported claims. But he just tossed out randomly generated claims and expected an uncritical audience to just accept, or ask softball questions. Typical truther.

I also think he was dismayed at being hit with actual data; recall how he dismissed my posting of Gravy's summary of witness statements by sarcastically telling me to go buy the 9/11 Commision Report (why buy it, I don't know, given that it's frikkin' available for free (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm)...). He totally missed the fact that those witness statements were taken from a variety of sources, and not from the 9/11 Commision Report. Which is something he should've figured out had he actually read either the report or Gravy's links.

Note, too, his nonexistent defense of his inaccuracy regarding sonic booms, as well as his complete glossing over of the summary of evidence totally refuting his Pentagon claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5805531#post5805531). There's a great opportunity to say "No, these witnesses are wrong for this reason", but he chooses to be indignant instead.

Anyway, another case of much heat but no light. Someone who indulges in typical dodges and does his best to keep things unspecific is normally a run-of-the-mill charlatan who has no real evidence.

Mancman or tj15: Are his vids worth a point-by-point refutation, or is it just the same old crud regurgitated? From Mancman's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5774324#post5774324), it seems like it's the latter.

From what I watched (most of the videos through part 18), he believes the most insane theories of 9/11. He believs in the no-plane theory. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. And he believes nukes brought down the buildings in the WTC.

Things he MUST believe for those theories to be correct:

1. ALL of the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon are either liars, government paid agents/people, completely wrong in what they saw, ect.

2. The outer walls of the towers managed to survive the nuclear blasts and not get damaged while stuff on the inside turned to dust.

3. The seismic data is fake. He claims the nukes would register 5.7 (I think that's what he said) on the richter scale; 2.1 and 2.3 is what was really registered on the richter scale (correct me if I'm wrong) during the collapses of the towers.

4. ALL of the videos of the planes hitting the towers were faked. This would have to include not only the videos from the news stations, but also people on the streets and in nearby buildings on their personal video cameras.

These are just a few things he must believe...

[twinstead]

These are just a few things he must believe...

I don't think he actually believes any of it.

[CORed]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

Wrong again: The sonic boom is a wave front similar to the wake of a boat and is produced any time an object is traveling above the speed of sound. BTW, which mental hospital in Bangkok do you live in?

[CORed]

As you know, radioactive intensity varies with the square of the distance to the source.


I seriously doubt that 911thology knows this.

[CORed]

Dear listeners. I would like to close this discussion with the following 'optimistic' note:
1) I noticed that not even one of you was genuinely interested in the topic.
2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.
3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.
4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.
If you re-view my very first (big) post on this thread where I set my conditions you will notice that this discussion has gone not the way I wished it to go and none of the conditions of mine was honored. Therefore I would like to wish you all the best and quit this discussion. If anyone appears here later with genuine interest he is always welcome to find my e-mail on the Internet and send his personalized questions to me. Otherwise I could be contacted via YouTube ‘911thology’ channel. Best wishes. Dimitri.

So, you com here with a bunch of completely absurd claims that are clearly a bad joke or the result of delusional thinking, demonstrate complete ignorance of basic physics, refuse to provide anything remotely resembling supporting evidence, and expect to be taken seriously?

[ElMondoHummus]

From what I watched (most of the videos through part 18), he believes the most insane theories of 9/11. He believs in the no-plane theory. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. And he believes nukes brought down the buildings in the WTC.

Things he MUST believe for those theories to be correct:

1. ALL of the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon are either liars, government paid agents/people, completely wrong in what they saw, ect.

2. The outer walls of the towers managed to survive the nuclear blasts and not get damaged while stuff on the inside turned to dust.

3. The seismic data is fake. He claims the nukes would register 5.7 (I think that's what he said) on the richter scale; 2.1 and 2.3 is what was really registered on the richter scale (correct me if I'm wrong) during the collapses of the towers.

4. ALL of the videos of the planes hitting the towers were faked. This would have to include not only the videos from the news stations, but also people on the streets and in nearby buildings on their personal video cameras.

These are just a few things he must believe...

Lemme guess: He doesn't provide any actual evidence for any of those claims, right? He just states them outright as if they were self evident, right? No "I know this Pentagon witness is lying because (explanation)", no "Here's photographic proof", no "Here's a real seismometer readout", and no "Here's proof of them faking the planes impact: (Presentation of proof)". Have I guessed right?

[Sabrina]

Does anyone else ever feel sorta gypped by the truthers when they refuse to provide evidence of their assertions?

[ElMondoHummus]

Does anyone else ever feel sorta gypped by the truthers when they refuse to provide evidence of their assertions?

Well, it's a Catch-22, because I also feel gypped when they do present it. Usually because it ends up being the same old :talk034: regurgitated under a different forum name. There's no winning; we get ripped off either way. :cool:

[Gorgonian]

I'm becoming more and more aware over time that this particular conspiracy theory breeds some of the most bizarre mindsets I've ever come across.

[Sabrina]

I'm becoming more and more aware over time that this particular conspiracy theory breeds some of the most bizarre mindsets I've ever come across.

It took you this long to realize that? ;)

[I Ratant]

I'm becoming more and more aware over time that this particular conspiracy theory breeds some of the most bizarre mindsets I've ever come across.
.
Yes, these guys give cognitive dissonance a bad reputation!

[NickUK]

This guy is a blatant troll. The same stupid arguments, the carefully placed misspellings. It's all so dull:faint:

[tj15]

Lemme guess: He doesn't provide any actual evidence for any of those claims, right? He just states them outright as if they were self evident, right? No "I know this Pentagon witness is lying because (explanation)", no "Here's photographic proof", no "Here's a real seismometer readout", and no "Here's proof of them faking the planes impact: (Presentation of proof)". Have I guessed right?

I'd have to watch it again to get his specific reasons for why he believes the stuff he believes.

From what I remember about what he said about no planes, I THINK he said something about how the tv news stations video doesn't line up with each other and I THINK he said something about the one video clip that does that fade to black thing.

I THINK he also claimed some kind of evidence for the idea that nukes were placed under the WTC area (as a demolition plan in order to be allowed to build the towers) and under the Sears Tower (I don't remember the reason in the case of the Sears Tower or what evidence he had that there is/was a nuke under the Sears Tower).

[beachnut]

Wrong again: The sonic boom is a wave front similar to the wake of a boat and is produced any time an object is traveling above the speed of sound. ...

Our poor Russian politically appointed Intel officer has problems with science
Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.
I flew supersonic jet trainers, the boom is happening the whole time you are supersonic; if not we would have slipped though the sound barrier (there is no barrier, you slip right through uneventfully and you don't hear anything in the jet!) and flown supersonic more and the sonic boom would not be so controlled over the USA!!! I am an engineer who studied physics, I am a pilot who studied flight dynamics, I worked in the Flight Dynamic Lab for the USAF; and you make up the delusion supersonic flight has not sonic-boom. You must of been a politically appointed intelligence officer with zero knowledge of science. Only made up delusions. Any kid who can google knows more about flying, nukes, and physics than you do.

You know as much about sonic booms as you know about nukes! ZERO, the null set, nothing, etc...

This was funny! you title the post answer
answer
And you give out more false information.
Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds.

During Desert Storm I was outside dropping off aircrew to fly missions on the ramp when SCUDs attacked our base and the city. After the attack the supersonic trails of the SCUDs and Patriots were like "distant thunder" rumbling for as long as it took the paths' sonic booms to reach my ears; it was surrealistic as I listened to the BBC talking about the Gulf war and listening to the remnants of the supersonic engagement I just witnessed.

[DGM]

I'd have to watch it again to get his specific reasons for why he believes the stuff he believes.

Don't bother he never really says why he does.

From what I remember about what he said about no planes, I THINK he said something about how the tv news stations video doesn't line up with each other and I THINK he said something about the one video clip that does that fade to black thing.

I think his primary reason for not believing the planes hit the towers is that they should have bounced of (really he says this). He uses September Clues(less) to bolster his opinion.

I THINK he also claimed some kind of evidence for the idea that nukes were placed under the WTC area (as a demolition plan in order to be allowed to build the towers) and under the Sears Tower (I don't remember the reason in the case of the Sears Tower or what evidence he had that there is/was a nuke under the Sears Tower).

His reason was they had to do it (why he never said). His proof is that he is in the know and it is so. He says it was in the papers but never produces it as evidence.

I'm guessing if you want his evidence you have to purchase his book (and soon to be released companion DVD box set). :rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

...
During Desert Storm I was outside dropping off aircrew to fly missions on the ramp when SCUDs attacked our base and the city. After the attack the supersonic trails of the SCUDs and Patriots were like "distant thunder" rumbling for as long as it took the paths' sonic booms to reach my ears; it was surrealistic as I listened to the BBC talking about the Gulf war and listening to the remnants of the supersonic engagement I just witnessed.
.
I was wondering about that.
In WWII, the Tallboy bomb and the V-2 rocket were supersonic when coming down.
I expect that the sonic booms would have merged with the explosions and be regarded as secondaries at best.
Back when the Blackbirds were flying, the buildings at Flight Test would rattle nicely when they passed at 80,000 feet and Mach 3 or so.
The Mall rattles now when the Shuttle comes in from the southwest towards Edwards.

[tj15]

Does anyone have a good debunking of part 20 in the video series? It is about the seismic data. Can a person feel 2.1 and 2.3 seismic activity?

[kookbreaker]

.
I was wondering about that.
In WWII, the Tallboy bomb and the V-2 rocket were supersonic when coming down.
I expect that the sonic booms would have merged with the explosions and be regarded as secondaries at best.
Back when the Blackbirds were flying, the buildings at Flight Test would rattle nicely when they passed at 80,000 feet and Mach 3 or so.
The Mall rattles now when the Shuttle comes in from the southwest towards Edwards.

Back when the Concorde was still flying I there was some window rattling on the coast of Rhode Island beach houses very early in the morning. Seems that the pilots didn't always slow down as they were supposed to when they reached the coastline.

[kookbreaker]

Does anyone have a good debunking of part 20 in the video series? It is about the seismic data. Can a person feel 2.1 and 2.3 seismic activity?

The seismic scale describes 2.0 to 3.0 as "Generally not felt, but recorded." There are thousands of such 'earthquakes' per day.

[tj15]

The seismic scale describes 2.0 to 3.0 as "Generally not felt, but recorded." There are thousands of such 'earthquakes' per day.

There is a quote from a guy who was at ground zero that said the ground was shaking and that it felt like a train going by underneath him (I THINK that's what he said). It is in part 20 of the video. The theory is that the guy would only feel something like that if the seismic activity registered between 5 and 6 on the richter scale (which is used as evidence for nukes exploding under the towers).

[DGM]

The seismic scale describes 2.0 to 3.0 as "Generally not felt, but recorded." There are thousands of such 'earthquakes' per day.
Considering the distance the recordings were made from I see no reason to believe however that a person at the site could feel the ground shake. The fire fighter refers to it as feeling like a "train under his feet". Not unlike when a truck passes my house I can feel it (and sometimes dishes rattle)

As far as "debunking" #20 goes there's really not much to say. He claims the seismic data is fake because it does not show the bombs going off (how's that for circular logic). A 5.7 shock that he does claim happened would be reported by everyone in NYC (and most of NJ)

[The Almond]

I seriously doubt that 911thology knows this.
Yeah, but I was trying to help him with his lie. I mean, really, if you're going to make up geiger-counter data, how hard is it to match the data to a known isotope with a known half life and say that you measured 1/4 the activity at 2 times the distance?

It's just that, the truthers are getting so lazy now. Where's the obfuscation? Where's the hidden factor of 10 that makes the math semi-plausible looking? Where are the carefully mined quotes with bold faced typing and strategically placed ellipses (...)?

[I Ratant]

The seismic scale describes 2.0 to 3.0 as "Generally not felt, but recorded." There are thousands of such 'earthquakes' per day.
.
It has to be a lot higher than 2,.. above 4, to be felt by me, and I've experienced many of them in the 40 some years here in CA.

[Sam.I.Am]

The lowest I've ever felt is a 3.6. Just enough to set off overly sensitive car alarms in some locations.

[tj15]

How did the guy feel a 2.3 on the richter scale and describe it as a train passing beneath him?

[ElMondoHummus]

How did the guy feel a 2.3 on the richter scale and describe it as a train passing beneath him?

Folks, remember: The seismic reading was taken at theLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., which was on the order of 20 miles away. The witness in question was what, right there? That would account for the difference, I would say.

ETA: We've had discussions on the seismic readings before:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82636
Now, those discussions don't necessarily address what this truther is getting at, but it does provide background in understanding the seismograph readings.

[Foolmewunz]

Thank you, 911thology, for your brief and entertaining return.

I'd have to say that not since The Adventure of MaGZ and The Pigeon have I had such an entertaining read.

No science, no facts, no nuttin'.

(Did anyone actually make it through to any of the 26 parts that explained just what Boris Badanov had in mind? Are the Russians now part of the NWO, or is there some new sinister group out there a la Dr. Evil?)

[ElMondoHummus]

(Did anyone actually make it through to any of the 26 parts that explained just what Boris Badanov had in mind? Are the Russians now part of the NWO, or is there some new sinister group out there a la Dr. Evil?)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/lol.gif

Damn it, Lau Joe, why did you do that to me? Now I'm going to go through the night with the phrase "Keel Moose" going through my head. :D

[Foolmewunz]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/lol.gif

Damn it, Lau Joe, why did you do that to me? Now I'm going to go through the night with the phrase "Keel Moose" going through my head. :D

Well, I just got this packet of info from the, uhh, Information Officer, Yeah, that's it the Information Officer at the American Embassy in Bangkok. It seems they have some of the planning on tape....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHUiCYAE2DY

The actual early planning stages.

[tj15]

Folks, remember: The seismic reading was taken at theLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., which was on the order of 20 miles away. The witness in question was what, right there? That would account for the difference, I would say.

ETA: We've had discussions on the seismic readings before:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82636
Now, those discussions don't necessarily address what this truther is getting at, but it does provide background in understanding the seismograph readings.

When you say "this truther," are you refering to 911thology or me?

[ElMondoHummus]

When you say "this truther," are you refering to 911thology or me?

:confused:

I'm referring to 911thology, of course. You're no truther. What I'm saying is that the links to previous discussions don't directly address the claims 911thology made in his 26 volume :rolleyes: video "series", but they do provide enough background on the seismograph readings to be able to understand what they meant.

[tsig]

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

So then two "half-truths" equals one "truth"?

[tj15]

:confused:

I'm referring to 911thology, of course. You're no truther. What I'm saying is that the links to previous discussions don't directly address the claims 911thology made in his 26 volume :rolleyes: video "series", but they do provide enough background on the seismograph readings to be able to understand what they meant.

Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were talking about me because my question sounded a little truther-ish.

[djlunacee]

I hate the fact that he left so soon, but I took him up on his odder and I watched the series, I politely responded to him with some questions, regarding survivors in the aftermath, collapse initiating at the point of impact, how could the "bathtub" survive the blast, etc...here is what I got back

@djlunacee - you better watch the entire movie and leave your final comments after the part 11 (or preferably even after the part 26). Otherwise you do not look too clever with your 'clever' statements.

I mentioned the fact that he got blasted over here and ran like a coward, I will keep you posted if he ever replies back with something other than watch all 26 parts of my video.

[Sabrina]

I hate the fact that he left so soon, but I took him up on his odder and I watched the series, I politely responded to him with some questions, regarding survivors in the aftermath, collapse initiating at the point of impact, how could the "bathtub" survive the blast, etc...here is what I got back

@djlunacee - you better watch the entire movie and leave your final comments after the part 11 (or preferably even after the part 26). Otherwise you do not look too clever with your 'clever' statements.

I mentioned the fact that he got blasted over here and ran like a coward, I will keep you posted if he ever replies back with something other than watch all 26 parts of my video.

Wait, so you watched all 26 parts, asked him some questions, and his response was to watch his video?

Anyone else getting dizzy with the circular reasoning here?

[doobiedoright]

Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

Wow that is so wrong!
if you cant get that little info right ,your not worth wasting any time on!

[R.Mackey]

Does anyone have a good debunking of part 20 in the video series? It is about the seismic data. Can a person feel 2.1 and 2.3 seismic activity?


Distance has a lot to do with it. I once clearly felt a 1.0. Its "epicenter" turned out to be almost directly beneath where I was standing, and at shallow depth.

Since the seismic event in question was caused by the collapse of large structures, a better question would be whether the individuals could reasonably have felt those structures collapsing from where they were standing. The answer is, quite obviously, yes.

[JoeyDonuts]

Didn't this guy say earlier that he arrived at his conclusion by speaking to "several intelligence officials", including those of the United States?

I wonder if ULTIMA1 is his source.

[djlunacee]

Yes ma'am watched all 26 wretched parts, repeated the same questions that were raised in this thread and then told him basically he had unfinished business over here, and this was his reply:

@djlunacee - I never 'run' from 'jref'. I set my conditions for formulating questions stating that only questions by those who watched the movie providing these questions reveal genuine interest will be answered, while questions showing only malice, but no genuine interest will be ignored. My conditions were not met. People who did not watch my movie begun to ask questions, moreover not even a single question showed interest, but only malice. I quit based on non-compliance with my conditions.

So there you have it...He was asked direct questions regarding survivors on the rubble after a nuclear blast that "dustified" steel, dodged my question regarding how the bathtub was able to stand up to the blast, and how in the world the island of Manhattan is still standing after incurring three 150 kiloton nuclear blasts, and how he can explain his own discrepancy of claiming these nukes were built in, by the designers in the OP and then later in the thread stating they were delivered by train.

[djlunacee]

in another message here is what he wrote if you care to pick it apart:

@djlunacee - I don't see anything wrong with survivors. Some of them were on stair-cases that were within surviving corners of the lowest Towers' perimeters that were not pulverized (why it so happened - see parts 15-16). As long as this part of building survived some people survived in there too. This fact has nothing to do with the actual caliber (150 kiloton) of the nuke, because it was underground nuclear explosion, not atmospheric, and its caliber does not matter in this sense

and

@djlunacee In my opinion nukes were very precise as you can see from destruction zones of the nuke behind the WTC-7 which was so precise that it spared Verizon and US Post Office buildings being dangerously close to the WTC-7 (see parts 15-16). If nukes were so precise and their positions were well-calculated it explains also that bathtub wall was not destroyed (though it was surely weakened enough to cause serious concerns)

[Sabrina]

*facepalm*

He's hopeless; I suggest this thread be closed. He's beyond help at this point.

Precise nukes? People being that close to a nuclear explosion (underground or not) and suffering no side effects AT ALL? The man is delusional!

[sheeplesnshills]

I don't think he actually believes any of it.

I agree, I think this guy is just another opportunist trying to make money out of the stupidity or mental illness of the truthers. We have seen from the likes of Jammonius that they will believe the most ridiculous things so he can write anything and the fools will lap it up.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes ma'am watched all 26 wretched parts, repeated the same questions that were raised in this thread and then told him basically he had unfinished business over here, and this was his reply:

@djlunacee - I never 'run' from 'jref'. I set my conditions for formulating questions stating that only questions by those who watched the movie providing these questions reveal genuine interest will be answered, while questions showing only malice, but no genuine interest will be ignored. My conditions were not met. People who did not watch my movie begun to ask questions, moreover not even a single question showed interest, but only malice. I quit based on non-compliance with my conditions.

So there you have it...He was asked direct questions regarding survivors on the rubble after a nuclear blast that "dustified" steel, dodged my question regarding how the bathtub was able to stand up to the blast, and how in the world the island of Manhattan is still standing after incurring three 150 kiloton nuclear blasts, and how he can explain his own discrepancy of claiming these nukes were built in, by the designers in the OP and then later in the thread stating they were delivered by train.

in another message here is what he wrote if you care to pick it apart:

@djlunacee - I don't see anything wrong with survivors. Some of them were on stair-cases that were within surviving corners of the lowest Towers' perimeters that were not pulverized (why it so happened - see parts 15-16). As long as this part of building survived some people survived in there too. This fact has nothing to do with the actual caliber (150 kiloton) of the nuke, because it was underground nuclear explosion, not atmospheric, and its caliber does not matter in this sense

and

@djlunacee In my opinion nukes were very precise as you can see from destruction zones of the nuke behind the WTC-7 which was so precise that it spared Verizon and US Post Office buildings being dangerously close to the WTC-7 (see parts 15-16). If nukes were so precise and their positions were well-calculated it explains also that bathtub wall was not destroyed (though it was surely weakened enough to cause serious concerns)

:wide-eyed Precision nuke? Is that anything like a supersonic turtle? Hard cotton? Soft concrete?

You know, I have no idea if the guy's a charlatan who knows he's full of it or a guy who's genuinely delusional. From his dodges both here and at YouTube, my guess is the former since he's so very unwilling to elaborate on his "knowledge" (the exact opposite behavior of someone who genuinely wants to inform the public). But I admit, I don't actually know for sure. Anyway, the notion that the WTC disaster site resembled an underground nuke detonation is ludicrous; there are plenty of videos of underground explosions on the 'net, and the WTC event resembles none of them. Here's one example:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1870730456324813920#

Can't argue that the video is showing bigger nukes either; the US is limited to 150kt nuke tests by treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing).So that would be the magnitude of nuke that 911thology would be talking about. Anyone see any similarities in the blast itself vs. the towers collapse? Let alone in the aftermath? Nope, neither do I.

There are a ton more ways to refute this silly conceit, but we're beating a dead horse. This guy's just as full of it as most other truthers; he's just full in a minority direction. He and Bill Deagle can keep each other company; they're welcome to each other.

[R.Mackey]

:wide-eyed Precision nuke? Is that anything like a supersonic turtle? Hard cotton? Soft concrete?

Seek, and ye shall find (http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n264/Evilbunny1973/Gamera.jpg)...


How many months has it gone since we've had a sane Truther to talk to?

[Mangoose]

I don't see anything wrong with survivors. Some of them were on stair-cases that were within surviving corners of the lowest Towers' perimeters that were not pulverized (why it so happened - see parts 15-16). As long as this part of building survived some people survived in there too. This fact has nothing to do with the actual caliber (150 kiloton) of the nuke, because it was underground nuclear explosion, not atmospheric, and its caliber does not matter in this sense


Hey this kind of attempts a response to my own question about the survivors in the North Tower.

"stair-cases that were within surviving corners of the lowest Towers' perimeters"

Does he not even know where the staircases were?? :rolleyes: I just watched Part 16 and indeed, 911thology is talking about surviving "corners" of the towers, on account of "off-center" placements of the nukes.

[ElMondoHummus]

:wide-eyed Precision nuke? Is that anything like a supersonic turtle?...


Seek, and ye shall find (http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n264/Evilbunny1973/Gamera.jpg)...


Figures that only people in this forum could've found something filling that description off the top of their head. :cool:

Well, this forum and any of the MST3K ones out there. :D


How many months has it gone since we've had a sane Truther to talk to?

Yeech... too many.

[triforcharity]

So, I don't see any question. Only silly talking about nothing. Is that I was called here for?

Where are the victims with Radiation poisoning?

What you have described is not radiation sickness. It is a lung condition.

Now, why aren't hundreds of firefighters dropping dead? Police officers? Military? National Guard? Reporters? Citizens? The death toll should be in the high hundres of thousands. And yet, you cite 300 or so. Makes no damn sense.

[triforcharity]

I am not accusing anyone in mass murder. I explain in purely technical terms why the steel Twin Towers were pulvezied. This is number one. What hit the Pentagon - number two. The rest is of very little importance. I am not a judge to accuse anyone. Neither I am a public prosecutor. You want me to get lost? I am quite near to it. Any more questions before I get finally lost?


I can explain in one picture that you are wrong. Dead wrong.

See here.

http://www.stopgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/sat_photo_911.jpg

LOTS OF STEEL!!

Wrong sir, just wrong.

ETA: Damn, he's gone. Who scared our little ball of string off? Damnit......

[Bell]

Dear listeners. I would like to close this discussion with the following 'optimistic' note:
1) I noticed that not even one of you was genuinely interested in the topic.
2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.
3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.
4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.
If you re-view my very first (big) post on this thread where I set my conditions you will notice that this discussion has gone not the way I wished it to go and none of the conditions of mine was honored. Therefore I would like to wish you all the best and quit this discussion. If anyone appears here later with genuine interest he is always welcome to find my e-mail on the Internet and send his personalized questions to me. Otherwise I could be contacted via YouTube ‘911thology’ channel. Best wishes. Dimitri.

Well, kameradski, that's just too bad.

Here you have probably one of the biggest audiences interested in 9/11 alternative theories (or the debunking thereof). This could have been your time and place in history to truly reveal what happened on 9/11.

But what do you do? You give up! Seriously? WTF?

[djlunacee]

It is not looking to good for him over on you tube either....poor soul.

[kookbreaker]

Seek, and ye shall find (http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n264/Evilbunny1973/Gamera.jpg)...


Gamera is a slowpoke! (http://home.netwood.net/jessw/battlestar_galapagos.png)

[Wolrab]

Seek, and ye shall find (http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n264/Evilbunny1973/Gamera.jpg)...


How many months has it gone since we've had a sane Truther to talk to?
I make it to be about 115 months starting with the Quaran wing-ding thing, folded dollar bill, Ginned up Nostradamus prophesy, and the Jews were told not to go to work. IIRC most of these were out before September was over.

[beachnut]

Pesonally for DavidJames: I already quit this discussion, but as a matter of curtecy I will send you names and contact details you ask - please contact me over my e-mail (available on my web site) and remind me who you are and what you want.

For the rest - good bue. Good bue to you too. Do you have more nonsense on 911. You messed up the nuke stuff, and sonic-booms, can you top that?

[DGM]

Good bue to you too. Do you have more nonsense on 911. You messed up the nuke stuff, and sonic-booms, can you top that?
Lets not forget that the planes should have "bounced off". That was my favorite (even the guy interviewing him gave him a "are you *********** me" look). :D

[Lak]

Dear listeners. I would like to close this discussion with the following 'optimistic' note:
1) I noticed that not even one of you was genuinely interested in the topic.
2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.
3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.
4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.
If you re-view my very first (big) post on this thread where I set my conditions you will notice that this discussion has gone not the way I wished it to go and none of the conditions of mine was honored. Therefore I would like to wish you all the best and quit this discussion. If anyone appears here later with genuine interest he is always welcome to find my e-mail on the Internet and send his personalized questions to me. Otherwise I could be contacted via YouTube ‘911thology’ channel. Best wishes. Dimitri.
That's weird how perception for the same event can change from people to people, huh ? What I witnessed was a little more like :
1) 911thology : "pentagon was hit by a supersonic missile"
2) JREFers : "But there was no sonic boom..."
3) 911thology : "lol. Sonic boom only occur at the precise moment you reach Mach 1, don't you know ?"
4) JREFers : "mmmmmmh no... [sources]"
5) 911thology : "I won't discuss that ! absolutely not ! these are my rules !"
6) 911thology : [a moment later] "You don't deserve me. I quit."

When I see a thruther pulling lame excuses like that out of his butt, I wonder : do they really expect to fool anyone ? I mean, even other thruthers ?

[djlunacee]

Oh, it gets better, here is the personal message I received from him today.....

So, I answered all three of your questions in comments. However, I didn't see these answers to appear in that forum where you promised them to appear. ??

I still keep that page of the JREF open - just may be someone will post there a question with sincere interest behind it. But so far I did not notice even one of this kind. Hope you realize that I did not 'escape cowardly' that ******** thread. I simply showed my disdain to the people on that thread who thought that they could set their own rules of discussion while I stated clearly from the beginning that the rules are to be set by me only. I don't mind actually to answer even a 1000 questions irrespectively of how 'inconvenient' they could be to me and how 'dangerous to my claims' they may appear. Providing only that people who ask these questions are: 1) genuinely interested in subject; 2) observe generally accepted rules of argument/discussion; 3) objective and respectful to their opponent. When it comes to the thread we are talking about it is full of 'psychotic trolls' (as Ms 'Childlike Empress' called them in one of her posts, which is now removed) and before I posted that post which set my tough condition I attentively read all posts there. So, I found that there were no genuinely interested people and none of them was going to watch the movie anyway and even if the do they have embedded opinions that I am: 1) liar; 2) incompetent; 3) impostor; 4) they resorted to personal insults. Either of these 4 qualities making discussion with these 'psychotic trolls' impossible from the point that by definition they can not observe generally accepted rules of argument along with the fact that they are not trained to show respect to their opponents during the argument. So, you have to understand that I am from another social layer than these people in the thread and I simply can not afford to participate in any discussion with them. I can't lower my self that much. I can argue with military officers, I could argue with scientists, I could argue with journalists, but not with psychotic trolls who devoted their very lives to chatting in various Internet forums rather than spending their precious times on their children or their professional careers. So, keeping all of it in mind, I intentionally set my tough conditions to show that I am not equal to them in this sense (I am a respectable person, not a full-time Internet chat-troll) and unless there will be shown due respect and required interest there will be no discussion whatsoever. Hope you understand this. These people on the thread simply did not deserve my attention and nothing more than that. So my desire to quickly quit this idiotic discussion had absolutely nothing to do with 'cowardice' it had something to do with principles: such a discussion with me (unless I held a discussion with equals whom I respect and from whom I expect due respect in return) could only proceed on MY conditions, however, on that thread it was not. That was only the case.
Best wishes.

I feel like I should direct him the the thread containing the 911 expertise question, but what good would it really do? I really think he thought he was going to come in here say some stuff and we were going to fall all over his theory because of some title he claims to be or have.

[djlunacee]

and my response.....

You should really check your ego, it is getting in your way, I will have you know that there are several firemen, mechanical, structural, civil, and electrical engineers, peer reviewed NASA scientist, aviators, architects,and 1 really famous tour guide on that forum, and some of them were asking you the questions that I repeated over here, you see sir these minds require evidence, not hearsay, the fact remains, you quit when it didn't go the way you wanted it to, that is cowardice. Second, your responses are there and have been there for days, that alone tells me in itself that you have not been back to the forum. Finally, contrary to what you think you are no better than any other truther I have ever met, I find it despicable, that you put down these people, when all they did was ask questions in regard to your video, you are right they are not on your level, they are miles ahead of you. Be happy we didn't get started on your pentagon part of the theory either, you have a lot of shortcomings there as well. So I wish you well, because I bode no ill will on anyone.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, it gets better, here is the personal message I received from him today.....

So, I answered all three of your questions in comments. However, I didn't see these answers to appear in that forum where you promised them to appear. ??

I still keep that page of the JREF open - just may be someone will post there a question with sincere interest behind it. But so far I did not notice even one of this kind...

... So, you have to understand that I am from another social layer than these people in the thread and I simply can not afford to participate in any discussion with them. I can't lower my self that much. I can argue with military officers, I could argue with scientists, I could argue with journalists, but not with psychotic trolls who devoted their very lives to chatting in various Internet forums rather than spending their precious times on their children or their professional careers...

... So, keeping all of it in mind, I intentionally set my tough conditions to show that I am not equal to them in this sense (I am a respectable person, not a full-time Internet chat-troll) and unless there will be shown due respect and required interest there will be no discussion whatsoever. Hope you understand this. These people on the thread simply did not deserve my attention and nothing more than that. So my desire to quickly quit this idiotic discussion had absolutely nothing to do with 'cowardice'...

Translation: "I'm going to gloss over the fact that I provided no documentation for my claims, badly botched descriptions of two well-known physical phenomenon - sonic booms (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5805468#post5805468) and radioactive material decay (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5805635#post5805635) - so badly that I revealed an utter lack of knowledge on both subjects, dodged direct questions, ignored evidence firmly refuting my claims, and will now front a haughty persona in order to project a facade of superiority to cover the utter hollowness of my arguement".

:rolleyes:

Couple of links for anyone sane who'll understand the utter vapidity and stupidity of his argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing
http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/nougat/index.html
From what I understand, our "Russian" truther here claims a 150kt device 50 meters below the towers. But compare that to the Sedan nuclear test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)): That device was buried 636 feet deep. From the Wikipedia article:

The fusion-fission blast had a yield equivalent to 104 kilotons of TNT (435 terajoules) and lifted a dome of earth 290 feet (90 m) above the desert floor before it vented at three seconds after detonation, exploding upward and outward displacing more than 11,000,000 t (11,000,000 LT; 12,000,000 ST) of soil.[3] The resulting crater is 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,280 ft). A circular area of the desert floor five miles across was obscured by fast-expanding dust clouds moving out horizontally from the base surge, akin to pyroclastic surge.[4] The blast caused seismic waves equivalent to an earthquake of 4.75 on the Richter scale.[1] The radiation level on the crater lip at 1 hour after burst was 500 R per hour (130 mC/(kg·h)).


Keep in mind that that was in desert sand, not bedrock like you'd find underneath Manhattan. But still... 150 kilotons 50 meters below the towers? And yet, the tub walls still stood, and some of the other WTC buildings within the tub had to be intentionally demolished?

Yeah, right. :cool:

I'd love to hear any explanation of:
Where the "melt cavity" is, as well as why in excavating down to shore up the foundation plus prep for new construction the contractors onsite never discussed finding a rubble chimney.
How the general destruction of Ground Zero when viewed overhead does not in the least resemble the characteristic subsidence crater left behind by such weapons.
How an underground blast of a 150kt weapon makes the towers collapse begin closer to the top of the structure than the bottom.
How the blast caused the towers to collapse, yet leave some columns standing, as well as nearby buildings.
... but I'm not going to hold my breath for a response. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, the collapse dynamics contradict any notion that the force initiating collapse began underground. They are completely consistent with collapse initiation beginning in the fire and impact zones. Recordings of both collapses show where they started and how they progressed, and recovered debris from the towers validates the initiation in the impact and fire zones. This guy's full of it.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ps. Our "Russian Intelligence Officer" http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=157&pictureid=1144 seems to have found a safe haven of admirers:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1029915/pg1

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/obi-wan_kenobi.jpg

Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?

[Sabrina]

*raises hand* Excuse me...

I happen to be a military officer. I'll post my DD-214 if he needs proof (with my personal info redacted, of course). My MOS is 35D, which is all-source intelligence. I am currently the assistant brigade S2 (intelligence officer) for my unit. In my civilian job I am a consultant for a nationally known company, currently on a project at one of the sixteen intelligence agencies, and have had no difficulty maintaining said career while posting on this forum.

So sadly, his criteria have been met. I am not an internet troll (and have no children to neglect anyway) so, basically, he is a coward. It's simply true. And you can tell him I said so.

[JoeyDonuts]

Though not as impressive as Sabrina's resume, I also have some experience in this matter.

I was an Electronic Warfare technician (1734 NEC), and a intelligence assistant onboard a U.S. Navy destroyer for six years. I can also back this up with documentation, but feel no need to do so.

My particular field applies directly to concepts of ASMD, which required me to be intimately familiar with all in-theater ASM threats, of which the SS-N-19, an integral part of his claim, is part. I know his claims vis-a-vis the capability of the Granit missile are total crap.

Though I have no means or resources to vet him, I also suspect by his postings that he is not who or what he claims to be.

Most naval nuclear officers never see, or more appropriately, work intimately with - the world of intel. Unless he's claiming that he's GRU, which I haven't seen thus far.

[djlunacee]

Guess he doesn't play well with others, his series is now unavailable on YouTube...(gratuitous tear wipe) I know that I am new here, but, from everything that I have read, I have a respect for you all, and just hate that kind of behavior....Let's just say I have always had a problem dealing with authority, and when he came in here and tried to lay down the "law", it burned me up, that is why I could not let it go, so thanks for bearing with me. If I overstepped some bounds I apologize. I would like to say maybe he has seen the errors in his logic....but then I would have to smack my self and say what were you thinking?

[Sabrina]

Guess he doesn't play well with others, his series is now unavailable on YouTube...(gratuitous tear wipe) I know that I am new here, but, from everything that I have read, I have a respect for you all, and just hate that kind of behavior....Let's just say I have always had a problem dealing with authority, and when he came in here and tried to lay down the "law", it burned me up, that is why I could not let it go, so thanks for bearing with me. If I overstepped some bounds I apologize. I would like to say maybe he has seen the errors in his logic....but then I would have to smack my self and say what were you thinking?

I don't feel you overstepped any bounds, djlunacee; if anything, you said exactly what all of us were thinking. Thing is, you cannot dictate the terms of a debate (aside from the necessity of being civil or having it degenerate into a shouting match) so his arrogance to assume that he could hampered the discussion from the beginning. Add to that his disregard for others opinions, and you end up with a debate that dies before it even starts. So don't even stress yourself over it, and welcome to the forum!

[twinstead]

Thing is, you cannot dictate the terms of a debate (aside from the necessity of being civil or having it degenerate into a shouting match) so his arrogance to assume that he could hampered the discussion from the beginning.

It's deliciously obvious that his grand entrance to the forum and immediate arrogant demands were carefully orchestrated to evoke the exact response he got. It must be some kind of merit badge for woo woos to be able to claim they tried to debate us but we refused to listen to them, so they gave up.

You know...we being mindless sheeple automatons and such.

[LashL]

Heh.

911thology
Student

Last Activity: Today 11:56 AM
Current Activity: Viewing Thread Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171498)


So, he's reading but knows that he cannot defend his ludicrous claims among a group of people who are not delusional tinhatters. No surprise there.

[DavidJames]

Since he is still reading.
You came here, you can PM me the names or post them here, I'm not going to your site to email you.

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh, it gets better, here is the personal message I received from him today.....


....When it comes to the thread we are talking about it is full of 'psychotic trolls'....these 'psychotic trolls'....I am from another social layer than these people in the thread and I simply can not afford to participate in any discussion with them. I can't lower my self that much. I can argue with military officers, I could argue with scientists, I could argue with journalists, but not with psychotic trolls....I am not equal to them in this sense (I am a respectable person, not a full-time Internet chat-troll)....These people on the thread simply did not deserve my attention....So my desire to quickly quit this idiotic discussion had absolutely nothing to do with 'cowardice' it had something to do with principles: such a discussion with me (unless I held a discussion with equals whom I respect and from whom I expect due respect in return) could only proceed on MY conditions, however, on that thread it was not. That was only the case.
OMFSM. That was classic. Thank you for sharing.

[beachnut]

Heh.

911thology
Student

Last Activity: Today 11:56 AM
Current Activity: Viewing Thread Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171498)


So, he's reading but knows that he cannot defend his ludicrous claims among a group of people who are not delusional tinhatters. No surprise there.
(he is) The troll he said we are. Hi 911thology, you visit each day but fail to learn science, physics, sonic-boom, flying, critical thinking, nukes and more. Your equals are so dirt dumb they can't figure out how to sign up to support your idiotic delusions with more insanity.

hi, bue

[twinstead]

OMFSM. That was classic. Thank you for sharing.

It appears the lad only wants to talk to other crazy people.

[The Almond]

Since the debate seems to have ceased, anyone interested in what actual nuclear weapons do might be interested in this article:

"Radioactivity in Trinitite Six Decades Later"
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
Vol 85 Issue 1 (2006)

I don't think it's available for free on the web, but your local library would have it. Essentially, the paper talks about the left over radio-nuclides from the Trinity nuclear test, conducted in 1945 as part of the Manhattan Project. There are 7 identifiable fission products which are still pumping out gamma radiation after 60 years. Of course, most of the half lives of those products are well over 100 years, so those little buggers are going to keep going for quite a while. The "trinitite" soil actually turned to radioactive glass during the test, so most of those isotopes are immobilized and ready for analysis by a host of modern instruments. Neat stuff.

[patchbunny]

Since the debate seems to have ceased, anyone interested in what actual nuclear weapons do might be interested in this article:

"Radioactivity in Trinitite Six Decades Later"
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
Vol 85 Issue 1 (2006)

I don't think it's available for free on the web, but your local library would have it. Essentially, the paper talks about the left over radio-nuclides from the Trinity nuclear test, conducted in 1945 as part of the Manhattan Project. There are 7 identifiable fission products which are still pumping out gamma radiation after 60 years. Of course, most of the half lives of those products are well over 100 years, so those little buggers are going to keep going for quite a while. The "trinitite" soil actually turned to radioactive glass during the test, so most of those isotopes are immobilized and ready for analysis by a host of modern instruments. Neat stuff.

I've been to the Trinity test site. The glass from the explosion is long gone, but it's a fascinating tour.

[Bell]

Manhattan Project! :boxedin:

[djlunacee]

Well thank you, and glad to be of service. I really meant it when I told him I wish him no ill will, but if he is reading this, I would like him to know you have to give respect in order to get it.