WTC nuclear demolition – damage inflicted to “bathtub” and to PATH.

WTC Nuclear Demolition
WTC Nuclear Demolition

by Dimitri Khalezov

I feel obliged to answer a recent VT article “2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11” published by Jim Fetzer on Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 – that so timely coincided with the publication of the final “full” edition of my book on 9/11 (my actual book titled “The Third Truth about 9/11” could be downloaded from here: ).
In his article, as well as in his comments under it, Jim Fetzer stated, as if it were a fact, that my so-called “big nukes theory” was allegedly “debunked” (while in reality I won any and every argument with those who tried to debunk me in the past; that is not to mention that my claims bear a status of a “witness’ testimony” and not of a “theory”). Additionally, Jim continued to maintain that I allegedly could not explain the alleged absence of damage to the so-called “bathtub”. In reality, it is not true. The damage to the so-called “bathtub” was duly addressed by me a few years ago. Moreover, I repeated this once again when I was a guest of Jim Fetzer’s radio show in 2011. If you only care to download and to read my latest edition of the book, you will find all needed information there.

The inconsistencies of the actual “mini-nukes” theory, promoted by Jim nowadays, were addressed in detail in this recent article of mine: Some thoughts on the mini-nukes theory in regard to the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, available at this page:
I would like to publish here an entire chapter from my new book that deals with the so-called “bathtub”. Actually, this chapter was intended not to address claims of Jim Fetzer, but to address claims of Judy Wood and her henchmen, primarily – not unknown Andrew Johnson, whose spiteful assaults I used to endure during all these years. However, I believe that the same chapter could be used to counter Jim as well. So, here it is:
Explaining the “unexplainable”: the alleged “absence of damage” to “the bathtub” and to PATH.
Since my video presentation appeared on YouTube, it was received differently. About 95% of “innocent” people just loved it, with, perhaps, ~5% of skeptics. However, it was not so with the “professional” 9/11 auditorium. Only a few from among the professional conspiracy theorists accepted my explanation at once. The majority of them ignored my presentation whatsoever, pretending not to notice either my video, or the “ground zero” definition in the pre-9/11 dictionaries, which I, at last, drew the public attention to. However, a minority of the “professional” conspiracy theorists lashed out at my version with quite a spiteful criticism.
The most spiteful of these critics were supposed “followers of Judy Wood’s theory” – the so-called conspiracy theory No.5 (or “DEW” theory) which we have already disproved in the corresponding Chapter of this book. Actually, these folks from “Judy Wood creed” bear striking similarities to a typical cult, but in reality it seems they are just a well-organized group of shills who pretend to behave as if it were a indeed a “cult”. These folks attempted to “debunk” my “theory” (thus, clearly ignoring my statement that I am not a “theorist” but a “witness” and therefore my supposed “theory” is not actually a “theory” and therefore can not be treated as such) by claiming that I allegedly could not explain why “my” “alleged” “underground nuclear explosions” did not damage the so-called “bathtub” and why they did not damage PATH (the underground train system).
These shills from the little army headed by Judy Wood pretended not to notice the definition of “ground zero” in pre-9/11 English language, they preferred not to notice high temperatures that unexplainably persisted underground for almost 4 months, and they preferred not to notice leukemia and other radiation-related cancers strangely endemic among the ground zero responders.
They continue to stubbornly insist that the WTC was demolished by mysterious “laser beams from space”, which, in their opinions, should successfully explain both – “dustifications” of the Towers and the underground fires (along with “ground zero” name). Moreover, they claim that I was allegedly hired by the U.S. Government to “dissolve” their alleged “truth” (supposedly provided by Judy Wood) with a certain “plausible lie” – because, they claimed, I could not satisfactorily explain why “my” underground nukes did not damage the “bathtub” and PATH trains and stations.
Well. It seems that I am obliged to address this spiteful criticism.
First of all, these nukes were not “mine”. I merely happened to know about them while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service and I wanted to report my knowledge as any other witness would do in such a case. Unlikely I have any obligation to explain their exact positions, their exact yields and their detailed effects. While knowing for sure that there were nukes under the WTC, I attempted to calculate their yields and positions and I presented my findings here. If you do not like them – do not take them. Make your own calculations instead. Do not forget that it is not an obligation of a witness to provide technical explanations. A witness is obliged only to report what he knew or what he saw with his eyes. And that’s it. Obligation to explain technicalities lies with experts and with culprits, not with witnesses. I hope everybody familiar with law and logic agrees with that.
If you want to know more details about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme, do not ask me – ask Mr. Loizeaux from “Controlled Demolition Inc.” Or ask Mr. Leslie Robertson, who was responsible for the WTC design. Or ask responsible officials from the Department of Buildings of New York. Oh, you do not know their names? Do not worry. Ask their names from Mr. Rudolph Giuliani – the former Mayor of New York. He knows the names for sure.
Coming back to the disputed point – “whose” nukes were under the WTC since they were definitely not “mine” despite being so suggested by the spiteful shills of Judy Wood’s army? Well. It is difficult to answer this question. Perhaps, this question should be asked from either the Department of Buildings of New York or from “Controlled Demolition Inc.” Or from a certain office that issues patents. Do not even doubt that the actual WTC nuclear demolition idea, however outrageous it might be, was duly patented. I was unable to discover that patent (and I am certain that you will be unable to discover it either, because the “good guys” apparently took care of that seditious patent making it publicly unavailable after 9/11). However, while searching for that patent I discovered another, quite a relevant one – issued within the same time-frames that the suspected nuclear demolition patent was issued – i.e. at the beginning of the ‘70s.
It was the United States Patent- 3693731. Issued: September 26, 1972. The name of the patent: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TUNNELING BY MELTING. According to a rather vague description, it had something to do with “nuclear reactors” that should be the source of the heat enough to melt rock.
The assembly of its inventors and their places of residence are quite revealing: Armstrong; Dale E. (Santa Fe, NM), McInteer; Berthus B. (Los Alamos, NM), Mills; Robert L. (Los Alamos, NM), Potter; Robert M. (Los Alamos, NM), Robinson; Eugene S. (Los Alamos, NM), Rowley; John C. (Los Alamos, NM), Smith; Morton C. (Los Alamos, NM). Appl. No.: 05/104,872. Filed: January 8, 1971.
No, it is not the patent for the nuclear demolition of skyscrapers’ method. Do not get me wrong.
However, I am certain that these people from Los Alamos, mentioned as the “inventors” in the abovementioned patent, definitely know very well about the second “Manhattan project”. Perhaps, if a court of law would summon them – along with Mr. Leslie Robertson and Mr. Mark Loizeaux – a lot of interesting details would be revealed in their testimonies…
Coming back to the question of the shills – why PATH was not damaged?
But are they sure that it was “not damaged”? Let us take a look at the two pictures below:
1 Bathtub aerial image 92rs
Above – an aerial photograph of the actual “bathtub” showing PATH tunnels during the PATH station construction. Below – a graphic representation of the bathtub area damage sustained as a result of the WTC collapse and its description from the New York Times.
2 PATH-bathtub damage (New York Times)_IMPROVED
It is clearly stated in the text visible on the above drawing that three out of seven cars of the PATH train were “crushed”. And I am inclined to believe that. I am not quite sure, though, that it was an “empty PATH train” as the New York Times suggests and I would rather doubt this particular claim. Later you will see one quotation where the word “death” is mentioned in regard to the PATH.
My considerations are based on logic and are as follows: if there were an alarm signal warning that the area would be soon destroyed and anyone needs to promptly get out, it would be logical to expect that the train would be driven to another station as soon as possible instead of forcing everybody out of the train right at the station that is about to be destroyed. Do you agree with this logic?
And in any case why should you leave a train, even an empty one, in an area where it will be soon destroyed, if you have a chance to drive it away and have enough time for it? Do you see any logic in such a claim? I don’t.
It appears to me that the there was no alarm signal whatsoever transmitted towards the PATH station. Do you remember one nice guy who disabled the alarm in the WTC-7 by placing it on the “TEST” status prior to the “plane impacts”? Therefore, the train with unsuspecting passengers just arrived to the station when the underground nuclear explosion occurred. It, of course, killed everyone irrespective of whether he or she happened to be within the “crushed” zone, within the “damaged” zone, or just not very far away from the latter.
However, when it comes to the stated number of the crushed cars – three – it sounds very reasonable to me. Apparently, the radius of the “crushed” zone underground was not too big, because its horizontal radius was decreased on the account of the much further propagation of this blast zone upwards. What I mean is that if you take a sphere and squeeze it trying to change its form to a form of an egg with the longest and the sharpest end facing upwards, this will automatically decrease its horizontal radius. Do you agree with that logic? Therefore it is reasonable to believe that only the three cars of the train were crushed. Perhaps, it depended on the exact position of the train underground: while the three cars were within the “crushed” zone, or partly within the “crushed” and partly – within the “damaged” zones – the rest of the train could have been farther away from the hypocenter of the nuclear explosion, because the train is actually quite long.
In any case, I do not see anything wrong that the three cars of the train were crushed while the other four were not. The TwinTowers were not crushed in their entirety either – as everyone could see, their very tops were not crushed because of being very far from the source of the “crushing wave” propagating upwards. Why should the train behave differently in this sense? Especially considering that the “crushing wave” was propagated mostly by the vertical vector and its propagation by the horizontal vector was insignificant.
The most important point is that there was strangely no witness account published from among those witnesses who were in the PATH station. The mere absence of such witnesses says a lot.
I guess I have successfully refuted one of the most spiteful accusations by Judy Wood’s shills-army who claimed that I allegedly “could not explain the absence of any damage to the PATH trains”. I think I explained that damage quite well. But if someone insists that the three crushed cars of the PATH train is allegedly the “absence of any damage” than it is indeed difficult to argue further…
Coming to the second accusation by Judy Wood’s “cultists” – the alleged “absence of any damage to the bathtub” and my alleged inability to explain such a “phenomena”.
First, I am obliged to briefly explain what the “bathtub” is because many readers might not understand what we are talking about.
“The bathtub” was a unique engineering solution, peculiar to Manhattan, which was represented by an underground slurry wall that kept the Hudson River from flooding the WTC’s basement.
You can have a clue of what it was by looking at the picture below. It shows the ready wall (in this case, I guess, the eastern wall) of the “bathtub”, when the soil inside of the actual “bathtub” has been already removed and the foundations of the Twin Towers were made to stand right on the granite rock (that was the natural bottom of the bathtub).
By the way, looking at this picture, you have a chance to appreciate, one more time, how thick were the steel perimeter columns that would be later penetrated by aluminum planes of the so-called “terrorists”…

3 WTC bathtub east

Above – a “naked” wall of the bathtub (with the soil removed from the bathtub at that moment) during the earlier stage of the Twin Towers’ construction, as seen from inside (it is, presumably, an eastern wall of it).
The bathtub was created prior to the WTC construction by excavating large quantities of soil and erecting these walls. Thus, the WTC complex was actually built from the bottom of “the bathtub”.
The spiteful “followers” of Judy Wood insist that “the bathtub” was allegedly “not damaged” and that I can not explain this phenomenon. The supposed “inability” of mine to explain it constitutes, in their opinion, a “proof” that I am a dangerous liar hired by the U.S. government to claim about the “alleged underground nukes” and so to mislead the “honest 9/11 researchers” (who knew a long time ago that the WTC was demolished by either “laser-beams-from-the-space” or by the so-called “nano-thermite”). The shills are inventive, in fact, in mounting their various assaults on the truth and on those who tell people the truth.
Well. I will try to address that spiteful criticism of the shills by asking this question – are they sure that “the bathtub’s” walls were allegedly “not damaged”? Silence in response…
Let us read some appropriate news articles in order to establish the amount of truth behind the claims of Judy Wood’s cult.
Here is, for example, one of such articles:
Half of WTC ‘Bathtub’ Basement Damaged By Twin Towers’ Fall
By Nadine M. Post
You can download a PDF version of this article from here:
I hope you could read “between the lines” and understand on your own even though the authors of the article do not want to tell you everything frankly. At least, I hope, you could realize on your own that “deeper holes” do not occur deep underground because of the collapse of some buildings on the surface.
I quote:
“Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers. Outside the tower footprints, the section of greatest concern within the so-called 1,000 x 500-ft bathtub is along its south side. There, a 200 x 30-ft hole from 40 to 70 ft deep sits between the tub’s perimeter slurry wall and the remains of Two WTC.
“A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything,” says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city’s local engineer on the bathtub.
Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.
Roughly 40% of the bathtub’s reinforced concrete diaphragm slabs and steel columns are in “pretty good shape,” says George J. Tamaro, the Mueser Rutledge engineer leading the foundation repair team. “We’ve pretty much completed surveys of below-grade areas,” says Tamaro, adding that engineers have not been inside the footprint of either tower.
Volterrra adds, however, that a view into Two WTC’s core from the street shows debris held by somewhat intact core columns is packed so tightly that it is “unrecognizable”. Core walls and slabs are gone.
On the east side of the bathtub, some 30 to 40 ft in from the perimeter, the collapse demolished the plaza level slab. West of that, the slab drops off. North and northeast areas of the basement structure appear to
be in the best shape. Under the remains of Five and Six WTC, replacement tieback anchors to support the 70-ft-deep perimeter wall may not be necessary, says Tamaro. However, some internal vertical cross-bracing to stiffen the existing frame may be necessary, he says.
The condition of the area under Three WTC, a Marriott hotel, is still unknown. “We haven’t gotten in from under the south tower to West Street,” says Tamaro…”
4 Half of WTC 'Bathtub' Basement Damaged - drawing cut of
The above is a diagram that was included in the quoted article. This diagram could provide us with certain interesting details. Let us have a careful look at it.
Make sure to notice that a certain part of the “bathtub” wall is marked with green. It indicates the status of nothing less than being “gone”. While another part of it enjoys the blue “unsure” status.
Note also that the status “gone” is awarded to the basement levels of the Twin Towers. It clearly indicates that something destroyed the Towers from beneath, rather than from above.
It would be really hard for the shills to explain the damage to (to be exact “complete annihilation of”, considering the green status “gone”) the basements of the Twin Towers based on any alternative conspiracy theory – be it the “kerosene-pancake-collapse” theory, or the so-called “thermite/nano-thermite” theory, or Judy Wood’s infamous “laser-beams-from-the-space” theory.
But, perhaps, Judy Wood and her followers did not notice that article (or, most probably, they preferred “not to notice” it). In general, shills have no habit of explaining to you anything or that of trying to address any difficult issues. The shills’ typical modus operandi is to ask questions and to demand explanations from you and not listening to any questions of yours. Thus, it is understandable that the abovementioned article was ignored by Judy Wood and her cultists, as well as by the shills of other denominations.
There is one more article that is even more revealing (it also hosts a corresponding video file describing the same thing) by NY1 News named “Workers Rush To Repair Huge Hole In WTC ‘Bathtub’” published online[1].
I quote:
“Crews at the World Trade Center site are rushing to fix a 90-foot-wide hole in the retaining wall that keeps out ground water……The collapse of the south tower tore the large gash in the wall September 11”
Doesn’t the 90-foot-wide (nearly 27.5 meters-wide) hole in the wall sound like a kind of “damage” to you?
Surprisingly, to the cult of Judy Wood it does not sound so. Though, it is not surprising, actually, because the three cars of the PATH train crushed underground do not seem to be “damage” for them either…
Since many people might not believe me, thinking that the 90-foot-wide hole would allow the place to be flooded immediately, I am obliged to explain more.
The problem is that many people do not understand what actually the “bathtub” is and what it is holding. It might appear to them that right next after the wall of the “bathtub” there are waters of the Hudson River.
It is not so. Outside the slurry wall there is merely soil saturated with water and nothing more than that. Look at the contemporary official diagram below titled “THE RISK OF FLOODING”. It clearly shows that the waters of the Hudson River were quite far from the actual wall. There was a substantial layer of soil in between them.
That is why when the bathtub wall was damaged, the water from the Hudson River was not “flowing in”, as might appear to many people unfamiliar with the actual problem. The water was merely “seeping in” at the rate of 100 to 200 gallons a minute (the combined volume), which was not too much, and these amounts of water could still be relatively easily dealt with. All water that seeped into the “bathtub” (along with the water that was poured into the cavities by the firefighters) was constantly pumped out at the corresponding rate.
Once you understand this particular, it would be much easier to understand what really happened with the “bathtub” and whether or not it was really damaged. Of course, it was damaged. And the article above does not cheat us.
5 Bathtub Image 88
Above – one of the contemporary official diagrams showing how far the waters of Hudson River were from the nearest slurry wall of the “bathtub”.
If you want to understand why the SouthTower’s collapse tore “the large gash” in the wall of “the bathtub”, you can look at this picture that shows the actual outline of its walls in relation to the rest of the WTC complex:
6 Bathtub map
I hope you remember that the position of the demolition nuke was in between the NorthTower (WTC-1) and the Marriott Hotel – which was dangerously close to the nearest bathtub wall. Hence the abovementioned “large gash” – comparable in size with the three crushed cars of the PATH train.
When it comes to the South Tower (WTC-2) (the one standing on Liberty Street – i.e. in the lower part of the above drawing), as you remember, the position of the nuclear charge intended to demolish it was in between the South Tower (WTC-2) and the WTC-4. This means that the closest wall of “the bathtub” must have been damaged also. In order to confirm this, just look at the first drawing in this chapter (the one from the New York Times) that deals with damage to “the bathtub” and PATH.
On that drawing brown color represents what is described as “collapsed or heavy damage”. You could notice that the brown area around the SouthTower extends into the nearest wall of “the bathtub” to the right. This perfectly corresponds to the expected damage inflicted by the second nuke (taking into consideration its actual position).
Now we have found at least two confirmations that “the bathtub” walls were heavily damaged in at least two different spots – and so disproved the basic premise of Judy Wood and her followers.
However, as it is normal in judicial proceedings, one witness is not enough. We need one more witness.
Here is another interesting article:
“Trouble With the Water, Engineer: Site can’t be rebuilt without new wall” by Graham Rayman Staff Writer. February 7, 2002[2].
I quote:
The World Trade Center “bathtub”, which keeps out the Hudson River, suffered so much damage on Sept. 11 that a new wall will have to be added before permanent rebuilding can occur, the engineer who designed the wall and leads the repair project said yesterday.
And one more quote[3]:
“The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center’s subway station on the 1/9 line and shut down Port Authority Trans-Hudson commuter train service from New Jersey exacted a terrible price in death and destruction…
…The attack closed three stations: Cortland St., within the World Trade Center; Rector St., a few blocks south of Ground Zero; and South Ferry, which provides access to the Staten Island Ferry Terminal at the southern tip of Manhattan. “We had 1,800 ft of subway line completely destroyed,” says Nagaraja.”
Please, make sure to note that while the very first quoted diagram from the New York Times (showing damage to the PATH train) claims the crushed train was allegedly “empty”, the above quoted article uses expressions such as “a terrible price in death and destruction” while describing the subway station under the World Trade Center.
Anyone capable of logical thinking is welcome to make his conclusions.
Now I think to quote all of these should be sufficient – to address all the criticism directed at me and at my claims by the desperate shills hired by the desperate U.S. officials.
And, finally, please, think once again – how could you explain the fact that the abovementioned “1.800 ft of subway line completely destroyed” can be based on an official interpretation of the Twin Towers’ collapse, which is the infamous kerosene-pancake collapse theory, in case you forgot it?
I hope from now on all doubts regarding the underground nuclear explosions were completely removed.

[3] Extra Effort Speeds Repair of Train Systems. September 9, 2002 Issue. By Andrew Wright and Debra K. Rubin.

Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy