Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry, concerning the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center.
Some say this is a plant to fight the "Dustification" followers of Judy Wood. It's good viewing and the Sears Tower evac on 9/11 is kind of a home run to this guy's story, as well as his military background. It..., this video, almost had me sold. I think Nico called it BullPoo
A missile struck the WTC moments after the air strike on the South Tower, however false evidence presented by Jack White and Christopher Bollyn, a gif animation titled the Japanese Object, and the lack of smoke or any plume of dust on the NY skyline at the appropriate time, muddied the waters!
As the second jet rammed its target, “that was an explosion,” says Stephen McArdle a tax consultant from inside the Marriot Hotel, he was taping as part of an FBI sting operation, then comes a longer and much louder explosion, the second explosion was the detonation of the missile’s warhead. Greg Smith 2002.
Left Japanese Object gif Right WTC Floor Plan
Quote:
The above side on view, says the Japanese Object would need to be on an entirely different flight path were it going to impact anywhere near the towers!
Jack White’s 911 Studies.
Quote:
The demolition wave visible in profile in the frames at left in Jack White's montage above, means the images were taken at the start of the collapse of the South Tower at 10:00 am, not at 9:04 as stated.
Christopher Bollyn @ American Free Press: A massive explosion devastated World Trade Center 6 the eight story US Customs building, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower at about 9:03 am.
AFP Photo caption: The flame in the photos of the mysterious burning object passing through the South Tower is almost pure white, and leaves a dark trail, is this the burning remnant of a DU penetrator.
Quote:
The flaming wreckage Bollyn says might be a DU penetrator, is thought to be an engine and a brightly burning magnesium wheel rim, part of the landing gear of the plane that struck the South tower, which had a different trajectory than the alleged missile.
As well as this shot clearly shows, WTC 6 remains undamaged after the collapse of the South Tower!
The gif animation below compiled from the Evan Fairbanks footage, shows the missile that struck the concourse of the WTC complex moments after the impact on the South Tower, for the fact that there was minimal smoke and dust attests to the nature of modern armaments.
Unlike the Japanese Object, this streaking missile is on the correct trajectory to cause the gash pictured at ground level east of the North Tower.
Witness statements..
Mike Pecoraro: "The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
There was nothing there but rubble, Mike said. We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone! The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. You could stand here, he said, and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming, there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything he said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil and lying on the floor.
They got us again, Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building."
Will Jimeno, PAPD: Our inspector commandeered a bus, and we sped down the sector cars opened the way for us. We go to the north tower, and then we go under the buildings to go to the south tower, to get to the lobby there. We are one floor under the main concourse area, where all the stores are, and pushing a cart filled with equipment, air masks, helmets, axes, tools, and so on. On the back of the cart, pushing, is Antonio Rodrigues, and just to his left is Christopher Amoroso.
Suddenly I hear a loud noise and look over to the sarge and say, "Hey, Sarge, is there a second plane coming?" And, just then, it is like an earthquake when the plane hits the south building.
We are just about in the middle of the concourse, between the two buildings, just below and a little south of the big golden globe, when huge parts of the tower and shock waves come down into the plaza area, cracking all the cement. The whole concourse above us collapses. There are a lot of civilians all around, and I don't know what happens to them, but I think it has to be bad. I can see Liberty Street before me as I feel a ball of debris hit us. Now, I see a huge fireball coming at us, and I yell, "Run! Run towards the freight elevator!"
Dominick runs first, I am behind, and the sarge is behind me. Antonio is behind the sarge, and Chris is bringing up the rear. But Chris never makes it because the shock wave pushes him back into the main concourse area, and he takes the worst of it. Dominick and I and the sarge just make it around the corner, but Antonio doesn't. Everything just starts hitting us, and then the wall comes down on top of me.
I am flabbergasted. My friend Dominick is crushed down in the push-up position, and my legs are pinned completely by heavy concrete. Sergeant McLoughlin sees the walls breaking apart, and they are falling on him. And the ceiling falls on him, [pinning him] twenty feet away from me. I can't see him, but I can hear him. I keep calling out for Amoroso and Rodrigues, calling and calling for two minutes straight, there is no response.
Sal D’Agostino: And somebody was saying that they were hitting us with rockets from the Woolworth Building, initially we didn’t know it was a plane.. they said rockets! So I’m like ..wow, this is bad, you know, this is going to be real bad, they’re hitting us with rockets now, then somebody mentioned the Pentagon got hit, there were reports that the Sears Tower got hit and stuff like that, I remember telling Tommy this is not going to be good.
Quote:
Editorial: Thermate residues that came from demolition charges built into the the towers during construction, have been identified in the dust from the fallout, the thermate charges were used to sever the steel beams that formed the skeleton of the towers, and were in no way responsible for the tremendous damage to WTC's 3, 4, 5, & 6!
As well conventional explosives similarly built in during construction that were used to bring Bldg 7 down, thermonuclear demolition charges had been placed inside the towers which were detonated on the day, bringing them down.
Those same thermonuclear charges embedded within the debris from the collapsing towers, as well as vaporizing the concrete and steel that made up the structure of those buildings, still had enough potency to wipe out the top nineteen floors of WTC 3, and all but the north wing of WTC 4, and to leave the gaping holes in WTC's 5 & 6 when it came into contact with them!
This infrared satellite shot shows the absolute destruction that occurred on 911, note that all but the North Wing of WTC 4 has disappeared completely.. the two planes that struck the towers did not possess enough kinetic energy to cause this level of destruction!
WTC 3, the Marriot Hotel in happier days.
Bill Biggert's shot of wreckage from the disintegrating South Tower tumbling onto WTC 3.
Biggert's next shot after the collapse of the South Tower, shows the tremendous damage the building sustained during the collapse of that structure.
After the North Tower collapse only part of the bottom three stories of WTC3 remained, the lobby stayed intact with pictures still hanging on the wall.
Quote:
Bill Biggert was killed during the collapse of the North Tower, there were reports of armed men and small arms fire maybe he was "taken out!"
The total disappearance of the top nineteen floors of WTC 3 and all except the north wing of WTC 4, the holes in WTC 5, and the massive hole that went right thru to the sub basements of WTC 6 visible in the above pic, were similarly caused by the thermonuclear demo charge tumbling down from the disintegrating towers.
Quote:
The the Readers Digest ran a story some time around the late 1960's, which said explosives were to be built into the major buildings at the WTC complex to facilitate their eventual controlled demolition.
Paul Laffoley a New York artist and former protege of Andy Warhol, who worked for architectural firm Emory Roth during the WTC design phase, says he witnessed discussion of building explosives into the towers, and says they were what brought Bldg 7 down, the story was the Australian edition of the RD, that was in a dentist's waiting room.
Paul Laffoley is a great American hero, Judas seed NY cops and firedogs who are said to have received between 1.7 and 5 million dollar$ each for their silence, who are now reviled as NY's foulest, should if they wish to redeem themselves, do as he has one and say what they know about the greatest crime of the millennium.
I sent Dimitri a message and hope he responded, I hope he responds again before my links go dead!
Quote:
Hi, Jeff.
OK, I remember you. You are from Canada and we talked over telephone yesterday. Isn't it?
Please, next time write me to the current e-mail address (many people complain that from the other one letters often disappear).
I can't recollect now what links you requested me to send you? Could you tell me exactly what you need, because I have a lot of various links. It seems to me that it was you who wanted to send me some links to verify if what was published there came from me or not. At least, I understood it like this. In any case I can send you a lot of links if you only tell me what exactly you want. Or you mean download links for the video? If you mean these, I will give you here two sets of links - first set is DVD-quality WMV files (each about 120 Mb), second - more compact mp4 files (each file around 33 Mb), the second set at the end also includes download links to two zip-archives with reference files used in the video and with pre-9/11 definitions of 'ground zero' in various old dictionaries. Let me know if you need these or if you have any problem with downloading that.
Download links: 1) DVD-quality (wmv format ~120Mb per file) and MD5 checsums:
I watched most of the Dimitri videos on your YouTube channel last night, (through 18, I think, each one twice, to make sure I didn't miss something) Then I turned on Coast to Coast, and I noticed a similarity between the two shows. They had a "disclosure" advocate on who was able to entertain the idea that the government knows all about an Alien invasion, or attack, and took the load of knowing all that on their own shoulders, to protect the masses from the truth that the ordinary person could not handle. How about the concept that all these "alien" craft were made by people with advanced technology who are having a good time deluding the masses?
I've watched all 26 parts and I must say, this theory does not sound plausible to me.
There are a few observations that the nuclear detonation theory does not address adequately in my opinion:
1. The crushed/damage zones (as they uniformly traveled up the building) pulverized all the material (concrete, steel, office furniture), yet left piles of paper intact?
2. They only show the beginning of the collapse, if the entire building was pulverized before it started to collapse, how would the theory account for the distinct squibs seen throughout the collapse? Officially, these are pockets of high pressure that resulted from the pancaking effect. Alternatively, they may be characteristic controlled demolition squibs.
3. The theory does not account for the large amounts of steel that were left behind after the catastrophic event (particularly the buckled beams).
4. No explanation is given regarding the large number of cars that appear to have been eroded from the top.
Out of the entire 26 parts, just under one minute caught my attention, it was in part 21, between 2:51 and 3:30. There were two witnesses clearly stating that there were bombs in the building. The second witness was adamant and was of particular interest to me.
Getting hold of those two would be very interesting.
Let me know the web address where the videos are published, please, if you don't mind.
About people who criticize my version, don't be surprised, there would be many of these. Many are hired by the US Government to obstruct truth and this is there full-time job (normally these are full time forum-trolls, but sometimes they could also leave comments on private pages). Others might be appointed by main-stream '911truth' societies (whose leaders, in turn, are appointed by the FBI). Some other might be professional conspiracy theorists who spent 8 years of their precious time for nothing and not, understandably, they feel it outrageous that someone might outdo them in search of the truth. Some other might be just plainly stupid and incapable of understanding the obvious. So, I always encounter some percent of critics to my video, which could vary - if it is a lay auditorium (like on YouTube) then percentage of acceptance of my version could be up to 90% with ~10% of critics. If it is on some 'professional' 9/11 forum percentage of acceptance could be less than 30% with 70% of critics and sceptics, if it is the main-stream 9/11 truth society (bound by discipline, not to say about outright brainwashing), then percentage of acceptance could be just a few percents only. Which is explainable.
Regarding the points that person expressed below, they could be addressed as follows:
1) Why papers was not pulverized? first of all, this paper might have been not from 'crushed' part of the Towers, but from upper 'damaged' zone and also from upper 'undamaged' zone. In addition, some leafs of paper even within a 'crushed' zone might survive on account of being simply above some tables thus surviving 'crushing' effects, but I think that majority of surviving paper belonged to upper zones, while majority of paper in 'crushed' zones was pulverized along with the rest of materials. This was a very weak argument of that critic.
2) Regarding the squibs. I think they were exactly as described by otherwise cheating NIST Report: 'pockets of high pressure resulted from pancaking effect' (just only need to change word 'pancaking' to some other word).
3) 'Large' amounts of steel. This is nothing less than malicious manipulation with your ability to perceive things objectively. These allegedly 'large' amounts of steel were in fact 'negligibly little' amounts of steel, because 'large' amounts of steel were instantly transformed to complete microscopic dust (that allowed the Towers' tops to fall down at near free-fall speed as if under them was not any 'broken steel' but only an air alone) and these allegedly 'large' amount of steel that remained did not account even for 15% of the entire steel used in the Towers construction. Moreover, in my video it is successfully explained where this remaining steel beams (including 'buckled' ones) came from: they were from undamaged upper parts of the Twin Towers, plus, partly from some lowest parts of surviving Towers' corners.
4) I have no obligation to explain any and every small detail about the 9/11 evidence. Be grateful that I explain to you the most important details. Besides, if I would proceed explaining such small details as alleged 'cars eroded from the top', then my video would last not 4 hours, but 20 hours and it would be totally unbearable to watch it for a lay viewer. However, I have an explanation, of course. There were two distinctly different kinds of cars that suffered on the 9/11. One was fully or partly molten cars that were parked very close to zones of high temperatures (i.e. very close to the holes leading to underground cavities left by recent underground nuclear explosions). Understandably, these 150 kiloton explosions released such high temperatures immediately after the WTC collapses (while dust was still airborne) that cars around were melted (they are quite thin, in fact). Some other cars were subjected to rapid erosion because of combination of the two factors - high temperatures and intense streams of vapors ascending from underground. However, there was a second type of 'damaged' cars - in much further distances from the 'ground zero' - so-called 'half-burned' and smashed cars. These are nothing else than planted evidence. Because initially it was decided to blame the WTC nuclear demolition (which was difficult to hide) on alleged 'nuclear suitcases' of Osama bin Laden, then, understandably some 'supporting evidence' was required. Therefore FBI and secret service agents were quickly dispatched with hammers and blow-lamps around the WTC to half-burn and smash the cars thus inflicting typical 'atomic' damages on them, allegedly caused by 'thermal radiation' and 'air-blast wave' - that could support the 'mini-nukes' version of the WTC demolition.
(unnumbered) at the end of part 21 witness states that it was a bomb in the WTC, but this statement was not related to the Tower collapse. It was related to the explosion designed to imitate alleged 'plane' impact. If you watch the video again and listen to it carefully you will notice what was that argument about.
Hope it helps.
If you have chance to publish comments, you can publish my comments in reply to his comments, if you wish so.
Hello Jeff, I would like to thank Dimitri for taking the time to answer my questions.
As far as I am aware, the definition of "Scientific Theory" was not affected by the tragic events of 9/11. It is still the same. A bare minimum for any scientific theory is to provide an adequate explanation for all observed phenomena. Dimitri has to this moment failed to achieve this objective in my opinion.
Quote:
Why papers was not pulverized? first of all, this paper might have been not from 'crushed' part of the Towers, but from upper 'damaged' zone and also from upper 'undamaged' zone. In addition, some leafs of paper even within a 'crushed' zone might survive on account of being simply above some tables thus surviving 'crushing' effects, but I think that majority of surviving paper belonged to upper zones, while majority of paper in 'crushed' zones was pulverized along with the rest of materials. This was a very weak argument of that critic.
I encourage the reader to find for him/herself the amount of paper that was strewn after the catastrophic event. I was stating a valid observation that the nuclear detonation theory does not adequately address and, unsurprisingly, still doesn't. Why this is deemed a weak observation is beyond me.
Quote:
Regarding the squibs. I think they were exactly as described by otherwise cheating NIST Report: 'pockets of high pressure resulted from pancaking effect' (just only need to change word 'pancaking' to some other word).
What other word does he suggest? I do not want to hastily pass judgment. Dimitri is flip-flopping, if the NIST report supports his theory then it's good otherwise it is "cheating"! Can he explain how his blast wave would cause the effect he is referring to from the NIST report.
Quote:
Large' amounts of steel. This is nothing less than malicious manipulation with your ability to perceive things objectively. These allegedly 'large' amounts of steel were in fact 'negligibly little' amounts of steel, because 'large' amounts of steel were instantly transformed to complete microscopic dust (that allowed the Towers' tops to fall down at near free-fall speed as if under them was not any 'broken steel' but only an air alone) and these allegedly 'large' amount of steel that remained did not account even for 15% of the entire steel used in the Towers construction. Moreover, in my video it is successfully explained where this remaining steel beams (including 'buckled' ones) came from: they were from undamaged upper parts of the Twin Towers, plus, partly from some lowest parts of surviving Towers' corners.
I encourage the reader to verify this for themselves. Search YouTube for videos of WTC Steel Convoys for example.
This is from NY Daily: "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
USS New York was built using 24 tons of WTC steel
Jeff, you've interviewed many people who would know the amount, this would be an interesting point to verify. I think it is reasonable to say 180,000 tons of steel is a large amount.
On a completely different basis, how does the blast wave theory account for the state of the steel (as detailed in the inventory above - look at the images)?
Quote:
I have no obligation to explain any and every small detail about the 9/11 evidence. Be grateful that I explain to you the most important details. Besides, if I would proceed explaining such small details as alleged 'cars eroded from the top', then my video would last not 4 hours, but 20 hours and it would be totally unbearable to watch it for a lay viewer. However, I have an explanation, of course. There were two distinctly different kinds of cars that suffered on the 9/11. One was fully or partly molten cars that were parked very close to zones of high temperatures (i.e. very close to the holes leading to underground cavities left by recent underground nuclear explosions). Understandably, these 150 kiloton explosions released such high temperatures immediately after the WTC collapses (while dust was still airborne) that cars around were melted (they are quite thin, in fact). Some other cars were subjected to rapid erosion because of combination of the two factors - high temperatures and intense streams of vapors ascending from underground. However, there was a second type of 'damaged' cars - in much further distances from the 'ground zero' - so-called 'half-burned' and smashed cars. These are nothing else than planted evidence. Because initially it was decided to blame the WTC nuclear demolition (which was difficult to hide) on alleged 'nuclear suitcases' of Osama bin Laden, then, understandably some 'supporting evidence' was required. Therefore FBI and secret service agents were quickly dispatched with hammers and blow-lamps around the WTC to half-burn and smash the cars thus inflicting typical 'atomic' damages on them, allegedly caused by 'thermal radiation' and 'air-blast wave' - that could support the 'mini-nukes' version of the WTC demolition.
I beg your pardon! For a scientific theory to be considered, it must adequately address all observations made on the day. I will not accept an explanation of the "most important details", I want an explanation of *all* the details. Let's look at Dimitri's third and fourth responses, in the third response he states that some of the lower parts of the WTC building were not affected by the blast wave / high temperatures released, yet cars were.
If the vapors were "ascending" from underground, I would expect damage on the lower parts of the vehicles - tyres for example. This was not observed in abundance.
If his theory cannot account for the damage caused to some vehicles then they must have been planted. How convenient?
This explains, rather nicely, the low percentage of "acceptance".
12:39 PM Jul 13