by Dennis Cimino with Jim Fetzer
BREAKING NEWS: We have found a resolution that validates and integrates three apparently inconsistent positions (on the use of big nukes, small nukes and nanothermite) from respected experts on 9/11.
The contentious debate over how the Twin Towers were destroyed has pitted those favoring large (“basement”) nukes against those identifying small nukes distributed in the elevator shafts throughout the buildings against those promoting thermite (or “nanothermite”).
Some of the most interesting and important research on the mode of destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 has come from “the Anonymous Physicist”, who has endorsed the use of mini or micro nukes but has also suggested that a mix of devices was employed.
Having devoted several articles to the destruction of the Twin Towers and perhaps also of WTC-7 (“Building 7”) using mini or micro nukes, I regard it as of scientific value to review the bidding from time to time, in case something significant may have been overlooked.
The Anonymous Physicist has drawn a parallel between the efforts that have been made to obfuscate and confound the public about the death of JFK, which has been comparable to what has been done in relation to 9/11. As he observes,
With the analogous JFK assassination, when enough people saw that the patsy Oswald (himself CIA/ONI) could not be the culprit shooting from behind, as the fatal shot was from the front; the PTB put out a “Babel” of CONTROLLED alternatives: Mafia, LBJ, Cubans, Grassy Knoll, rogue elements, etc (some of which were involved). All of that was to hide the horrifying, ultimate truth that the alleged government protector did it—as has been discussed by Spooked previously.With 9/11, the Babel of planes/fuel/gravity, thermite/thermate, DEW, car bombs in the basement, and surely more to come, was waiting when a critical mass of people rejected the (always) ludicrous, official, “investigation” conclusion. The massive, rapid outward—as well as downward and upward—explosions of the two towers, the toasted cars (but not paper), and popping ceiling lights (Ondrovic—see below), the micron-sized dustification of tower contents, the levels of tritium and heavy metals, the underground molten steel and high temperatures weeks and months later, all can only be accounted for by nuclear devices and their EMPs.
He agrees with the Finnish expert that fission-free fusion devices were likely used, where the Finnish expert states that a 1 kiloton (TNT equivalent) basement fusion device was used on each tower. However, the Anonymous Physicist:
(a) believes that a total of 1/10th of that amount was more than sufficient, including the power needed for vaporization/dustification of each tower’s contents.
(b) believes this 1/10th kt total-energy-per-tower occurred in several blasts (per tower), and in just one per other WTC buildings (possibly 3, 4, 5, 6); and,
(c) believes that WTC-7 did not have a nuclear device used during “collapse” but could have had one just afterwards to vaporize evidence as all the federal alphabet agencies were in that building,–and it would have been the likely planning/command center for 9/11 with a lot of evidence to be definitively “lost.”
In this article, Dennis Cimino, who has made multiple contributions to the study of 9/11, Sandy Hook and other staged events, reconsiders the views of Dimitri Khazelov, which he suspects may hold new significance for at least one aspect of 9/11, even while continuing to endorse the pivotal role of micro or mini nukes.
On the lies swirling around us
by Dennis Cimino
On the morning of 11 September 2001, we were all treated to a mind numbing Max Headroom ‘stutter’ of video rubbish that forever indelibly imprinted the ostensibly ‘fake’ story that was MSM fabricated and repeatedly foisted upon our ill-prepared and unsuspecting minds that morning. Much of it clearly had to have been created at the very least, days before 9/11, by virtue of the fact you just don’t crank out CGI generated aircraft whacking a building with any modicum of realism of any kind in ten or fifteen minutes time without at the very least really wishing you hadn’t aired it.
That was the case with the two different trajectories of UA-175, one shown in Europe which was pretty much a 25 or more degree ‘nose down’ dive into the South Tower, and the U.S. ‘enthralled and transfixed’ in horror morons got to see a plane appear just popping into the frame without proper entry, flying a very flat and straight and level trajectory, and nary an image of the other tower hi–even with the Naudet brothers on the ground with camera lenses pointed skyward to catch it all.
The nose-out phenomenon
Needless to say, CNN did screw up on the air at least once that morning, the forward nose of UA-175 barreling out of the other side, more or less unscathed and not blunted, and then the 75 or so feet of forward nose and fuselage then just magically ‘vaporize’ and went nowhere else.
The next airing of that same sequence is with a black bar that prohibits you from seeing this obvious goofy screwup that a sequence editor clearly missed before he vetted the thing for prime time foisting on the sheeple that Day of Infamy.
It took some of us years to go back and re-examine this stuff with a very critical eye, and indeed many like me were hard to sell the ‘no planes’ theory because we had all seen it on our television sets that morning over and over and over and over again. So, ten years later, some of us took a much closer and very hard look at the physics and the impossible airspeed, which such wide bodied jets could never achieve (512 knots, indicated air speed) at more or less 700 feet above ground in very cold dense air that morning.
The impossible entry
A few experts, like John Lear, made exceptional notes of it even before he knew the preposterous speeds they reported that radar track had been recorded in RADES 84 data moving at on it’s way to impact. Things like ‘no shadows’ and when you slow that video down frame by frame then pieces of the plane ‘disappear’ and then magically ‘reappear’ before impact with a very very hard building with a static mass many thousands of times greater than even a 512 knot, 110 ton aircraft with inertia built up behind it.
Lear’s US District Court affidavit is perhaps the most lucid and logical assessment ever advanced about this matter (one minor error notwithstanding). He hits the nail on the head. It’s nonsense to expect the plane (Flight 175) to not have done an “accordion” upon impact with the South Tower, had a real plane actually hit the building. Moreover, the structure would have swayed from the transfer of energy, which did not happen–for the obvious reason that no transfer of energy occurred (it was not a real plane).
He noted that nothing came off the parts impacting the exoskeleton of the building, and this was STEEL and not aluminum, so it was pretty substantial even at that level of the building. No luggage, bodies, or internal components bounced off the rather substantial and at rest mass of the South Tower.
Amazingly, no deceleration could be discerned as the plane effortlessly slid into a steel structure without even deforming. No strobes, no reflections off the plane’s shiny skin coming from the light of the day on the building just immediately before impact and, much to my chagrin when I looked, no signs of ‘wingtip vortices’, which would have been substantially powerful vortices at that speed and which would have no choice but to impact the building post-crash and cause swirl patterns in the smoke which were not evident at all. Meaning: no lift was being generated by those wings on UA-175, which is aerodynamically impossible.
The gullible public
To the layperson, that is not a problem, because most have no clue that the wing generates these vortices once it’s at least ½ wingspan above the ground in height generating flight. In any case, the clues of CGI fakery were multitudinous and quite obvious once you looked, especially if you ever bothered to watch the late Gerard Holmgren’s presentations about the fakery. He laid it out so well that not even a layperson could come away without substantial ‘doubts’ about what they thought they had seen. Gerard’s work was a lasting gift to our sanity, but many know not of it.
My reason for bringing up that CGI fakery is because we saw many things that day in mind numbing repetition, which we bought without reservation, but upon maybe even the closest look or glancing blow of application of logic, the information jammed into our optic nerves was anything but reality based. Colossal fireballs, black smoke billowing, an engine hurtling out through the side of the South Tower that later would be proven to have forced the ‘planting’ of the WRONG ENGINE TYPE on a sidewalk UNDER A SCAFFOLD while onlookers watched guys unload it with a hand truck from a white van and then depart. But they dropped off a JT-9 engine, which United did not use on its B-767s.
They also left a Dave Clark aviation headset with helicopter interface cord,next to this ‘wrong power plant’ they stood on end, and–get this–they left the hand-truck behind, too! You cannot make this stuff up, really. The WRONG engine was planted by people we presumed to be F.B.I., but who they really were remains a mystery. Clearly to grab the ‘wrong’ engine and drop it off shows a lot of haste and lack of preparation, but maybe that was done on purpose. Maybe these obvious screw ups have been like recent hoaxes where they leave clear red herring clues that are in reality, non-sequiturs like Dorner’s twice found wallet had been in that hoax. That’s a bit beyond incompetent, isn’t it?
Doubting my lying eyes
Anyway, like many others, I began to doubt what my lying eyes had told me. Sure we saw that plane impact over and over again. But we also never here in the U.S. saw the same sequence of the same exact alleged plane coming down at a very steep angle to impact. How can it be both ways? In the U.S. version, the plane is straight and level. Not so in Europe. And yeah, in the U.S. version the plane doesn’t come into the frame from the right side of the screen, it just materializes there and continues as if it beamed there from an alternate reality somewhere.
Notwithstanding the things noted about the obviously CGI generated plane that never breaks a sweat entering a moderately resisting steel structure, the plane at least in one view by CNN comes out the other side unscathed and not deformed or blunted after hurtling through thick steel columns that it couldn’t possibly have missed all of them on the way through at that angle. So what gives? Very good question.
We bought so much fakery that in two months we were so brainwashed and numb we could barely stand to look at a TV screen for fear we wouldn’t see that same plane barrel into the tower and enter it totally without a counter reaction upon impact with it. Yes there was a fireball and yes there was a slotted entry, but here again, even the slot dihedral angle of the B-767 wing doesn’t match up. Sure the airfoil would be somewhat distorted maybe in a dive maneuver and then pull out before impact but as we saw in the U.S. there was no dive. So, why the wing dihedral change? Dihedral is the angle of incidence with the fuselage that is engineered into the aircraft to create ROLL STABILITY and enhance that characteristic in the flight performance of the machine.
Flight 175 still in the air
So, we know the wing had a set dihedral and more or less would not have a reason to be different on impact with a building given the fact that no apparent resistance of any kind was seen in video analysis by virtue of no deceleration occurring post impact. John Lear called it right, and many of us experienced pilots also did. Some of us knew that even a modified B-767 couldn’t get to ‘512’ knots at 700 AGL (above ground level) under any conditions, due to the drag coefficient going up by the CUBED as speed increases in dense air.
So, nobody in the general population batted an eye when the government released the speed data from the radar track of UA-175, which, by the way, was still in the air over a place far far far away, post impact, by virtue of it’s ACARS DATA LINK transmissions which UA dispatch person Ballinger had good solid notes about, which he presented to the 9/11 ConMission people, no doubt keeping his original printouts in an undisclosed location. Today that data is in NARA archives under TOP SECRET classification, for only one good reason. They want that cat in the bag.
In two places at the same time
So we have aircraft doing impossible things, going too fast, coming out the other side, and their data links operating for hundreds of miles after the planes were allegedly fully destroyed. How can this be? How can anyone believe the real UA-175 and real UA-93 could have been destroyed when ACARS data shows this not to be true? How?
My point is that in eleven now going on twelve years, we have had a lot of time to look at still shots and videos of the day. Ostensibly these little clues all lead at least in my mind, to a glaring fact. That fact is that the planes allegedly that had struck these buildings and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania no way could be ‘destroyed’ and in fact they remained in the F.A.A. aircraft registry for more than 4 full years after they were allegedly irrevocably totally utterly in pieces. Make any sense? Not on your life. The aircraft we knew as American 11, and its sister ship, American 77, were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics records.
We have no real evidence to support UA 11’s impact with the North Tower other than the video fakery. As for FLT-77, anyone looking at the Pentagon lawn 9 minutes later in photos saw virtually NO WRECKAGE until a C-130 piloted by Cdr. O’Brien of the Air National Guard, began to seed wreckage from a BUGA COLOMBIA crash that took place in December of 1995.
One piece even had jungle vine still wrapped on it after it landed on the previously post crash PRISTINE lawn. People like Mike Rivero swear on a stack of bibles we are ‘pod people’ for asking where 100 tons of airplane went because there are no wing slots nor are there engine penetrations of the façade. And, not one drop of JET A fuel on the lawn after the alleged nearly full airplane struck ‘6’ poles on it’s approach at 465 knots, again, an impossible speed due to phenomenal drag resistance at such low altitudes in cold dense air.
Impossible speed at low altitude
Top speed down there not much better than 365 knots max, per BOEING’s assertions during a phone call with one of their test pilots. Those of us who ask; “where is the 100 tons of wreckage at” get; “Oh, you’re pod people” by Rivero and other shills. Clearly they cannot think us to be that stupid.
So, my point is that the things we thought we knew were not necessarily based in hard reality. You cannot have so many departures from laws of physics and aeronautical science to then come to believe what you thought you saw was remotely valid. Planes that are destroyed cannot have operational data links over which the pilots have no control–and for hundreds of miles after they have crashed. So what gives? How can this be?
We have seen for decades how HowLieWood has in move after movie after movie shown us space wars, building being blown up that never were harmed, and impossible feats in fantasmagorical fashion in many many movies and for that matter, television series shown us since the mid to late 1960’s. Then in, oh, about 1968 or so, COLOR came around and gave us much more realism with studio effects that for the most part till computer technology became widely used, was not so badly done using simpler tools that required skill but no computers to create these fake realities in movies.
Other examples of fakery
For decades we had been pre programmed with this nonsense till we blindly began to extrapolate that kind of stuff into everyday life. I’ve seen real a real building in Los Angeles blow up, I have witnessed plane crashes, and seen automobiles crash in real life. Seldom do these things happen with the dramatic visual effects that you see in movie theaters.
In any case, I want to bring up a very powerful example. In 1969, we were shown a lunar landing that by any sane person’s estimation, could not have occurred with visual cues that show STUDIO LIGHTING and LUNAR WINDS (blowing a flag around in a vacuum) and yes, shadows being cast in differing directions on the lunar surface when only ONE light source bright enough to cast them, was the SUN and it wasn’t hop scotching around in space far as I know, so shadows showing multiple incident light from more than one source on the moon were not possible. Yet they happened.
Back in that very, very, sad Stanley-Kubrick-created fakery, we saw a 10 thousand pound thrust main engine not blow a large crater under the LEM, and we didn’t see any dust blown into the landing pads on the end of the main landing gear struts. In 1/6th gravitational field that is not possible. Nor is it possible that when an astronaut falls forward that his ass is lifted when the guy helping him is in front of him, clearly by a wire from above. Yet it took place. On Apollo 11. What also happened is an Astronaut named Neil Armstrong stepped off the LEM into inches of very fine dust that the main engine would have blown away all the way to bedrock as the LEM landed that day.
So many signs of fakery, including faces not being allowed to be seen in what would appear to have been mirrored helmet visors when in fact even the reflections on those don’t work, AND we see flags waving in a breeze that cannot possibly be there, and we even have camera crosshair placement that cannot be and clearly doesn’t work. So many clues of fakery we missed then, too, including that the landing pads would have left marks showing how they slid in the soft dust on touchdown, because of the cantilever shock-absorbing action of the struts. That no such sliding took place indicates that the LEM was put in place by being lowered using an overhead crane. For decades we missed indications like these.
Signs of foreknowledge of 9/11
We had so many chances to see through the obvious rubbish and ruses but today, I would bet that in light of calling out these insidiously simple facts, people will decry I am a ‘moon bat’ for inferring that our astronauts defied the VAN ALLEN RADIATION region around the earth which would have FRIED THEM on the way to the moon, and pointing out these facts seen with a wind whipped by fans flag in a LUNAR STUDIO SET and an impossibly crane placed LUNAR LEM lander that looks like it was set there and nary disturbed a single pebble or blew dust into the lander’s pads as it touched down. C’mon folks. Really.
Series 9/Episode 1, 21 September 1997, opens with “New York 9/11”, focuses on the Twin Towers, and ends with a lavish animation of the Washington Bridge, which was also a target. It wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t just also rub our noses in our ignorance and blind acceptance of stuff that wouldn’t cut it in a bad B GRADE MOVIE. Yet we bought it all, and ignored the nose rubbing in the poo like the SIMPSONS hint above that took place long before 9/11 was a dream in the Israeli PM’s nut sack. We get played. They toss up hints before the ruses are even pulled off, and in a way, it subliminally preps you for just rote acceptance of what rational people could never possibly accept.
In any case, I went long in this pass here but the reason is, the situation we have is that per these observations, we all have been asleep at the proverbial reality wheel for a long time here. They pull these things off, and we just buy them. Our brains having been pre conditioned for years to go in the direction of, “Oh hell, if it looks even remotely possible, I will buy it even with a nonsensical explanation” and that, when our brains say to us, “That does not compute.” Most are incapable of even thinking, much less computing anything.
Volcanoes of vermiculite
So, back on to the picture featured here. Clearly, that is hundreds of tons of pulverized VERMICULITE used in the floor slabs of the WTC towers. According to NIST the steel weakened and the buildings, floor by floor, pancaked and crushed everything. Well, in a movie studio that might happen, but not in real life. In real life, things just don’t instantly pulverize without a massive application of a lot of force. Granted, the asbestos-laden VERMICULITE is not concrete.
It’s significantly more like gypsum or DRYWALL and as many of us have seen in our own homes, a pissed off kid or spouse can drive a fist through that without going to the hospital for treatment. Surely though, this asbestos and less hardened fire retardant floor material used could not be so pulverized in totality more or less in the same instant without a huge amount of force being brought to bear on it.
So how did that force come into existence and how did it get applied to make almost all of the vermiculite material completely fall apart and become dust not floor by floor but before the structure had even fully gotten to the half way implosion point. How could it happen? How could the aggregate totality of every pound of the floor slab material all in an instant be pulverized?
Vermiculite is fibrous and therefore by the very nature of that mixture, tends to much more evenly disperse force in multiple off impact vectors so that you might drive your fist through a wall but the rest of the wall remains solid and relatively not turned to dust. Much more rigid concrete on the other hand, shatters and because it doesn’t yield easily, tends to fracture and break up in larger chunks long before it turns to a powder state.
What was real, what was not
I pondered that for a long time and drew some amazing conclusions that until further notice need to be examined better to fully get a handle on what was ‘real’ that day and what could not be real. I began to really question the validity of much of the stuff we saw presented to us that day. Over and over and over again, we saw planes that simply did not get destroyed, allegedly slam into a building effortlessly and then blow up once inside of the building, in that case, the South WTC tower. On it’s face we have over decades been pre-programmed by not only MSM with rubbish, but by HowLieWood fakery that entertained us for all those years. The end result is a population that is best characterized by a movie called, “Idiocracy”
My main intent here wasn’t to spend the whole column pointing at the fakery, but it was important to preface the main course of this too long meal with some rationale about how and why we got so easily rooked. Some of us are a bit brighter, have the physics backgrounds, the common sense, and the ability to think. Yet, in ten years how many would dare talk about ‘no planes’ involved in the 9/11 hoaxing? That group is growing by the way, but it’s still in it’s infancy. After 12 years now and then some, you’d expect more people to be questioning ALL OF IT. Not happening that way quite as fast as it should. Meaning, the social programming of nonsensical muck on the tube has brought us to a place where ridiculously bad crap gets eaten up and incorporated into people’s psyche’s and then spit out again in echo-chamber repetition of rote memorized excuses and epithets hurled to demean and demoralize those of us who see the fakery.
What I meant to get into right off the bat is that the video, the still photos, and much of the narrative pre-programmed us to accept muck we otherwise would not have. Very few of us saw that top photo and understood the totality of that shot. Many would go, “So what?”, and not think twice. But to any person with any background in testing of materials and matter in a real world, you cannot see that without understanding that if it is real, that virtually all of the flooring in the buildings was rendered unto dust not floor by floor, but almost in one instant. And that is very, very telling.
Khazelov’s theory of 150kt nukes
We have had people like Khazelov come forward and tell us about nuclear weapons being used at WTC in NYC that day. His main theory is that 150kt weapons were used in all ‘3’ out of a total of ‘4’ utterly destroyed and demolished, in one case, cratered as was WTC-6, buildings. That is like using the same size hammer to drive railroad spikes and thumb tacks. May be a bad example but excessive force in that range would have probably destroyed much of lower Manhattan that morning not just from blast damage but by radiation. Some of us had asserted, unlike Khazelov, that ‘mini’ or ‘micro nukes’ had been used, but they could not so instantly and totally render ALL of the vermiculite material in the floor slabs unto dust in an instant as apparently was the case here.
Yes, we can also say, “Oh, it wasn’t an instant–it took seconds”, which is also true, but the total collapse sequence took almost 10 seconds per tower and same goes for WTC-7 which went down a bit later than BBC planned by their script because they reported it down on a broadcast a full half an hour or so before it actually IMPLODED by controlled demolition squibs and charges. We know that from the morning till 5:20 PM that insufficient time elapsed to put charges in as Silverstein asserted because he had admitted the building was damaged and had to be ‘pulled’ and so it was. But clearly that sequence had started before Barry Jennings got evacuated because the lower lobby was more or less destroyed with dead bodies in the lobby long before he got taken out by fire-fighters who came to get him out.
All total, we had ‘4’ buildings completely utterly destroyed. Allegedly ‘2’ planes were involved. Then magically the week or more long work to put in charges in WTC-7 got done in a few short hours. Really?
In my final analysis here, I had cited to others that the neutron radiation from even small devices would have cause a huge amount of X-radiation to occur, by a phenomenon called “Bremsstrahlung” emission of X-radiation. If Khazelov was right, the steel in the WTC towers would have created enough of that to really ‘fry’ people just like the Van Allen radiation would have fried the Apollo 11 crew on their way to the Moon in 1969. And we do have reports of persons being “vaporized” in the vicinity on the otherwise pretty evacuated streets that day, which further confirms the use of nukes to take them down. And as many as 1000 may have been turned to toast in the building itself, where Don Fox has an excellent article discussing this issue, including a segment of an interview with Fr. Frank Morales, a first responder, on “The Real Deal”.
We can count out the 4000 recipients of the ODIGO messages that warned Jewish people not to come, but that still doesn’t explain the dearth of people in that area that morning at a time when it’s normally teeming with workers. In a very real sense, this effect cited above would have irradiated so many people on the streets and in adjacent buildings who were watching. And, this effect would have probably done considerable damage to solid state electronics nearby for at least a good 1/8th of a mile in all directions, perhaps not uniformly so but still it would have been a major problem in the aftermath. Radios still worked locally. Even a helicopter flying close enough and would have been adversely impacted and possibly brought down, wasn’t even fazed. So nuclear artifacts you’d expect were notably not there. Only question here is what kind of nuclear device deviates so grossly from what we know about them from their uses across the globe in test after test after test?
In any case, the look at the evidence that this piece is intended to hopefully trigger, isn’t intended to cause rancor and general bickering amongst co-workers and others who get into discussions about the fakery, but what the intent is here is to get people to ask again, maybe for the first time; “what the hell happened that day?” and not let others tell you by ‘consensus’ that this is the ONLY way to the truth. That word equates to ‘group think’ in reality. No TRUTH can come from that. No way.
So, Khazelov may not have had it right but he was on the right path, because the total pulverization of the floor slabs of VERMICULITE fibrous material of gypsum and drywall and other components of concrete, made it impossible for floor by floor, NIST pulverization to happen without adding a whole lot of time to the collapse and hence really prolonged the near free fall speeds we saw that day.
Nuking the Twin Towers on 9/11
Guys like Don Fox, and Jeff Prager, and many of us contended that something unusual and well beyond just thermite was employed to do this to these buildings, especially WTC towers 1 and 2. For what it’s worth, WTC-7 more or less has all the earmarks of classical, very, very, very tried and true Controlled Demolition using thermite charges to cut the core out first. We saw the squibs firing, heard the pops. Down it came, about half hour after the BBC script said it did. And, what happened to WTC-6 that hollowed it out like a spoon in soft ice cream that day? Chuck Boldwyn’s presentation proved that the undamaged mass of the WTC towers could not have been brought down by a small percentage of the buildings being asymmetrically damaged by alleged plane impacts.
In any case my assertion is two-fold:
One: Much of what we thought we saw clearly was not reality. Unfortunately, it’s too late to erase our brains of it. It’s in there, indelibly imprinted on our psyche’s forever till we die.
Two: We need to cull out the stuff that the government has strewn into the mix that lessens the degree of certainty to the point of dissuading sane and thoughtful people from even bothering to question the official nonsense and fantastic story that 19 guys with box cutters who were mostly proven to be still alive days later, overcame NORAD defenses and flew planes beyond their capability and experience in ways only professional seasoned pilots might do or achieve.
But what we can do is ask how the X-radiation issue got dodged and didn’t occur if as we believe, nuclear devices of a ‘small’ size were used. Clearly even controlled demolition could NOT have almost simultaneously end-to-end, pulverize every cubic meter of vermiculite used in the WTC tower flooring. But something did that on 9/11.
So, what did it? RDX didn’t do it. It’s a powerful and moderately heavy type of highly energetic explosive that is used to blow things to smithereens. If one were to sit down and try to force transfer the amount of that to pulverization of all of the vermiculite at once more or less and then we have a problem. I don’t think they could have installed so much RDX in the towers even given a lot of time, without causing the threat of an accidental detonation of it by things you cannot control that act as ‘initiators’ of the explosions. The proponents of ‘Oh, they put these in during construction’ have no clue what EMI (electromagnetic interference) and or HIRF. Joe Kennedy, Jr., knew for a brief instant as his bomber got vaporized by that, while fully loaded with ordnance.
Concluding mixed reflections
It’s pretty clear that Khazelov may have been partially correct, albeit he used a broad brush to paint both slats and toothpicks. And, he got the yields wrong for the type of damage done. But, it is beginning to look like he was right insofar as high yield devices were employed from the bottom up. These devices were so powerful that pulverizing the vermiculite was not a big problem when the charge was detonated in a fashion that vectors the force almost entirely into the targeted material. From the basement, that means ‘up’, for sure.
The buildings were being destroyed from the bottom up in close proximity to being blow apart from the top down using micro or mini nukes inside the elevator shafts, where the falling debris masked the more powerful explosions necessary to destroy the lower, thicker portions of the towers. The suppression of the blast shockwave and the noted X-radiation and even neutron problem might have been aided by the instant pulverization of a material that by it’s very nature would have interfered with the effect that is known as “Bremsstrahlung” by suppressing the direct electron interaction during the detonation, in much the same way that boron interferes with neutrons.
Needless to say, sound waves are diffused by clouds of heavy rain, and dust, and in this case, finely particulate suspended in air matter, effectively attenuating or rolling off the sharp impulse ‘bang’ that would have been heard but was not heard. Sure firemen heard in the buildings; “bang bang bang bang bang bang”, over and over, again in squib firing precision sequencing. We know that, in addition to heavier than normal demolition charges, that cutter charges were instrument in destroying the Twin Towers.
It was an unprecedented and risky gamble that, while the top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted to the side, they were able to blow it before it could could come crashing to the ground. And thermite charges were used as core column cutters because the angular cuts are evident IMMEDIATELY in the rubble not done days later as some would irresponsibly assert in the blogs. So, in a way, those who have pointed the finger at thermite are in their own way, partially correct. It was employed but not the principal cause of the buildings’ demolition.
Twelve plus years has elapsed and we are close but no cigar yet. We know more, but we also know ‘less’ in that so much obfuscation and rubbish has emerged that five years ago we were probably in some ways better off not having heard some of that. But we are getting closer. From the perspective of psychology, the public has had an extremely difficult time accepting the idea that the security companies that were supposed to be protecting the buildings were engaged in preparing them for destruction and that the government on which we depend for our own nation’s security would so grossly violate it to promote a political agenda.
Dennis Cimino, who has extensive engineering and support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to work for Raytheon in the 1980s.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]