By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

When we were told that the 3 towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by nuclear demolitions, possibly assisted by specialized thermite compounds, it began to make sense.  When hundreds of firefighters died of radiation sickness and it was blamed on mysterious and unnamed and classified “toxic soup,” we had proof.  When was reported in the London papers but not New York or anywhere else in America, it told us something is seriously wrong.

A decade after 9/11 and first responders are dying at unprecedented rates of cancers that could only be caused by high level exposure to radiation.  This is hard science, not conjecture.  The buildings, the 3 towers, hundreds of tons of steel vaporized, sites now duplicated only by Japan’s reactor meltdowns, radiated  massive and continuing heat for over two months.  9/11 was a nuclear event.

If you are looking for proof of a coverup, simply check the news;

Pick up today’s New York Times.  The “9/11” news: In Reversal, 9/11 Plotter to Be Tried by Military Panel

Pick up today’s UK Daily MAIL.  The “9/11” news:  9/11 firefighters ARE getting cancer at a faster rate than others, chief medical officer reveals

Not reporting the cancers from ground zero, and let us be clear, they are radiation cancers, they are “radiation sickness,” has become “policy.”  So far radiation cancers have killed at least 345 firefighters. Ten times that number may have died, misdiagnosed, or simply left off the lists.

This isn’t just a coverup, its one that “keeps on giving.”  Those who need screening aren’t getting it.  Ten years later, hiding the truth to “protect the public from panic” isn’t going to fly.

10,000 have sued with an undisclosed number having cancers and other “suspicious” illnesses tied to “ground zero.”  The total numbers sick, in particular those who develop leukemia or other cancers over the the next decade and more could top 50,000.

This is the “why” that explains the censorship, the classified studies and the refusal to investigate 9/11 and the mysterious demolition of Building 7, the tower never hit by anything a building that came down though virtually untouched.

As Dr. Alan Sabrosky has said repeatedly, “If one tower was destroyed by controlled demolition, then all three were.”


Why is the issue radiation sickness if two airplanes took down three huge steel buildings?  Oh, you didn’t know there were three buildings, not two?  You may also have been unaware that the molten fires under “ground zero” were finally extinguished on December 15, 2001 though the jet fuel blamed on the destruction was burned off in less than 2 minutes at temperatures unable to warp the fender of a Yugo, much less vaporize hundreds of tons of 3 inch structural steel.

YouTube - Veterans Today -


Then again, you are probably unaware that the FBI flew to Bangkok, Thailand in 2007, to interview former Soviet nuclear intelligence officer Dimitri Khalezov.  Khalezov told them that he was briefed by the Soviet government, based on their treaty with the United States, of nuclear demolition charges embedded well below the WTC buildings, all of them.

Khalezov has agreed to take a lie detector test.  Remember, Khalezov is the person who told us that Mike Harari, Mossad operations director, claimed responsibility for 9/11.


About a month ago, I learned, from the New York Times, that one firefighter had died of radiation cancer, multiple myeloma.  Now I find the real number is admitted to be at least 345, a number that could only be possible if the firefighters were exposed to radiation from a nuclear blast within 72 hours of the explosion.

There is simply no other explanation, certainly not the “toxic soup” story being spread around.

If jet fuel caused cancer, we all would have been dead long ago, our air is filled with it.  Was the World Trade Center a massive storage area for toxic chemicals as is claimed?  Steel?  Glass?  Aluminum?  Carpet?  Particle board?  Gypsum?  Polystyrene?  Shouldn’t we all be dead?  Wouldn’t every house fire, ever smoldering junk pile be, by the standards of the Department of 9/11 Fantasy and Mythology, an environmental disaster?

I think we just covered 99% of it there, all things in any house fire, in fact much less dangerous than the typical house fire and absolutely nothing that causes Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma, the diseases killing off the New York City Fire Department and unknown “others” that nobody is tracking, nobody is checking on.  We call those “others” the people of New York.

For those out there who still try to believe that airplanes knock down the largest steel buildings in the world, largest and strongest, that even buildings hit by nothing at all simply dissolve into their own sub-basements, the idea of nuclear weapons being used has to have a wild and conspiratorial sound.

Then again, there is proof, scientific proof, that and testimony.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Steel doesn’t dissolve on its own.  Very little steel was hauled away from “ground zero.”  Most simply disappeared.  Yes, I have heard the story about the ship built “with” steel from the WTC.  I also have seen the photos and heard the testimony of rivers of molten steel pouring off the building and burning for two months in the mysterious cavern below, a virtual volcano.  Weeks later, workers had boots melt from the overheated soil.  Jet fuel is kerosene.  You can use it to start your barbeque.  If it catches fire on your hands, put it out quickly or you might get burned.


A few weeks ago, as mentioned earlier, news crept out of a single firefighter dying of radiation sickness. At the same time, I reviewed Jeff Prager’s online magazine, Dust II.  Prager had been way ahead of the curve on all of this.

I spent a couple of hours with Jeff Pragers “Dust I” and “Dust II” last night. This 108 page E-magazine, mostly science with amazing photos of “ground zero” from 9/11 is an analysis of the nuke v. thermite theories on 9/11. It is the first comprehensive piece on 9/11 that touches on absolutes, energy use, thermal energy and such. Some of the “hard science” checks out, enough to debunk NIST certainly. He is also fair and open on the thermite issue and leave the door open there as well. Prager makes a strong case for 9/11 being a nuke event. I sent it out to weapons science guys and will get back to you on this. What is clear is that there are more government spies involved in 9/11 theories than infiltrated the militia movements of the 80s and 90s. The medical evidence of radiation exposure at ‘ground zero’ is in already. First responders were “zapped.” Some reviews in this morning on Prager’s piece say he is abusing science more than a bit. Perhaps we have a potential debate going here…always a good thing.

So often I hear, “How could a nuclear weapon be exploded in New York City.  Wouldn’t people die of leukemia and radiation exposure?”

Wouldn’t they, though.

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on April 4, 2011, With Reads Filed under Veterans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

78 Responses to "NUCLEAR 9/11 UNDENIABLE"

  1. kovavla  August 25, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Dr. Jones is a liar. He “debunked” the solid state fusion experiment by Fleischman and Pons, something that really worked, and which has been repeated by many other teams. This is called LENR nowadays. I don’t believe for a second the so called thermite evidence for a second FROM JONES. Jones also made a video about a free-energy device applying simple electronics, like coils and resistors elements. This is all total nonsense. During the collapse there is not much ‘steal beam’ structure left, so either there were no steal beams, or much of the steal beams vaporized. I have seen many recorded controlled demolitions of buildings in one particular youtube movie, but none of these recordings showed that much dust visible during the WTC controlled demolition (even when the WTC buildings were half way down). Judy Wood’s scalar weapon explanation does not explain (or does it) radioactivity, and the intense heat that was present for months. The mini nuke theory explains a lot.

  2. anthonyc  May 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Watch Dimitri’s FULL documentary interview explaining 911 and have all your questions answered. This interview is BY FAR the most comprehensive and logical explanation of 911.

    Part 1 –
    Part 2 –


  3. rays of the sun  May 4, 2011 at 7:27 am

    eamonn its no conspiracy its just the truth, your one of those dis-information clowns obviously

  4. John  April 12, 2011 at 7:42 am

    No Marzzz, it is YOU who come across “as an idiot and should stay out of the discussion,” you close-minded, ignoramus incapable of simple thought, or some paid or gratis dis-info agent working for ZOG or that ill-gotten land of Zion you reside in!


  5. John  April 12, 2011 at 7:04 am


    The hole made by the alleged plane–or what appeared to be a plane–was NOT made by an airplane. If it was a plane whose amateur pilot allegedly made such incredible and unbelievable maneuvers that really hit the building, why was there no damage to the outer walls of the Pentagon by the planes wings? All we have is a giant hole and sans normal debris like jet engines, for example.

    No my friend, this was a smoke and mirrors show that was well-planned and executed that infamous day to get us involved in the Middle East to eliminate the opponents of the Zionist state, an rogue entity that has caused and is responsible for so much pain, misery, and suffering in that part of the world in no small part thanks to all the money and state of the art weapononry they receive from us–both legally and illegally–making this Golum more formidable, arrogant, and dangerous each passing day.


  6. John  April 12, 2011 at 6:41 am

    Brian says:

    “These discussions about what caused the twin towers and building 7 to fall are interesting and should be conducted but I usually avoid these types of discussions because they distract from the evidence that 911 was a Mossad operation.”

    Located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army’s brightest officers.

    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

    And that they did on 9/11! Who sez: “Israel is our (politicians’) only friend and ally in the Middle East?” With backstabbing ‘friends’ like that, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?!!


  7. John  April 12, 2011 at 6:33 am

    James said:

    “We will have the best chance of learning the truth by simply opening an investigation.”

    By who? The government? ROTFLMAO! You might as well ask the MOSSAD!!


  8. John  April 12, 2011 at 6:31 am

    “The only thing that will convert five hundred thousand tons of high-grade steel to a pyroclastic cloud of dust is the shockwave from a 150 kiloton thermonuclear bomb exploded in granite underneath the building.”

    Thank you.


  9. John  April 12, 2011 at 6:21 am


    I watched your video and read your (free) book and am convinced you have nailed down what really happened that fateful day. No way can 2.5″ thick steel perimeter beams be vaporized by conventional means, and below ground pools of molten steel, rock, etc. continue to burn for three months and leave behind a large volcanic-like crater. No way! That is the result of some incredible force and not that of a normal fire!

    Those with eyes see, and ears, listen. Others choose to remain ignorant, in denial, and continue to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the controlled mass media’s half-truths and lies regarding 9/11. The rest are ZOG dis-info agents and garden-variety internet trolls.

    To accept disturbing FACTS as truth when it points to it is something few can handle because they are afraid to have their belief system (in this case, in government officials and ‘mainstream’ media) questioned or challenged.


  10. John  April 12, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Your off-base, mister. Read and educate yourself before you open your mouth and showcase your lack of knowledge to the world.

    “Dimitri, please tell me briefly about your background and how it relates to 9/11?

    At the end of the ‘80s I served as a commissioned officer in the so-called “Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the former USSR, which is otherwise known by its code-name “military unit 46179”. This organization was responsible for gathering various kinds of nuclear intelligence, primarily for the detection of nuclear tests of various adversaries of the former USSR. In addition, this organization was tasked with official controlling functions regarding the observance of various international treaties related to nuclear explosions, nuclear tests, etc.

    During my service in that organization it has come to my knowledge (still at the end of the ‘80s – more than 10 years prior to the 9/11 events) that under the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York there were two huge thermo-nuclear charges intended for emergency demolition of the WTC. This fact does not have any actual relation to 9/11 except only that it gave me some understanding to what actually happened with the WTC, why nearly all of the structural steel was pulverized and why the site of the WTC demolition bears the strange nuclear name “ground zero”.”

  11. John  April 12, 2011 at 5:45 am

    “Why do your persist in taking heresay evidence at face value? Nano thermite was proven to exist by an international team of scientists in their peer reviewed a paper which has not been challenged.”

    Okay, so it was proven to exist from the dust samples taken from the site–allegedly. Let that be the case. Still, nano thermite ONLY cuts through steel—it CAN NOT vaporize it! NEVER! The 2.5″ thick (like tank armor) rectangular steel column structure of the WTC buildings where turned it into complete microscopic dust, something nano-thermite can NEVER accomplish!

    “We have eye witness accounts ,amateur video and national media proof of planes crashing into the towers.”

    And we have initial eye witness accounts of not seeing planes crash into the towers–only hearing and seeing explosions. Here’s one:

    “I was an international equities trader working for RBC Securities in Jersey City on September 11, 2001. The office was located at Hudson Street directly on the water front. We watched the catastrophic events live from our 30 foot long windows, from almost beginning til end.

    I will never forget that day, it was just two days after I watched the Williams sisters compete against each other at the U.S. Open Womens Tennis Final. It was one of the most beautiful days in recent memory. Clear blue skies, I didn’t see a trace of a cloud. The weather was perfect, if there is an ideal temperature, it existed on that Tuesday morning. I remember being still extremely tired from the weekend and a long tiring Monday. I was extremely happy that morning because my screens were all green that morning, nearly all my stocks were up in the European, Asian, Russian and South African markets. I wasn’t usually long stocks being mostly a short-seller but I was anticipating a nice bounce and a week long rally. I didn’t want to sell at that time because I anticipated when Wall Street opened, the rally would continue and my stock levels would increase further. I was up approximately $50,000 before the disaster occurred. But less than two hours later when we had to evacuate the building and the New York Sock Exchange was shut, my positions were now costing me about $200,000.00 in losses that would only get worse as the week progressed.

    I was one of the first people in the room to notice the fire burning. There were simultaneous reports of a small prop jet hitting the tower that caused the fire. Since we were in a trading room, we had several televisions on constantly tuned to CNN, CNBC, Blomberg etc. I remember how one guy was laughing about the fire while I was asking out loud to everyone, “what tower is Cantor in?” I was very concerned and understood that from our window the flames appeared very big thus in reality the fire was growing quite rapidly. I had many friends that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, some who I have known over a decade, none had made it out alive. As I was glued to the window, others were watching the reports on TV. Thus, I heard people yelling another plane, another plane is coming but I did not see it live, I just saw an explosion. It never occurred to me until I met Dimitri that perhaps the people shouting in the trading room about a 2nd plane were all watching TV as opposed to watching it live.

    You see, watching four monitors from 7am til 4pm and watching for small discrepancies and arbitrage opportunities as well as being able to dischipher the name of one of my stocks in a room with 30-40 people talking, yelling and sometimes screaming at once gave me the impression that I was extremely observant and alert. Until recently I simply thought that I missed the 2nd plane hitting even though I was starring directly at the WTC buildings. Our view was so magnificent and crystal clear of lower Manhattan from our over sized windows, it was always the highlight of any visitor to our offices. In fact, if you go to Google images and search for pictures of the WTC towers, many will be from Jersey City.”

  12. Drachenchen  April 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Read the paper about the nano-particle thermite. The team of scientists point out that the material, found in tiny chips in ALL the dust from 9-11, demonstrated about 50% greater energy release than standard thermite, with a much sharper spike. They suggested that it may have actually been engineered to function as a sub-sonic explosive.

    Also, if you look at Europe, where they have actual functional materials-safety laws, they have started cracking down on nano-particle materials contained in various products. Why? They’ve been indicated to be carcinogenic when inhaled. Add to that the fact that the twin towers were shot through with asbestos, a known carninogen. The NYC Port Authority estimated that it might necessitate completely dismantling the twin towers in order to carry out asbestos abatement. Let’s not forget that the lightweight concrete on the floors of the twin towers was very finely aerosolized.

    Now, tell me how everybody missed the radiation at the time, and how all those inhaled carcinogens are somehow not the most likely cause of the dying firefighters. Go ahead, ignore Ocham’s Razor. Hell, why not add aliens into the mix? This looks like basic misinformation / misdirection. Pull the other one.

  13. Gordon Duff  April 11, 2011 at 9:44 am

    try vaporizing thousands of tons of structural steel
    vaporizing thousands of people
    do the energy math..ala Jeff Prager

  14. Justin Kennedy  April 11, 2011 at 9:40 am

    The main problem with the thermite/mini-nuke combination is the lack of evidence of radiation from the 30 to 100 atmospheric nuclear explosions required to demolish the 3 towers in Manhattan.

    I believe it was explained that the obvious cuts in some the steel columns in the rubble was done after the demolition to facilitate their removal from the site. I highly doubt cutter charges on a few of the steel columns would bring these buildings down.

    WTC 1 & 2 had thousands of joints where the steel structure was bolted together. These joints had to be blown out simultaneously throughout the buildings for them to fall at free fall speed (with little to no resistance). IT is impossible for thermite or conventional explosives to accomplish this.

    There were dozens of Ground Zero responders who describe feeling the ground shaking (like a train under their feet), then they look up and see the buildings collapsing. Witnesses described the same ground shaking in both the North and South tower collapses. In the WTC 7 demolition, all the people were evacuated because they “knew” the building was coming down.

    Then there’s the evidence of the underground “hot spots” which burned for weeks after the demolitions. How could thermite or mini-nukes have caused the underground molten rock and steel? How could thermite have caused the steel to turn to dust in mid-air?

    When you look at the video evidence of the WTC collapses, how could it be anything but than underground explosion as described by D. Khalezov?

  15. Bill Enyart  April 9, 2011 at 10:23 am

    As long as we focus on steel and concrete, there will be debate. What about the human bones and telephones, all converted to fragments and dust?

    The thermo-nuclear explanation makes more sense than any other, although it was very likely overkill (multiple causes including thermite and nano-thermite), to make sure the total destruction and subsequent shock occurred.

    I appreciate Gordon’s “cojones” here.

  16. Marzzz  April 8, 2011 at 1:20 am

    The answer is obvious: These demolitions of gigantic bldgs had to be done in a quick manner to obtain shock and awe, destruction of evidence, highest body count, etc. Every technique available had to be employed. The columns had to be cut and the floors blown out and it all had to be timed perfectly. So the best column cutter thermite combined with mini nukes as demolition tools would be a good choice. Dimitri comes across as an idiot and should stay out of the discussion. He argues petty semantics because English is not his first language. He attacks the person rather than the logic and obviously has no understanding of demolition. How’d it get installed? W’s brother ran security. How isn’t that important. What are we gonna do about it?

  17. Spinderellasnightmare  April 7, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    This is ridiculous.
    To every mamas boy running their mouth
    STFU, grab a tampon, and watch dimitris vid before you comment. Atleast Then, if u disagree you can have the “actual” basics. Right now I only see the most IGNORANT CHILDISH ,SELF AGGRANDIZING LEMMINGS wasting Gordon and Dimitris time.
    “Some people run their mouths,
    .. while we run our business”

  18. Dimitri Khalezov  April 7, 2011 at 8:24 am

    I can’t really understand why some people keep repeating words “demolition sequence, demolition sequence, demolition sequence…” like parrots. There were NO any “demolition sequence” in the WTC case. There was only a single underground nuclear explosion that instantly pulverized almost 85% of the entire Twin’s bodies from beneath (with only exception of one lower corner for each Tower). Then the heavy Tower’s tops that were not pulverized (because of being too far from the hypocenter) began to fall down under gravitational force crushing first 50 meters some debris under them (hence initial cracking sounds) and then – continuing to crush only fine dust (hence no more “cracking” sound, but sound of a snow avalanche, instead, described by practically all eye-witnesses). What those firefighers are talking about has nothing to do with reality. They were in state of shock at that very moment and then they gave freedom to the power of their imaginations. Thus their testimonies in this sence have very little value if any at all. If you watch carefully multiple available videos of the Twin Towers’ destruction you (I don’t mean personally “you”, since your personal position seems to be already fixed, but people in general) will not notice any explosions but merely a mechanical process of the heavy Towers tops falling down crushing pulverized structures under them. Nothing more than that. What the “demolition sequence” are talking about???

  19. ronisrael  April 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    You have my salute as well Gordon .

    (Former Sergeant IDF)

  20. ronisrael  April 6, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Here is a full list of FLIGHT 77 WITNESSES (PENTAGON)

    Just a bunch of casual bystanders ha

  21. JD  April 6, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Dimitri, you have to concede that there were other explosives used besides the nuke in the basement. So how do you explain these videos below?

    They show dozens of firefighters standing at the base of the towers right before the collapse started. They begin to hear explosions, then they look up and see the TOP DOWN demolition sequence being initiated. These explosions started very high in the building and you can clearly see the explosions moving DOWN the building. A nuke in the basement would NOT have caused the initial explosions we all saw very high in towers near the plane impacts when the buildings started to come down. A nuke at the bottom of the towers would have completely obliterated the base of the towers causing them to topple over. There were other explosives used that were placed high up in the buildings.

  22. Gordon Duff  April 6, 2011 at 10:50 am


  23. usmcviet  April 6, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Great article Gordon ! Semper Fi

  24. Gordon Duff  April 6, 2011 at 6:55 am

    TOS warning. You know the rules here and everywhere else. Why do we all meet on your server. Do you have a server?

  25. Dimitri Khalezov  April 6, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Folks who continue and continue stubbornly repeating this argument like parrots made one big mistake: they forgot to wath my video presentation (the 26 parts that was prohibited on YouTube). It is all explained there.

  26. Christine Burbank  April 6, 2011 at 12:33 am

    You know, Dr. Judy Wood has been marginalized and derided, ridiculed and lampooned for her assertons, very early on, that some kind of sophisticated weaponry was involved in the ground zero destruction. She cites the “toasted” (read, partially melted) cars and other vehicles, the introduction of tons of “dirt” to the perimeters of destroyed buildings almost immediately after the event – to try to mitigate what?, the complete pulverization of concrete and steel( the aerial tower “dissolves” in mid air) subsequently visible in satellite photos floating out over Manhattan and New Jersey, the “fuming” and “fuzzy balls” of condensation-like formations kicked up by responders at ground level that persisted for days on the site, that could not be quenched by drenching with thousands of gallons of water from highly powered fire hoses, the configuration of mammoth, multi-story-deep empty holes in the other destroyed buildings on the campus, cavernous holes only visible from aerial photos. Her association with John Hutchison, a lay,self-educated scientist who has been working for many years on the theories espoused by Nicola Tesla, has relegated her to 911 “kook” status among those looking for more conventional explanations. Yet if there is one paradigm that should govern all 911 research, it is that no theory should be discounted or dismissed out of hand until explored and tested, and that in the face of a government that has behaved as heinously as elements within ours obviously has, no hypothesis should be dismissed as “inconceivable.” The empirical evidence in all instances should first drive the inquiry, and no evidence should be excluded.

  27. JD  April 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    A nuke in the basement would’ve blown out the base of the towers first, but this clearly did not happen.

  28. JD  April 5, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    The big problem with the nuke only theory is the top down demolition sequence that we all saw in the many videos of the twin tower’s collapse. The explosion did NOT initially blow out the base of the building which is what would’ve happened if a nuke had gone off in the basement. The explosions started high up in the towers near the plane impacts and the demolition wave went down building, not up from the base of the building.

  29. Christopher  April 5, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    The article does mention thermite.

  30. Garibaldi  April 5, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    -Gonna be a man chile born, gonna be a son of a gun, cuz I’m a man…I spell M! A! N! Wail it, Muddy!

  31. William  April 5, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Tell Them Like It Is Brother. Some People Do Not , Cannot , Will not , See the Truth no matter How You Put It .Truth Is Not Hard , Truth Is Easy.

  32. Dimitri Khalezov  April 5, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Those “clever” folks who promote the so-called “nanothermite” version could only brandish their alleged “scientific credentials” (ironically, in the particular case of Prof. Steven Jones in such an unrelated to thermites branch of science as the nuclear physics), but they can not answer a few elementary questions that have been addressed to them many times. Well, I repeat these questions:
    1) why the place of the WTC collapse was promptly called “ground zero” (about 12 AM, i.e. even before the WTC-7 collapse)? And what the “ground zero” name had to do with any so-called “nanothermite”?
    2) why in neither dictionary, nor in any scientific, nor in any common one, the word “nanothermite”or “nano-thermite” has ever been mentioned?
    3) why Steven Jones has “found” the alleged traces of the so-called “nano-thermite” in the WTC dust only in 2007? Why not in 2002? What he was doing these 5 years?
    4) how the alleged “cutting charges of the so-called “nano-thermite” were actually positioned along the steel beams of the Twin Towers? In which intervals? Every 1 meter? Every 10 centimeters? Every one millimeter?
    5) how the “evil guys” managed to get to the actual beams in order to attach these alleged “cutting charges” of the so-called “nanothermite”? And why nobody has ever noticed those works unprecedented judging by its mere scale?
    6) how the multiple charges of the so-called “nano-thermite” were ignited? What was the ignition scheme? Millions of “spark-plugs” (one for every cutting charge), connected to a control panel of the operator of the “evil” by thousands of kilometers of wires? Or what?
    7) how it could be explained from the “nanothermitting” point of view that huge, deep underground cavities were found under the three WTC buildings?
    8) why Prof. Steven Jones was involved as a Governmental shill into a murder of the cold fusion science in his younger age? A concise version of Jones’ role in cold fusion, starting about 10 min. in:
    If he was a proven shill of the US Government in his younger age, does it necessarily mean that in his older age he suddenly “repented” and rebelled against his former masters and suddenly decided (in 2007 rather than in 2002) to tell the “awful truth” to the gullible public? Or it means something more sinister?
    9) and, finally, the “nanothermitters” till now can’t even answer the most elementary question: whether their alleged so-called “nanothermite” is an explosive or an incendiary? And whether it must have been “ignited” or “detonated” in order to put it to use?

    And after that the “nanothermitters” would dare to claim that “Dimitri was “taken to the cleaners” big time by intelligent, knowledgeable commentators here” ???

    They have no shame, indeed.

    The so-called “nano-thermite” theory has no chance to pass, folks. You can relax. Even if all shills of the US Government will assemble here and post their garbage making such ridiculous statements as above it will only create an impression that “most people do not believe Dimitri Khalezov”. Because the professional, full-time Internet trolls could easily create a majority on a certain thread on a certain forum. This is not difficult at all. But it should not dupe you into believing in an alleged “majority of opinions” assembled in such a manner. Most of the innocent people simply read information without posting anything. So while the majority of people (I would put it to 95%) believe the version of the nuclear demolition of the WTC at once, the shills by their concentrated efforts on a single forum thread could create an impression that 95% of people believe the so-called “nano-thermite” theory. Though they still can not answer any of the 9 questions mentioned above and would try their best to ignore them while continuing their babbling. In any case the Truth is out and the shills have no chance to stop it. Hundreds of thousands of people already know the Truth and soon this digit will grow into millions. So while a few thousands of paid full-time Internet trolls could create a temporary majority on a single thread, what they could do against those millions? They could do absolutely nothing. The US Government spends the taxpayer’s money in vain continuing to maintain that little army of the full-time Internet trolls and soon it will become very obvious.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri Khalezov.

  33. A Prien  April 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    I think a key to getting a handle on the event is the multiple methods were used to destroy the buildings. The beauty of doing so it that each method reinforced as well as helped cover up the other methods that were employed. If a single scheme had been used, it would not have been as effective and would have been more obvious. So if thermite or other explosive devices were used to cut the steel frame, the nuclear devices would then have more easily pulverized and demolished what was left. Doing this would also have made it easer to do the whole job.

    The fact is that almost the entire structure except for some of the steel was pulverized. I know people who were guiding visitors through the site who informed me it was most odd that very few chunks of concrete were found. There would simply not pulverize concrete in the quantities involved.


  34. J. Bruce Campbell  April 5, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Where is the evidence of exothermic reaction (heat or fire) as the three buildings disintegrate? All we see are pyroclastic flows of dust, unlike anything ever seen except in a volcanic eruption. You make it seem that these things are routine, that aluminum or iron oxide dust happens like this all the time. That’s not what I’ve seen with thermite burning. There’s no dust, just a cascade of fiery sparks.

    If enough thermite had been used to reduce those buildings to ground level in the Jones version, there would have been the ultimate fireworks display three times, but that never happened. There were just explosively collapsing towers of dust. You guys can’t answer that and don’t even try. And I’m really wondering why you cling to this failed explanation by Jones, why you have such hostility to the nuclear demolition plan attested to by a witness with no other motive than to reveal what he knows.

    You termites have a lot of animosity toward Dimitri Khalezov and it’s time now to explain yourselves, to reveal your reasons. What is it about his information about the nuclear demolition plan for the WTC that makes you so hostile?

    You have this champion, Steven Jones, in whom you must have invested a lot of yourselves since he first appeared around 2005. But his thermite idea provides no answers, once you think about how much steel had to be cut. The original architects did not think that conventional demolition could be used to bring down the towers. But because this cold fusion guy says “thermite,” you just accept it? Again, how does you make horizontal cuts with thermite, which wants to go with gravity?

    And you are still waffling about the dust, throwing aluminum oxide dust in our eyes as if exothermic reaction could produce such amounts of it. Thermite cutting does not produce this sort of dust.

  35. Nelson_2008  April 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    I see massive clouds of dust, yes, and I see some steel lazily falling over, stirring up even more dust, but I don’t see anything that I could describe as “steel turning into dust”.

    What kind of physical process can you imagine that would simply “turn steel into dust”?

    Even nuclear weapons, as powerful as they are, on a macroscopic scale still work their destruction by way of the same old boring physical processes such as heat and pressure.

    There’s no magic in any of this.

  36. Garibaldi  April 5, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Thanx for getting back, J.B. ( and for all your foregoing signature body of brutally honest work, I should add…) but to briefly answer your simple question, please allow me to repeat myself somewhat: “You will never succeed in developing a workable DEFENSE AGAINST JEWISH AGGRESSION until you”- put a picture to a face, a face to a name, thereby IDENTIFYING YOUR ADVERSARY, then proceed to go after the murdering mortar forker. GOT ME?
    Be done with all this HOWDY DOODIT claptrap. Welcome to the WHODUNNIT SCHOOL.

    P.S. There’s literally no time left and no need for you or Mike V. to go after the termites anymore.
    (please follow links explaining how and where the ‘termite’ typo first took hold. Hardy har, har, har…

  37. J. Bruce Campbell  April 5, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    In fact, most of the steel buildings turned to dust. Here you can see remnants of the outer wall still standing momentarily and then disintegrating – turning to dust – with the rest of the steel.

    Here, Tony Lawson notes that the steel buildings turned to dust but does not yet know about the nuclear demo plan for the towers.

    He just wonders how steel could do that.

  38. Nelson_2008  April 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    As far as I know, the bulk of the steel didn’t turn to “dust”.

    As a kid, did you ever set off an M-80 inside a concrete block? I have. It did a number on the block, but an M-80 won’t do much, if anything, to steel.

    Fast burning nano-thermite might have some shattering ability against concrete (and other things).

    And of course I realize that there would have to have been many “cuts”. I don’t know exactly how many…certainly many hundreds and perhaps thousands, but that’s the way CDs are done…many cutter charges are painstakingly placed in position and initiated in a calculated and timed seqence.

    If there were, say, 1000 thermite charges per building, and each charge was, say, 10 lbs, well that’s a lot of destructive energy. No doubt the perps overdid it, to make sure everything was completely destroyed.

    Here’s a video of what looks like a few ounces of CuO/Al thermite being initiated with a detonator:

    [youtube search result for “Copper oxide + Aluminium Thermite, initiated with detonator”] (My first comment is “awaiting moderation” because of a link I apparently did not disguise well enough).

    That’s a few ounces. Can you imagine 5 tons of it, spread throughout a building?

  39. Nelson_2008  April 5, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    As far as I know, the bulk of the steel didn’t turn to “dust”.

    As a kid, did you ever set off an M-80 inside a concrete block? I have. It did a number on the block, but an M-80 won’t do much, if anything, to steel.

    Fast burning nano-thermite might have some shattering ability against concrete (and other things).

    And of course I realize that there would have to have been many “cuts”. I don’t know exactly how many…certainly many hundreds and perhaps thousands, but that’s the way CDs are done…many cutter charges are painstakingly placed in position and initiated in a calculated and timed seqence.

    If there were, say, 1000 thermite charges per building, and each charge was, say, 10 lbs, well that’s a lot of destructive energy. No doubt the perps overdid it, to make sure everything was completely destroyed.

    Here’s a video of what looks like a few ounces of CuO/Al thermite being initiated with a detonator:

    That’s a few ounces. Can you imagine 5 tons of it, spread throughout a building?

  40. Gordon Duff  April 5, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Funny thing, maybe you have the 86 videos? You would think someone saw a plane…

    they are big

    lots of parts..

    that seem to dissolve

    Brian..move on to something worth someone’s time.

  41. J. Bruce Campbell  April 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Why can’t you address the subject of dust? There is no question that thermite cuts steel. Some steel was obviously cut on 9/11, as we can see with the 45 degree cut on one of the vertical beams, although we don’t know when that happened – before or after the massacre. But approximately 70% of both towers was converted to DUST! Virtually 100% of #7 was converted to DUST.

    You thermite guys don’t seem to realize that there would have to have been thousands of cuts throughout the towers and #7 to bring them down in pieces, but that doesn’t explain the conversion of steel to DUST.

    Thermite does not convert steel to dust, despite its unquestioned ability to cut steel into pieces.

  42. J. Bruce Campbell  April 5, 2011 at 10:35 am

    Okay, Garibaldi – I read the Barrett piece. What’s it got to do with DAJA?

  43. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 10:18 am

    From Gordon’s article about the 911 attacks:

    Gordon wrote:

    Three individuals brought down “the system.”
    1. David Ray Griffin
    2. Christopher Bollyn
    3. Richard Gage

    Brian: From the highly respected Richard Gage:

    After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

    I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

    Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

    Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

    Perhaps Gordon can interview Richard Gage.

  44. nit2am  April 5, 2011 at 10:14 am

    How’s Cass, Gordon?

  45. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 9:42 am

    For anyone who doesn’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon read the very compelling testimony from people who saw what happened at the Pentagon.

    I don’t think they’re liars or shills or phony names.

    I would really enjoy attending a convention filled with these people and get their reaction when Gordon tells them a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

  46. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Gordon said: You are wasting time… you do with your pentagon baloney.

    Thanks for the compliment.

    Gordon please provide me the eyewitness testimony from one person who saw a missile hit the Pentagon. However, you probably wouldn’t believe him because eyewitness testimony doesn’t seem to matter. Only science seems to matter except when the scientist providing the information doesn’t agree with you such as the notable Steven Jones.

    Perhaps you can interview the air traffic controllers who watched the plane at the Pentagon on their radar screens. You know the people that witnessed the somewhat stunning maneuvers the plane made. NONE OF THEM SAID THEY SAW THE PLANE LEAVE THE PENTAGON.

    I’m still waiting for you or some other person who believes a missile hit the Pentagon to answer the question that Mike Rivero sent me in an email regarding the Pentagon and an airplane: Hundreds of people saw the plane fly towards the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?

    Tickles and pinches,


  47. Steven Rowlandson  April 5, 2011 at 9:10 am

    One nuclear attack on america requires that america counter attack against the perpetrators and their allies in america. Perhaps those FEMA camps and an OHIO class ballistic missile sub could be made usefull in the cause of justice against NWO, satanist and talmudic zio-nazi agression and subversion.
    Time to return the compliment made on 911.


  48. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 9:10 am


    Your defense guys may be correct about Jones, I don’t know but read this excerpt from an article:

    In 1989, from Utah, news broke in the mainstream media of an energy breakthrough that would change the world. It was called Cold Fusion. It was announced that scientists had discovered that it was possible for fusion to occur on a small, non-destructive scale, at room temperature. The long-standing promise of the nuclear power generating industry (“electricity too cheap to meter”) might finally be realized.

    Scientists were skeptical. Within months, a U.S. Department of Energy fusion expert authoritatively had denounced cold fusion as nothing more than bad science, a kind of fool’s gold. On behalf of the U.S. DoE, he basically insisted that the media had been taken in, and had reported the existence of something which was impossible, and that therefore there was nothing to the cold fusion story.

    The name of that U.S. DoE scientist was Steven E. Jones.

    The media, friendly to the powers that be, retracted their stories about the potentially huge new energy breakthrough, and apologized to the public for its apparent mistake. And, for the most part, the story went away.

    Brian: My guess is they don’t hire people that use junk science to be U.S. DoE scientists. Just a thought, I’m not trying to start an argument. I really don’t know much about Steven Jones.

  49. Gordon Duff  April 5, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Funny thing, none of this is backed by anything other than what you have written…all wild conjecture…
    Brigham Young University is a Mormon institution, tied to the heard of the Neocon/Zionist world.
    Get with Bob Nichols about Jones.
    You are wasting time… you do with your pentagon baloney.
    This is all a “done deal” now.
    The proof is there…simply deal with it.

  50. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 8:39 am

    This was submitted by someone at

    Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
    By Steven Jones

    1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
    2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
    3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis.
    4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.
    5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
    6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
    7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
    8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)

    Brian: He’s addressing the mini-nukes theory and not the theory by Dimitri that a nuclear demolition was caused by an underground nuclear reaction. Perhaps Mr. Jones would use the same arguments against Dimitri’s theory, I don’t know.

    It would be interesting if Gordon or a staff member would interview Steven Jones regarding nukes at the World Trade Center.

    Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion.

  51. Gordon Duff  April 5, 2011 at 8:31 am

    My defense guys say Jones is not “one of us” but something “else.”
    Please read the prager piece i sent u the link to.
    Jones fails to account for energy.
    He uses junk science and is easily debunked
    which may well be his purpose in life

  52. Thomas O'Brien  April 5, 2011 at 8:16 am

    While you are at it, investigate the (Pentagram)Pentagon bombing. Jesse Ventura
    did a story on that as well.

  53. signalfire  April 5, 2011 at 8:08 am

    I’ve been of the opinion for a long while now that both thermite/mate and tactical nukes were used on 9-11. Nothing else covers all the evidence.

    Take a look at overhead photos a few days later and you’ll see nice round holes blown out of the other buildings on the site. They appear to have been blasts from basement level, not caused by falling debris, otherwise the debris would be filling up the holes and they wouldn’t show. Certainly, the damage wouldn’t have been symmetrical.

    The massive amounts of dust, beams thrown laterally and the way the ‘spire’ and other beams seemed to turn into dust in midair over the course of a few seconds perhaps cannot be explained just by thermite either.

    Then there’s the burning cars. What would cause the engine blocks of numerous cars in the vicinity to burn while leaving the gas tank unexploded? What caused the heat searing of the part of cars facing the blast whilst leaving the paint job nice and shiny right down to the top coat on the back part of the cars? These photographs are readily available, I’m not going to hunt them down for non-believers, do your own research.

    Is there no one who took a Geiger counter to NYC that day? The debris at Fishkill should still be radioactive, can’t anyone get in there to check it? Hell, NYC should still have elevated background readings, go check! Maybe there’s a reason they call it Ground Zero.

    In the end, all of this is a Mobius loop of conjecture. Dozens of different groups have ‘called for’ a Grand Jury enforceable professional investigation with subpoena power. How does one go about getting that? It’s not a matter of money, I’m sure there are enough people out there wanting to do it, that the hours and money would be donated. It’s time to bring to justice the people involved. It’s also about time that we stopped acquiescing to having the ‘files closed until 50 years have passed’ or some such bullshit. Since when is ‘national security’ grounds for OUR government not telling us the truth?

  54. Jon I Fox  April 5, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Nelson is one of very few that is right on target on the WTC, and the only question that needs to be asked and answered about the Pentagon is why was it (and the entire city) left unprotected for two houres?

  55. Brian  April 5, 2011 at 7:38 am

    These discussions about what caused the twin towers and building 7 to fall are interesting and should be conducted but I usually avoid these types of discussions because they distract from the evidence that 911 was a Mossad operation. For people that have not read this yet here it is: Christopher Bollyn is offering a free download of his book Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World. A must read.

    Regarding the nuclear demolition of the twin towers and building 7 I am open minded but read this excerpt from an article and don’t shoot the messenger:

    Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion. As such, he is the perfect person to address the pools of molten metal found at WTC1, 2, and 7, and did so in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”
    Jones has written a technical essay with admirable clarity that permits easy summary.

    Thermite, thermate, and their kin, the high-temperature explosive cutter charges typically used in demolishing buildings have huge exothermic (heat-generating) reactions sufficient to melt steel. Furthermore, thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder whose chemical byproduct is molten iron.

    This was written by:

    Michael B. Green, Ph.D.,
    Clinical Psychologist,
    Qualified Medical Examiner,
    Former Assistant Professor of Philosophy,
    University of Texas, Austin,

  56. Nelson_2008  April 5, 2011 at 7:09 am

    There are several patents on record teaching the use of thermite to cut steel structural members for demolition purposes.

    Thermite can have an energy density comparable to (and in some cases greater than) conventional HE charges. Thermite apparently can cut steel just as good as (and in some cases better than) conventional HE cutter charges. According to US Patent #7555986:

    “This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapped plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning. The thermite charge’s sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cutting plates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting or reinforcing members that may exist in the middle or on the backside of a material. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”

    If you don’t believe the patent, there are several youtube demonstrations that backup the claim.

    Personally, I believe that the perps likely used thermite to cut the perimeter columns (for purposes of covertness and possibly for reasons relating to ease of placement of the charges), and conventional HE cutter charges to cut the inner core columns. There would’ve been no need to use “nukes” to demolish the WTC towers. It would’ve been stupid, unnecessary, forensically self-evidently obvious, completely physically unsuitable for the purpose, and simply cannot account for the features of the demolitions as witnessed, e.g., the rolling demolition wave seen progressing down the buildings, which clearly implies discrete, spread out, time controlled charges.

    BTW, chemical agents can cause cancer just like radiation, since at their root they both cause a similar kind of free-radical induced biological damage.

    Don’t believe me? Then do some research at Pubmed. You’ll find that some of the same nutritional supplements, for example, that protect against non-radiation induced cancer are also promising radioprotectants, e.g.:

    Nutritional approaches to radioprotection: vitamin E.
    Kumar KS, Srinivasan V, Toles R, Jobe L, Seed TM.

    Radiation Casualty Management Research Team, Department of Radiation Medicine, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Besthesda, MD 20889-5603, USA.

    Low-level radiation injury is dependent on the radiation dose and dose rate. The major military use of any potential radioprotectant is to prevent the short-term effects of lethality and the long-term effects of cancer and other pathologies from radiation exposure that may occur in a nuclear battlefield or in a nuclear material contaminated field of operation. Therefore, a radioprotectant should not affect the ability of military personnel to perform tasks. Because exposure to ionizing radiation induces free radical species, effective antioxidants, either alone or in combination with other agents, can be used as potential radioprotectors. To test this hypothesis, we studied vitamin E for its radioprotective efficacy. Using CD2F1 male mice as the model system, we observed that vitamin E at a dose of 400 IU/kg acts as a good radioprotectant against lethal doses of cobalt-60 radiation. Vitamin E was more efficacious when given subcutaneously than when given orally.

    Lastly, it’s not only unproductive but devisive and damaging to the cause of 9/11 truth to speculate about “nukes” as demolition agents. Not only is there no reason to go there, we don’t need to go there.

  57. MrX  April 5, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Lets not forget this :

  58. Ross Johnson  April 5, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Prof Steven Jones and Prof Neils Harritt say that other explosives may have been involved but Dimitri Khalezov says that nano-themite did not exist nor did any planes crash into the towers.We have eye witness accounts ,amateur video and national media proof of planes crashing into the towers.

    Why do your persist in taking heresay evidence at face value? Nano thermite was proven to exist by an international team of scientists in their peer reviewed a paper which has not been challenged.

    Why would Israel leave such an obivious calling card such as nuclear radiation when trying to do a false flag event blaming the Muslims ? Get samples Gordon from the basements of existing structures and get scientific analysis.Radiation will not depart with superificial excavation.Much of it will remain deep within the earth.You need scientific proof.

  59. James  April 5, 2011 at 4:15 am

    I am more interested in getting this attack properly investigated than making the right guess about what realy happened. When we start cracking heads we get answers. In-fighting about thermite or thermonuclear is retarded. We will have the best chance of learning the truth by simply opening an investigation.
    One thing is for damn sure though. We know how much steel went into these buildings, if we don’t get as much coming out, where did it go? Michael J Volz, Mr Duff must have the disposition of a saint to tolerate your charge of being in league with that ghoul Silvertein.

  60. greencrow  April 5, 2011 at 3:08 am

    I have believed for a few years now that there were nuclear explosions in the WTC. The explosions shown in the videos of the collapses could only have been caused by that kind of energy. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t thermite used as well. What’s the argument about?


  61. AS  April 5, 2011 at 2:43 am

    does no mean that thermite was not used, it is used as cover up

  62. penlope  April 5, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Now we have ten years again to wait what happens to people around Fukushima?
    If cancer, if leukemia, then radiation!

  63. Garibaldi  April 5, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Give it up, Campbell. You will never succeed in developing a workable DAJA until you finally abandon the HOW for the WHO. Here’s a good place to start over:
    Let us know when you make contact.

  64. ulysees  April 5, 2011 at 12:13 am

    hear hear Bruce!!

    Treason it is, now let’s get ready, this is it!

  65. J. Bruce Campbell  April 4, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    The thermite termites don’t even know their own product. It would take thermite longer to cut one of the vertical steel box beams than it took for an entire tower to pulverize, turn to dust and disintegrate to down to Earth. The walls of the central box beams were four inches thick. No one has come up with an explanation of how the thermite cut horizontally – how would you make it cut sideways? Thermite burns downward with gravity.

    The walls of the outer fascia box tubes were two and a half inches thick. High-grade steel. Fifty-nine of them on each side. Over forty of the big guys, all tied together, made up each of the central spines. How did thermite make so many horizontal cuts?

    Plastic (C-4) shape charges were apparently used to cut the airplane holes in fascia – not thermite. Mike Harari’s sappers even made it look as if the fragile aluminum wing tips sliced their way through the equivalent of armor steel. They were Warner Bros. holes, worthy of Wile E. Coyote – Super Genius.

    As we’ve been over so many times with the termites, their super-product cannot convert steel to dust instantaneously or in any amount of time. It cuts steel in a comparatively slow process but offers no explanation for the Twin Towers or Building 7 turning to dust.

    What is the reason for their fanatical insistence of thermite? Because it explains exactly nothing? Because it protects the guilty? What is the reason for their hatred of Dimitri Khalezov and his revealing the nuke demo plan, authorized by the 1976 US/Soviet treaty? Are they trying to shield Michael Harari?

    The only thing that will convert five hundred thousand tons of high-grade steel to a pyroclastic cloud of dust is the shockwave from a 150 kiloton thermonuclear bomb exploded in granite underneath the building.

    The termites are in such denial that they do not even acknowledge that most of the steel in the Twin Towers was converted to dust or that all of it in Building 7 was converted to dust. Their lame response is: “What dust?”

    The termites should be ignored now that they have eaten up so much valuable time and energy which it has taken to respond in good faith to their hostile attacks. There is no rational excuse for hostility toward Dimitri Khalezov or the three main facts that he has provided, also in good faith: nuke demo plan for WTC, Mike Harari and the Granite missile in the Pentagon.

  66. Doug  April 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    I would not look to your local newspaper where all the news is syndicated through AP or other filters for the ‘powers that be’. Not many will touch 911. veterans Today, Infowars, What Really Happened, 911 Blogger, A/E 911 truth, etc. There are many sites to research. The T.V. and Mainstream publications are not able to talk about such issues of importance. Best, Doug

  67. Bill  April 4, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    I renewed my Fri-Sun subscription to the Charlotte Observer but told them NOT to automatically renew anymore..bc they’re missing too many big stories..then I proceeded to name a few of them..9-11 being the “big kahuna”.

  68. Bill  April 4, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Did Gordon say it was 100% a nuke job? No, didn’t hear such..Thermite to cut the steel beams ( remember the pictures of some of the beams that came down, cut on a 45 degree angle with molten metal dripping down the side? ) RDX and quite possibly ( given the high rates of multiple myeloma ) mini-nukes in WTC 1 & 2..Also don’t forget WTC 6 blowing sky-high one minute after the 2nd plane hit the South Tower..

  69. PR Smith  April 4, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    There sure as hell is enough probable cause for an independent investigation by an outfit with teeth, and subpoena power. If the USG isn`t hiding anything, you`d think they would welcome one. what`d they pay to investigate Clinton`s BJ, $50 million plus??

  70. Doug  April 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    P.S. April Gallop on KPFA radio:

  71. Doug  April 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    This is sure complex….based on the information I have been looking at…nano-thermite was used…possibly, thermite cutter charges also…the steel columns have the 45 degree cut as shown in the debris of 911…other explosives used to blow the steel columns out and destroy the structural resistance and create the freefall. Possibly,a nuclear device was also part of the demolition. It sure makes sense when we look at the Oklahoma bombing. The Granit Missile at the Pentagon seems very likely. Anyhow, I appreciate the information and I am looking forward to hearing
    Dmitri’s testimony in a well guarded courtroom. Bring your own security, Dimitri. We cant trust the security our government may provide.
    If mini-nukes were used, then more evidence will be available to solve the crime.
    I dont see this as a distraction. The Harari conversation in which he admits to
    planning 911. All important information to ponder. The ‘crime of the century will be solved’..Tomorrow, April Gallop appears in Federal court to make another attempt to hold a few of the 911 conspirators accountable. She was at the hole where the missile hit the pentagon and knows alot about the topic. Best, Doug

  72. BlueSM  April 4, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    the thermite pushers are very suspect. You have to go all the way back their activity with respect to Eugene Mallove and group and Los Alamos etc. If you have no idea what I’m talking about then you are about 5 years behind.

  73. BlueSM  April 4, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    wow, you are really trying hard here to refute the evidence in front of your face. How about a public non profit be formed for the sole purpose of tracking all residents of New York City from 9/11/2001 to their death. Let’s track the percentage of types of cancers per person the entire duration. Then at the end when you have your bean counter bottom line, you might concede that there is legally sufficient evidence of a crime.

  74. Syd Walker  April 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    As Peter Wakefield Sault points out, a range of technologies may have been used to demolish the towers and probably were.

    The difference between the nuclear explosion theory and the nanothermite theory is that there is hard evidence for the latter that has been published in a peer-reviewed article in a major scientific journal. That’s hard to ignore – except for the willfully blind. That’s a very solid foundation for another, more successful push for justice by the international 9-11 truth movement.

    Gordon’s article is a distraction – like his piffle about Libya. I’d give it a “D”.

    D for disinformation.

  75. Gordon Duff  April 4, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    The primary disease is multiple myeloma
    when you add the group together, there is no group of chemicals possible
    you describe..
    hiroshima 1945
    read the entire article
    then…look up the diseases
    i have the delightful benefit to be surrounded by staff..medical…nuke engineering and weapons design

  76. Peter Wakefield Sault  April 4, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Where were these 345 deaths from leukemia reported, Gordon? Over what period? Over what area? And have you compared that number, assuming it to be true for the sake of argument, with the leukemia death-rate in the same area over the same period of time preceding 9/11? AND were you aware that leukemia has a multitude of causes besides radiation?

    AND I quote “No one knows the exact leukemia causes”.

    Here are just some of them:-
    •Exposure to very high levels of radiation
    •Working with certain chemicals
    •Receiving chemotherapy
    •Having Down syndrome and other genetic conditions
    •Having human T-cell leukemia virus-1 (HTLV-1)
    •Having myelodysplastic syndrome.

    Even if we accept that SOME of your alleged 345 cases of death by leukemia were caused by radiation, that radiation could have come from any number of places.

    Basically, you are presenting specious arguments, Gordon, and Michael is quite right – you are only undermining your own credibility. Moreover many others besides Michael and myself can’t help being curious about what kind of hold the originator of this absurd nuke hypothesis has over you, as you are already well aware.

  77. Peter Wakefield Sault  April 4, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    The false argument put forward by both the ray-guns-from-outer-space crowd and the nukes-in-the-basement johnny-come-latelies is that if thermite was used then ONLY thermite was used and that cannot account for the 400 yard lateral expulsions of 20-ton steel beams. The very fact that someone tries to put over such a false argument indicates something very suspect about his or her motives. The reality of the WTC tower demolitions is of course that both thermite cutter-charges AND high-explosive blow-it-apart charges were used in them. I think it’s only a metter of time before our Gordon sees the error of his ways and becomes disenchanted with his new disinformationist fantasy buddy.

  78. Gordon Duff  April 4, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Thermite doesn’t cause leukemia.
    345 deaths reported…all radiation cancers
    the writing is on the wall

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network