911 WTC nuclear demolition Dimitri Khalezov

[/tab]

.

911 WTC nuclear demolition Dimitri Khalezov - 13 parts interview

[youtube:2gup57dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzwyPRgY9o[/youtube]2gup57dx]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzwyPRgY9o

[youtube:2gup57dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4pwJzK8Dk[/youtube]2gup57dx]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4pwJzK8Dk

[youtube:2gup57dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xa8cErtJhY[/youtube]2gup57dx]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xa8cErtJhY

From now you can continue with automatically Playlist funktions, just select "Play all videos"

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... CFA1F2EA2D

.
.

[/tab]

.


Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks



Ground zero workers and cancer
On November 28, 2006, the Village Voice reported that several dozen recovery personnel have developed cancer – as opposed to having contracted respiratory ailments, and that doctors have argued that some of these cancers developed as a result of the exposure to toxins at the Ground Zero site: "To date, 75 recovery workers at ground zero have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure."

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/

Mount Sinai Medical Center is conducting an ongoing monitoring program, World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program.[16] A leader of Mt. Sinai monitoring efforts is Stephen M. Levin, Medical Director of the Mount Sinai – Irving J. Selikoff Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine.[17] First responders met in a conference, November 11, 2006 in an effort to monitor responders' health. The event was organized by the World Trade Center Monitoring Program.

http://www.wtcexams.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

Cancer question complicates 9/11 deal
Linking disease to exposure to toxic dust from WTC site proves elusive - March 27, 2010



Firefighters make their way over the ruins of the World Trade Center through clouds of dust and smoke on Oct. 11, 2001, a month after thre deadly terror attack. Hundreds of people are suing New York City over cancer diagnoses they received after working at ground zero.

By DAVID B. CARUSO

updated 1:23 p.m. ET March 27, 2010
NEW YORK - Of all the illnesses people fear might be caused by toxic dust from the World Trade Center, nothing scares people like cancer.

Hundreds of people are suing New York City over cancer diagnoses they received after working at ground zero. A judge last week rejected a $575 million legal settlement for thousands of sick 9/11 responders in part because he thought it should contain more money for cancer victims.

Yet, statistics show that cancer rates among those who worked in trade center rubble are in line with rates among the general public.

The three major research efforts tracking the health of ground zero responders have so far failed to turn up evidence linking any type of cancer to the dust.

Many of the cancers now afflicting ground zero workers are common. There are plenty of theories as to how the dust might cause cancer, but little proof. Even the scientists most concerned about a potential tie say the length of time it takes for many cancers to develop means it could be years before cases related to 9/11 begin to emerge.

That lack of evidence has complicated efforts to craft a compensation package for sick workers.

With as many as 10,000 workers claiming illnesses, the lawyers trying to hammer out a settlement and lawmakers working on a 9/11 health bill in Washington have faced a tough question: Do they dedicate the bulk of money to people with ailments where there has been stronger evidence of a tie to ground zero, like asthma and other respiratory diseases? Or, do they set aside more for people with deadly, but common, cancers that may or may not be related to the attacks?

'Very different injury'
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein noted the dilemma last week when he shot down a settlement that would have resolved nearly 10,000 lawsuits over post-9/11 illnesses.

"Cancer is a very difficult injury," he said. "Who can really say how a cancer is caused?"

In the end, the judge suggested he was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the sick.

"The people who went in to 9/11 did not make calculations on cancers and whether they would get or wouldn't get cancer. ... They responded," he said. He said a part of the settlement that capped payments at $100,000 for people who develop the disease in the future was inadequate.

"I think there is more money to pay for the cancers, given all the issues, given all the problems with it," the judge said.

There is no doubt that cancer has claimed the lives of many responders.

New York's state health department, which tracked fatalities for several years among the roughly 40,000 ground zero workers, confirmed at least 250 cancer-related deaths though June 2009. Analysis of other deaths is ongoing.

Many other police, firefighters and construction workers who worked with the dust have fallen ill.

Candiace Baker, a retired New York City police detective, said at a court hearing last week that she was diagnosed with breast cancer after spending many days sifting rubble at a Staten Island landfill. She said she wore a particle-filtering respirator, but is convinced the dust gave her cancer anyway.

"It is not a coincidence," she said.


Frequent killer
Doctors note, however, that cancer causes nearly one of every four deaths in the U.S. and is a frequent killer even among people in their 40s and 50s. And a woman's average lifetime risk for breast cancer is one in eight.

"In any population of 40,000 people over an 8 1/2-year span, there is going to be cancer. That is a known fact," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, who oversees the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program at Mount Sinai Hospital, one of the three major efforts to study the health of the workers.

Mount Sinai has found no notable spike yet in cancers among the 27,000 ground zero workers it has been tracking, Landrigan said.

Top doctors for the Fire Department, who are conducting a second big study involving 15,000 firefighters, have said they also found no clear increase in cancers. The third and biggest effort, being conducted by the city's health department also hasn't found elevated cancer rates among 71,000 Lower Manhattan residents.

That doesn't mean there is no danger, Landrigan said.

"We know full well that there were carcinogens at ground zero. There was asbestos. There was benzene. There were other things," Landrigan said.

He said he and other researchers had "big concerns" that cancer clusters will emerge as the years go by.

Scientists think environmental toxins cause cancer by damaging cells, which then go through a series of mutations before becoming malignant. That mutation process usually takes place very slowly.

Malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos, for example, can take 30 years to manifest, which means that if trade center dust does indeed cause cancer, it would likely not start appearing until after the present court cases are resolved.

All of those uncertainties had been reflected in the court fight.

Proving a link
An analysis performed by two court-appointed officials in September said that of the 802 plaintiffs then involved in the case who claimed to have cancer, 188 said they had skin cancer, 107 said they had lung cancer, 95 said they had lymphoma, 68 had prostate cancer and 66 had liver cancer. Those five types of cancer are all common.

One defendant in the case, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had asked the judge to order the plaintiffs to provide more proof of a link between cancer and the trade center dust.

"Even if WTC debris were potentially carcinogenic, it is unlikely — indeed, without compelling evidence, scientifically impossible — that numerous cancers would have already arisen from the plaintiffs' relatively recent and short-term exposures to WTC debris," lawyers for the agency wrote.

Before the settlement was announced, a dozen cases were set to go to trial, starting in May.

One involved a firefighter who died of esophageal cancer in 2007 at age 47. His lawyers were prepared to argue that ingested dust from the trade center gave him acid reflux, which in turn damaged the cells in his throat, which then caused his cancer.

A number of studies have documented high rates of acid reflux disease among ground zero responders.

Those trials are now on hold, as is the settlement, while the lawyers on each side decide what to do next.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36065189/ns/health-cancer/

.
.

[/tab]

.



The Youtube Homesite for the videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/911thology#p/u

.
.

[abduLMaria]

it is normal for the Zionists to try out new war toys on their various military adventures.

for example, they trotted out the F-117A stealth fighter for some of the early attacks in Bush 41's Desert Storm.

i think the 911 operation was so mission critical that they only used technologies with an "usage history", maybe call 'em "tried & true" technologies.

if nuclear weapons were used on 9-11, i doubt it was the first time.  if i was the Israeli project manager for the demolitions, there is NO WAY i would allow any new technologies into the project - not when existing technologies are adequate to the task.

i'm not saying nukes weren't used on 9-11.  i'm saying if they were used, the 9-11 perpetrators had prior experience - successful experience - with the technology.

[/tab]

.



pedropicasso41

Very interesting Dimitri. Thank you for sharing your information. Watched all 26
Is there more after 26? Who are the perpetrators in your view? And if no planes flew into WTC 1 and 2 . What took place there? The "no plane theory " seems to be the weakest link in your story. How fast can you edit a fake plane video and distribute that? 2 dagar sedan (First days of Abril 2010)


911thology (Dimitri)

pedropicasso41 - Thanks. I don't want to name here the one who did it, for even though I didn't name anyone yet, by now I am already marked on some chauvinistic web site as 'potentially harmful to Jews and/or Israel'. Regarding 'no-planes' argument - I know that this issue is very sensitive because it allegedly 'divides 9/11 truthers'. However I don't care about them. 2 dagar sedan (First days of Abril 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Wbh32W2uc

.


.

[/tab]

.

I think this interview  in the link here under can help a lot to explain this "Demolition to Dust" fenomena and the Plasma left underground burning for months !

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10573

.
.

Now you "Admin" Who moved the Post I did post under False Flag today ( 911 WTC nuclear demolition Dimitri Khalezov viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10573 ), you moved it under the  "Nonsense" Section , You don't have the right - Now you put it back right now  !
It's not NONSENSE UNTIL we have a DEBATE on that - Who are you moving files here without a Debate ? Did you listen to the Soviet EXPERT? Isn't the ISSUES Related TO DEMOLITION worth SPEAKING OF ?

You can't  just move the POST without a fair debate, what are you afraid of ? put IT back , let's have the debate  -THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT RIGHT !

WHO ARE YOU CENSORING THIS VERY IMPORTANT PART ABOUT DEMOLITIONS WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ?  DID YOU LISTEN TO THE WHOLE INTERVIEW ? REALLY ? DON*T YOU RECOGNIZE A EXPERT WHEN YOU HEAR ONE ? THIS RUSSIAN CAN THE ISSUE ! I AND HE IS SAYING THE ZION EMPIRE IS INVOLVED!

I CLAIM THE RIGHT TO DEBATE ! THERE you go speaking about how they Censoring the talks about the Holocaust but if you gonna censore this without a debate then you are are not better that them ! Respond Now !
.
.

[/tab]

.

Nonsense is to put censorship on this important issue without having a debate, here is my claim

viewtopic.php?f=34&p=39712#p39712

.
.

[MikeWB]

Hey tab, you can still debate bullshit in "Nonsense" section :lol:.

Nukes took towers  down? You sure it wasn't the space lasers and energy beams?  :roll:

Thread will remain in Nonsense because it is nonsense. Debate it there all you want with whomever wants to debate it there.

That Russian guy is saying that Zionists did it and then that nukes were used so that people dismiss both notions. This is how red herrings work when used for disinformation purposes... tell something truthful and then envelop in in such a grand bullshit that both are eventually classified as bullshit.

Any talk about nukes should be done in that thread, not in this thread. That's thread derailment if there ever was one. I'll move all these posts to that thread.

[/tab]

Hey tab, you can still debate bullshit in "Nonsense" section :lol:..

You are telling me kind of "you can still eat food from the trashcan, nice from you *Mike*

Nukes took towers  down? You sure it wasn't the space lasers and energy beams?  :roll:

We have here a former Soviet expert on the field of nuclear excavations telling us many facts, but you are not gonna listen to him, because you are gonna keeping on listening to Coast to Coast and give us Gordon Freeman trash but when we others wanna discuss DEMOLITION technics, then we can eat trash food, well, the matter is that we have this two points that you "Coast-to-Coast-Mike" CAN*T deny, as follows

* Aluminium CAN*T go through/penetrate STEEL (not below under MACH Speed)

* Thermite CAN*T keep/create high temperatures that keep going on for Months and Thermite CAN*T melt materia into PLASMA

* DIMITRI was working at the USSR with his team taking care of the underground  NUCLEAR BLOWS - they were doing this job in order to Create Underground valves to keep in store lots of GAS coming from the oil industry.

* The 9/11 first responders are getting Cancer illness.

Thread will remain in Nonsense because it is nonsense. Debate it there all you want with whomever wants to debate it there.

Then  I claim a Remedy, I suggest TiU create a New Topic  wich can be named "Speculation Thread" or whatever, Just don't Trash ideas without debate

That Russian guy is saying that Zionists did it and then that nukes were used so that people dismiss both notions.

He's is not saying that in the Interview, that proves that you don't even took a look to the material, that make you  Not-adequate/Not appropriate to mantle the role as a Admin, but you can always change your ways because we want to discuss ideas and obtain some Knowledge of the discussions

This is how red herrings work when used for disinformation purposes... tell something truthful and then envelop in in such a grand bullshit that both are eventually classified as bullshit.

I already make my point above when I noticed that you don't even took a look to the material, is PURE DOGMA coming from  your mouth

Any talk about nukes should be done in that thread, not in this thread.

But not automatically in the Nonsense topic without discussion - Create then another Topic and Call it "Speculation" then I agree to discuss something there.


 

That's thread derailment if there ever was one. I'll move all these posts to that thread.

I don't know your background Pal but this is a Research / investigation Forum, so, get me the remedy and create a solution - I already did proposal ONE above

.
.

[MikeWB]

Where's radiation and nuclear byproducts? Oh wait, there is none because there was no nuke! Do you have any idea how far a nuclear fallout would stretch? You'd have scientists from around the country and world record increase in isotopes.

 All you have is some bullshit russian disinfo agent selling something.

PLEASE, quit posting idiotic bullshit to TiU.

PS: No amount of capitalization and use of size tags will make something that's false, true.

[/tab]

Where's radiation and nuclear byproducts? Oh wait, there is none because there was no nuke! Do you have any idea how far a nuclear fallout would stretch? You'd have scientists from around the country and world record increase in isotopes.

 All you have is some bullshit russian disinfo agent selling something.

PLEASE, quit posting idiotic bullshit to TiU.

Is a 26 parts long interview, he explain all this in very detailed form. The radiation is underground. He is talking about an underground blast. He's a expert on the field. Well, over to you, it is you the one calling other's post idiotic - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THEN THE MELT CORE OF PLASMA CREATED UNDER THE 9/11 DAY ?

.
.

[MikeWB]

Where's radiation and nuclear byproducts? Oh wait, there is none because there was no nuke! Do you have any idea how far a nuclear fallout would stretch? You'd have scientists from around the country and world record increase in isotopes.

 All you have is some bullshit russian disinfo agent selling something.

PLEASE, quit posting idiotic bullshit to TiU.

Is a 26 parts long interview, he explain all this in very detailed form. The radiation is underground. He is talking about an underground blast. He's a expert on the field. Well, over to you, it is you the one calling other's post idiotic - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THEN THE MELT CORE OF PLASMA CREATED UNDER THE 9/11 DAY ?

.
.

Underground blast?   Is this why buildings fell from the top? :lol:

Here's a clue for you: even if the explosion is underground nuclear fallout creeps up to the top. This nuke theory is even dumber than that space laser and energy beams theory! At least lasers don't leave a radioactive signature.... that no one can detect.

I'm done posting here and wasting my time.

PS: How can someone who's been here for so long fall for this nonsense???

[/tab]

.

The thing is that you CAN'T explain how the Plasma was created and you don't have the time to listen to the interview and take the debate because you must be playing instead the fony character Gordon ZION Freeman in some silly shit game or going to coast to coast and expending you time there,    

attack the ideas, lets have the debate !

but you can't because you don't even  have the time to listen to Dimitri because you must be listen instead to coast to coast trash, Well, I get it now !  

Get me a remedy, create the "Speculation Topic", IF after we debate this and other things, IF we united in the thing been trash, I'll be the first to claim to be moved to the Nonsense section. But not before a Debate, that is all I 'm  asking for. I think I deserve some little consideration at least for the sake of been a "Elder" around here.

PS What do you have against Russians ?
.
.

[Claymoremind]

Haven't been here in a year or more, but if the Admins pass judgment on posts like they know everything, like demigods, then  relegate this site to the shitcan.

[Free Truth]

There is no need to continue to speculate on such specifics anymore IMHO.
Bottom line it was a demolition...
We can all just agree that it was an innovative demolition.

[/tab]

There is no need to continue to speculate on such specifics anymore IMHO.
Bottom line it was a demolition...
We can all just agree that it was an innovative demolition.

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.

the proof is in the pudding : Under World Trade Center should be a great Radioactive waste (with lethal, highly radioactive elements such as cesium 137 and cobalt 60) : the lethal underground byproduct of  9/11's demolition.

NUCLEAR UNDERGROUND EXPLOSION



9/11 EXPLOSION







Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers

This article describes a general concept of nuclear demolition of skyscrapers - particularly in connection with known thermo-nuclear demolition schemes of the World Trade Center in New York and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Though, the current article does not deal with any exact details of implementation of this concept in regard to these particular structures, but provides rather general knowledge on this subject. Besides, this article does not consider any conspiracy behind nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11, neither does it consider any moral aspect of this issue - such as ground zero clean-up works and so on - it aims to explain its purely technical aspect. However, there are other articles available in the Internet that describe the WTC nuclear demolition scheme in more or less exact detail, as well as articles that describe particular conspiracy in regard to the actual WTC demolition - links to these articles are available at the end of the current description.

Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by " Controlled Demolition Inc." - the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

 The author of this article - 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.

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

Four major types of nuclear testing: 1. atmospheric, 2. underground, 3. exoatmospheric, and 4. underwater.




GROUND ZERO

1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground+zero

DU Expert Leuren Moret To Address Vancouver 9/11 Conference On Depleted Uranium (DU) Public Health Risk And On Illegal Use Of Canadian Uranium In DU Weapons, In Non-compliance With Canadian Law.

Leuren Moret reported similar elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) confirmed that the crash site rubble was radioactive and that it was probably Depleted Uranium (DU) contaminating the Pentagon crash site rubble.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1765-du-expert-leuren-moret-to-address-vancouver-911-conference-on-depleted-uranium-du-public-health-risk-and-on

The government conducted more than 900 nuclear tests at the test site, including 100 above the ground

WORLD TRADE CENTER AIR STUDIES:

Dr. Thomas Cahill, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of California at Davis, conducted an independent study of the air around Ground Zero at the World Trade Center after the 9/11 disaster13. Using very sophisticated monitoring instruments14 which detect very fine and ultra fine particles, Cahill and his group monitored the smoldering pile at the WTC for 5 months following the disaster from one mile north of the center. They measured concentrations of particles in six size ranges from 2.5 microns to 0.09 microns13. They reported the highest concentrations of very fine particles of metals ever reported in the US13, and unprecedented numbers of very fine and super fine particles13. This air monitoring study of the WTC provided new information about very fine and superfine particles which have rarely been studied. Burning metals and other materials at high temperatures generate very large amounts of very small particles. For this reason depleted uranium which has burned is particularly hazardous.

The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 18,19 and that the crash site was contaminated. Residents of New York City detected radiation on hand held geiger counters at the WTC site. The EPA not only failed to protect emergency response personnel at both sites, but did not report or measure13 concentrations of very fine particles at any of the 9/11 plane crash locations. These are the most hazardous to health, and many personnel who worked at the crash sites are now very ill.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03.htm

Underground nuclear Blast















Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.


While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.


The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy
 went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.




These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the bedrock caused the collapses.


A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.


The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.



New York City's media reported in June 2006 nearly 300 WTC responders including cops, fire fighters and construction workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have already died of cancer. Many of them are diagnosed with Blood Cell cancer such as Leukemia. Earlier in April the same NYP has reported 6 cops died of brain cancer. Americans who know nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki would instantly attribute this to airplane fuel's Benzene contents.


Japanese activists claim that 9/11 related cancers similar illnesses in Hiroshima after dropping of nuclear bomb in World War II

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/06/22/01628.html

A 47-year-old Brooklyn firefighter who worked at the World Trade Center wreckage for a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks has died of throat cancer.
Ray Hauber's relatives and colleagues believe conditions at Ground Zero might have caused the esophageal cancer that killed him Saturday morning.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/08/07/2007-08-07_throat_cancer_kills_wtc_worker.html

This is the story of 9-11 and cancer.

To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.
 

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5645

NEW YORK - The head of the largest program tracking the health of World Trade Center site workers said several have developed rare blood cell cancers, raising fears that cancer will become a "third wave" of illnesses among those exposed to toxic dust after Sept. 11.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18969197/

Why are Ground Zero workers getting sick?
Could this be a coincidence? Is this for real? How will we ever know? Those are just some of the questions I asked myself when writing about workers and emergency responders from Ground Zero who now claim they're sick from the toxic cocktail to which they were exposed.

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/09/why-are-ground-zero-workers-getting.html

The Document with Dimitri's Comments

Hi. I found this on the Internet since it was mentioned in one Forum and downloaded it as suggested by you. Read it with interest and found few pieces of misunderstandings which I would like to correct. First of all, I would like to thank you for being so patient for watching my movie and making these comments – it is indeed a great job. However, I suspect that because you were also busy with making comments, you did not watch movie attentively enough and therefore you missed many points, so that I suggest you re-viewing it and this time attentively. Many doubtful points would be clarified by re-viewing alone. My comments to your existing ones are below in red color.

Part 1
1.   Starts off with giving background on Dimitri Khalezov.
2.   Show chart from FBI that shows Dimitri is on a terror list of some sort
3.   Talks about him being arrested for supplying passport in Bali Bombing...denies charge, never been convicted.
Part 2
1.   Talks about aluminum cannot penetrate steel structure. Even with speed.
2.   Talks about 'live' delay of 17 seconds or so, that aided in TV fakery, and how only one video of plane striking and later on more tapes came forward of the second plane, but nothing live, everything is courtesy of someone else.
3.   Show screen captures form supposed same camera that has different background colors, and the black frames.
4.   Talks about penetrating capabilities of the planes and why they would not penetrate the towers.
5.   Talks about how plane should have struck the outside of the building and instead of going in the building it would have been crumpled or broken up and fall to the street below.
6.   Talks about the video of the plane that the nose supposedly came out the side, and also that the angle that the plane was supposed to have hit would not match up with the nose coming out even if it was possible, the angle does not match with the actual angle of impact.
7.   Talks about TV fakery.....best evidence is from helicopter journalist who is looking directly at WTC when 2nd plane supposedly hits....People in the studio keep saying they saw a plane...the person on the ground level keeps saying he saw no plane and that it just exploded...the people in the studio tell him it came from the side he wasn't looking at....absurd, then repeats it several time.....it just exploded.
Part 3
1.   Shows different footage of second plane coming in that the angle of the plane coming in do not match from one video to another, some have it coming in at one angle and others have it coming at other angles. Says this points to digital manipulation.
2.   Talks about the form of impact hole. Says that it does not match up with a plane hitting there.
3.   Talks about why the 9/11 commission had to report what they did. They had to invent a cover up story......this is explained why later in the interview.
4.   Talks about the official story, jet fuel, weakened steel, collapse.....and why it isn't true. Show the people standing in the impact hole, and if tower was burning hot enough to compromise the steel how was this woman, and others standing there holding on to steel beams?
5.   Talks about the jet fuel having been mostly burned off at impact....if there was an impact....maybe jet fuel was also planted with the bombs. ------------------ not exactly so. I said in context of discussion that the fuel should have burn out by the time of the Tower's collapse. The interviewer said that IF there WERE planes? I answered – that it does not matter in this case – if it were planes, or the kerosene was simply brought in the Tower in barrels, irrespectively of the mode of its delivery, it should have been burned out by the time. That's what I meant.
6.   Pentagon was attacked by a Russian Granient Missile (not sure of spelling).  Shows trajectory of missile to the pentagon. ---------------- Granit (or Granite) or P-700 missile. You can check that one in Wikipedia.
7.   Talks about how a plane could not make the maneuver it was claimed to have....only a missile could have.
8.   Says missile would have been launched from Atlantic Ocean....probably 200 to 300 miles out.
a.   Says actions of US military prove that attack came from Atlantic because when jets were scrambled they were sent in the direction of the Atlantic.
9.   Says missile would be 7 tons and very thick. Flying tank. Speed over 2.5 mach.
a.   Exit hole is good evidence of missile. ----------------------- add here that I said that it was an antiship missile, because the way it behaved (attempted to strike the Pentagon at the waterline level) is a typical behavior of antiship missiles.
Part 4
1.   Says the warhead on the missile would be half megaton thermonuclear warhead.
2.   Says mechanics of attack and actions of the military prove it was a missile fired from a ship in the Atlantic.
3.   Talks about knowledge of nuclear demolition scheme in the Soviet Union, says he found out in 1994, that the WTC had the nuclear demolition feature. Purpose was because building code of NYC and Chicago in the 60's would not allow skyscrapers to be built unless the designer also submitted a plan to demolish the building in case it was ever necessary in the future. Side note....this actually makes sense to me from a codes standpoint. If you're going to build it you also have to tell us how you plan to bring it down. Seems logical to me.
4.   Talks about how in the 60's it was more acceptable to use nuclear reactions for civil reasons....power and such....so it is not so farfetched to think that the building codes people would accept this option....it was a demolition option and nothing more.....in the 60's people didn't look at nuclear devices like we do now.
5.   Talks about how crazy an idea this is, and that in Russia at the time it was a joke of sorts.
6.   Talks about a Treaty between US and Russia for peaceful nuclear explosions. And what they are sometimes used for and why we would have such a treaty.
7.   Talks of controversy in the 80's when someone found blueprints of the WTC and it showed the plans for the nuclear demolition option and this person took it to the press. Side note .... I wander if anyone else remembers this at all or if there is any proof of it. ----------------------- yes, they do. I encounter people quite recently, who also recollected this scandal. There was an argument over removal my article on nuclear demolition (not the WTC, but in general) from the Wikipedia and during heated argument I mentioned this particular point to my opponents. One guy from among the opponents also said that know he could also recollect that in the 80s or so there was some discussion on this topic in some US newspapers.
Part 5
1.   Talks about conversations between Putin and Condie Rice on the morning of 9/11 during the attacks...about a Russian missile, the missile that hit the pentagon.  This missile had a nuclear warhead that did not explode.....Side note....this part not explained very well. -------------------- yes, I think that was really the fault of the interviewer – he should have asked why? Then I will answer that the perpetrators intentionally rendered its detonator useless, because it was not their plan – to level Washington DC with a half-megaton explosion. But, at least, I explained it to you personally now.
2.   'Doomsday' plane – plane seen flying over White House....never explained officially.  White House was evacuated ... reported military aircraft but classified. Pentagon insists it is not a military aircraft...no mention in commission report.
a.   6:08 stamp...says US government had no involvement in attacks...was only a victim.
3.   Say doomsday plane was sent up to keep government operating.....as its was designed to do....was designed because of nuclear war. Interesting. ---------------------------- I think I explained it clearly enough in the video. Perhaps, you simply missed the point. The Doomsday plane is a flying command post designed to direct a retaliatory nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, should the latter send its nuclear missiles first and damage stationary U.S. command posts designed to direct such a retaliatory nuclear strike. In case of a nuclear alert all 4 Doomsday planes in various locations of the U.S. must be scrambled at once in a couple of minutes time after receiving a notification of an upcoming nuclear attack against the United States. In no other case they may fly, unless for training/routing checking of their combat readiness only. By the way – strikingly 'white' color of this plane is nothing else than the so-called 'anti-flush white' designed to protect this aircraft as much as possible from being damaged by thermal radiations of multiple nuclear explosions. It is really a 'Doomsday plane' in the full sense of this word.
4.   Talks about underground bunker – atomic bunker...talks about how Cheney and Rice and Speaker of the House was ordered to bunker.  Says that missile that hit pentagon was supposed to be nuclear and was but did not go off. ---------------------- again you missed the point. Cheney and Rice were simply grabbed by the Secret Service agents who broke into their offices and grabbed them both by their hands and by the trousers' belt (not sure what it was in case of Rice, since she is a woman), nearly lifting them from the ground, and quickly propelled them both downstairs towards the anti-atomic bunker under the White House. So, because of this quick action both – Cheney and Rice have about an extra minute to get to the bunker before the explosion due to occur. In case of the Speaker, he was approached by the Secret Service agents and ordered to run to a helicopter to be urgently re-located to another anti-atomic bunker outside D.C. However, due to that action should take about 4-5 minutes, he would have no chance to survive – because about the time he was leaving the White House and running to the helicopter pad, the missile struck the Pentagon and supposed to produce a half-megaton nuclear explosion.
5.   Tries to explain why doomsday plane has played a part in people saying the US was involved in the initial attacks and not just a cover up of certain events afterwards but failed to realize they were not a part of the attack but the US knew we were under nuclear attack and the government needed to move the skies in order to ensure the government would remain operating during and after a nuclear attack. ----------------------- this point you got well, but it appears to me that I didn't talk about this particular. But this is true what you say. The skies were cleared not because of planes hijackings, but because of nuclear attack. No doubt.
6.   Talks about underground bunker and how the door has supposedly never been closed was closed that day with the government people inside. Cheney and Rice were here and speaker of the house was ordered to another atomic bunker somewhere else because not all officials can be in the same secure location at once. ------------------------ again you missed the point. Cheney and Rice hid into an anti-atomic bunker under the White House. Speaker was flown into another anti-atomic bunker – outside D.C. However, the steel anti-atomic door that has never been closed in US history, except on the 9/11, with photo of it shown in that part of the movie, was of neither of the above anti-atomic bunkers. This is the door leading to the protected NORAD's command post located inside 'anti-atomic' Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. Upon getting notification of upcoming nuclear attack, the then commander of NORAD, Gen. Ralf Eberhart, immediately left his peace-time unprotected command post and moved to his protected command post 12 miles away (he drove by car and unlikely had chance to survive would the real nuclear strike occur at that time) but in any case once he arrived there he ordered to close that door – and that happened for the first time in US history.
Part 6
1.   Talks about Fireman had no fear of collapse because they knew that the building would not collapse....needed assistance to get people out ... but fires could be contained and put out. Plus the fact that fireman know that steel building do not collapse from fire, or planes hitting them.
2.   Says WTC's were 'pulled' by nuclear option because of fear of collapse by government after planes hit.  Talks about how when he was investigating that the conclusion was that the US brought down the towers out of fear of collapse....but was informed that that wasn't the case because either type of collapse would have done about the same damage....this discovery is what lead to most of the rest of the discovery's. He set out to prove that the building were brought down by nuclear demolition because of knowledge he had from his position in the Russian military from years ago ---------------------------- you missed the point. Because of my knowledge from military service I knew of the fact the nuclear demolition scheme did exist, but not of the fact that it was actually put to use on the 9/11 ----------, he did that....and then found out about the missing missiles and all the rest mostly as afterthought to his original plan. FBI received info that 3 nuclear warheads were used against US -------------- + info that 2 warheads were allegedly hidden inside the planes that stuck the Twin Towers (or hidden in whatever else that struck the Towers, because as you could notice I am a 'no-planes' man, and I guess the FBI follows the 'no-planes' version too, at least for their internal work) ----------. In order to avoid an atmospheric nuclear explosion that would have killed millions they brought the buildings down using our own secret nuclear demolition plan for the towers....this is what needed to be hidden along with the fact that 24 Russian missiles with nuclear warheads were missing. ---------------------- 22, not 24. Besides it was different issues – a headache to hide loss of the missiles was the headache of the Russians, not of the Americans. Americans had some headache of their own.
3.   Says FBI explanation is that 3 nuclear warheads were aim at US that day...1 one each plane that hit towers and 1 in the missile that hit pentagon. Says that the nuclear underground detonation was ordered because of fear that nukes at top of towers would go off and that would be much more catastrophic than using the built in nuclear demolition option.
a.   Reason given that is that atmospheric atomic explosion is more contaminous and destructive than underground detonation.
b.   Say if exploded at top would have destroyed Manhattan. ------------- entire New York, not Manhattan. It is half megaton (given that Hiroshima bomb was less than 20 kiloton you can imagine what 500 kiloton is and how much it would destroy).
4.   Say FBI says that he is correct about nuclear detonation, but he is incorrect on conclusion of why they brought down towers.
5.   Shows news coverage of reporter talking ... 3 mins after 2 second explosion.....about how the fire chief of safety – Albert Turi -had told him how many firemen were in the building at the time and of explosions after the impact.....says fire chief thinks first explosion after impact was planted on plane..and second explosion after impact was planted in the building. --------------- what was planted in the plane was "secondary device" as he called it, not 'explosion', and the very same kind of "secondary device" was planted in the building, according to Turi.
6.   Live news footage from CNN that shows banner headline at 1003am saying "third explosion shatters world trade center in New York"
7.   Show CNN banner about Sears Tower in Chicago being evacuated...mentions to notice that Empire State Building was not being evacuated --- side personal note....empire state building was evacuated sometime between 945am and 1005a....I know this personally because I was working in that building on the 13th floor and descended the stairs to the street to 5th avenue and 33rd st. ... and we watch the tower fall from that vantage point at roughly 1013am...I don't know what the point of mentioning that about the Empire State building really....because honestly everyone at that point had evacuated the tall high rise buildings on their own accord if not ordered to do so....I think he is tying in the fact that the sears tower supposedly has the nuclear demolition option as well....thats why they were evacuated. ---------------------- you did not miss the point, but perhaps you have wrongly interpreted it. The Sears Tower was evacuated because of some CENTRALIZED order, transmitted via channels of Civil Defense system. This was an EVENT. Evacuation of the rest of the building was just a gesture of a good will by their respective owners, perhaps after consultation with local security specialists. It can't  be considered as an EVENT in the abovementioned sense. See the difference?
8.   At 1013am Breaking CNN news is that the third explosion has collapsed the first tower (but second tower hit)
Part 7
1.   Says it is not correct to use term nuclear weapon...weapons are designed to kill people this was a nuclear demolition device ... but he does say 'still it was a nuclear device'
2.   He goes on to talk about how the device would have worked....he wrote an article for Wiki on how to demolish using nuclear device....he didn't mention WTC ... but article was still taken down.
3.   He goes on to detail about the nuclear process .... http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com
a.   Start explanation at 2:43 mark.....
4.   Explains difference between atmospheric explosion and underground explosion.
Part 8
1.   Cont. from atmospheric and underground nuclear explosion explanation of differences.
2.   Discusses how much nuclear force needed to destroy amounts of bedrock.
3.   Talks about largest allowed was 150 kiloton was maximum allowed under nuclear demolition treaty talked about in earlier part.
4.   Talks about how Russians used nuclear underground detonation to form I think he said 'glass holes'....but could not make out exactly. ------------------------------- gas holders underground. To keep gas under pressure, because volcanic glass coating walls of underground cavity makes it very useful for that purpose.
Part 9
1.   Cont. to discuss specifics of what would happen to the blast area underground.
2.   Goes into talk about blast waves and why there would have been none and why people on the surface would not be injured by the blast.
3.   Talks about radioactive gases escaping to surface eventually...and why tests are done in remote places.
4.   Talks about how some radioactive particles would be filtered out by the time it reaches surface and says could still get radioactive exposure for two weeks after from an atomic underground blast at 500m underground with a 150 kiloton nuclear device. Says that the epicenter would continue to be radioactive for ... deadly radioactive for 3 years.  Says the epicenter would stay hot for 1 year with a 150kiloton device.
5.   Points out why the underground nuclear explosion is not comparable to Hiroshima.
6.   Points out that example given are for typical underground devices for test....
7.   Starts to go into details about specifics of WTC nuclear demolition.
a.   Says for WTC would be 50m under the tower foundation...explained in a min later that because of basements of 27m that the device would have been placed 77m from the ground surface.
b.   This would make tower lose its foundation and thus melt the steel of the foundation and bring down everything above.
Part 10
1.   Talks about how we would not hear anything on the surface when it was detonated, but would feel the ground shake.
2.   Richter scale measurement chart displayed.....5.5 on scale is a 80 kiloton explosion equivalent
3.   Displays quote of Battalion Chief Brian O'Flaherty who says of being in the Marriott Hotel "I hear a noise. Right after that noise, you could feel the building start to shudder, tremble, under your feet" then the tower came down.
4.   Shows Clip of tower shaking before the collapse....its the 12 second video that is focused on the damage zone....anyone who know 9/11 truth or otherwise has seen it....camera is on tripod....frames shake for several seconds and 10 seconds later the tower is crumbling.
5.   Goes into details of how the damage would have been created by the blast zone expanding..
a.   Damage zone – up to 350 meters from ground surface....says building would be damaged or broken up into smaller pieces.
b.   Immediately after that up to 300m from ground and everything in that zone would be turned to microscopic dust.
c.   This is explaining why there was little left of the towers the only part that would not have been affected by the blast is the very upper floors, about ? of the towers...everything else was reduced to dust.
Part 11
1.   Shows a good graphic to explain part 10 of actual damaged tower and what zones would have been turned to what and why the collapse looks like it did because of the way the towers were affected by nuclear device.
2.   2:55 mark discusses why they call it ground zero – 'the place on the earth's surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb. The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (edition 1981) Side note – merrian-webster still defines it this way as definition number one.
http://dictionary.merriam-webster.com/d ... und%20zero -------------------- however, this one added also a definition No.2 to dilute the clear original meaning. Before the 9/11 it was one single meaning.
3.   Shows example of how new dictionaries have changed the definition of the ground zero since 9/11. Uses Logan's dictionary, I have never heard of them, but it is a real example. ---------------- not Logan, but Longman – it is a very famous dictionary company. About as famous as Webster or Oxford and perhaps more famous than the American Heritage. I am very surprised that you have never heard of it.
4.   Talks about how the definitions were changed after ward to talk about bombs and severe damage as to not remind people of its real pre-9/11 meaning.
5.   Talks about why the dust would not be radioactive. 8:20 mark.  In atmosphere dust would become radioactive but not underground because it's the pressure of the nuclear device that turned the materials to dust not radiation blast.
Part 12
1.   Explains how radioactive vapors escaped after the collapse and the vapors that continued after the blast for several weeks was radioactive.
2.   Shows pictures of Fireman looking in the hole with the vapors coming out, and that they breathed it in and also had direct contact -------------------- not direct contact by were subjected to direct radiation --------. Says health problems would arise, will talk about that in further parts.
3.   Says most of the dust was steel dust, and the rest would be concrete, office materials, wires, and people, but the majority of the towers were steel and that was the major component of the dust.
4.   Goes into temperatures....150 kiloton at 500m would take one year to cool, talks about vapors coming out 6-8 weeks later and is still red hot, 3 months later finding molten steel in the debris.
5.   Discredits thermite theory. Thermite could not sustain the high temps, and cannot turn steel to dust.
6.   Ask why more experts haven't come out to question commission report.  Explanation is that it is physiological.
Part 13
1.   Talks about why people of knowledge agree to official story, even though they know from education that events could not have happened from plane crashes.
a.   The Second 'truth' about 9/11 – explanation given to experts who question 9/11 ... all the 3 wtc buildings have been demolished by 'al-queda'using 3 stolen soviet made portable nuclear devices RA-115/Ra-116 (aka 'mini nukes') which the 'al-qaeda' had planted into the 3 wtc buildings in advance.
b.   Show quotes from Spanish article about how 3 mini nukes were used to destroy the wtc towers including tower 7....thus blaming even tower 7 on bin laden, and not from damage from debris from the twin towers.
2.   The 9/11 commission was advised to not report this to the people because of fear of public panic over mini nukes. Russia was said to have made 700 suitcase nukes and 100 were missing. The ones that the bin laden supposedly used were gotten from the Ukraine, according to this interview. ----------------- not according to my interview, but according to Spanish "El Mundo" newspaper, article "Mi Hermano Bin Laden, Tragedia, Apocalipsis, New York" of 16 Sept 2001.
3.   Says that the US had to use the built in demolition option to bring down the towers because they were given info that the planes carried nukes that would detonate at the top of the towers, and the atmospheric blast would have destroyed Mahattan and surrounding and they really had no choice. Remember from earlier he says the US is a victim in 9/11 but because of public fear of the suitcase nuke they had to cover the real story.  Basically.
4.   Talking about why firefighters would allow for a cover up. If nukes went off at top of building millions would have been killed. The firefighters, etc had to go with it, and the truth is only top officials would have even know of the nuclear option.
5.   Says thousands of people would have to keep secret.
6.   Talks about disagreements amongst experts .... Paid experts and non paid.
Part 14
1.   Talks about materials being shipped out without examination for investigation....partly out of radiation concerns. ----------------------------- not in this sense, but in a sense as to prevent any independent study of the materials that could reveal radioactivity.
2.   1:25 starts to talk about WTC 7 and its collapse and omission from Commission report.
3.   Starts explanation of why WTC 7 collapse would look different from the twin towers.
a.   Explains blast zone and because 7 was smaller the dust zone reached to the top of WTC 7, so it did not have the top damage zone that the blast would create.
4.   Shows BBC live footage were the reporter says he has reports that the Solomon (sp? WTC7) has collapsed....this is not the famous footage of the women with WTC 7 behind her and the feed is lost, this is voice over from the male anchor in studio over live footage of Collapse areas. ---------- yes, this is indeed a different footage than the one with the woman, because the one with the woman would be at 5.07 PM EST, while this one was aired at 4.56 PM EST. By the way – woman also called the WTC-7 as "Salomon Brothers Building" in that famous clip you mentioned.
a.   Give report of warning from British foreign office to British citizens that there is a 'strong risk of further atrocities in NYC.'  24 mins after this is when the building actually collapsed. ---------------------- side note "atrocity" and "atrocious device" are jargon words in secret services' jargon that are actually mean "mini-nuclear bombing" (usually reported to plebs as "truck-bombing" or "car-bombing" – like the one in Oklahoma or in Kenya and Tanzania cases), while "atrocious device" usually refers to a "mini-nuke" in the same jargon. It is just for you own reference. Just in case.
5.   Says WTC 7 housed the nuclear devices that were used to demolish all three.
a.   Tunnels from WTC 7 to 1 and 2 would be how the devices were delivered for detonation.
6.   Explains why first collapse was of second hit tower and second collapse was by first hit tower.
a.   Shows map of WTC complex...explains that WTC 2 is farther from WTC 7 and if they would have collapsed WTC 1 first then the blast wave for WTC 1 would have destroyed the tunnel over to WTC 2 from building 7. So tower 2 had to come down first, because had tower 1 come down first....tower 2 would probably still be standing today.
b.   WTC 7 was destroyed because if it wasn't then it would have been discovered about the nuclear demolition option for skyscrapers that was put into place decades earlier.  The public couldn't find out about nukes being used for demolition.
7.   Concludes that the US is reacting to an attack and in response to that attack does something it needs to cover up (nuclear demolition of skyscraper, with people still in them btw, to save nuclear detonation in skyscraper that would get into the atmosphere and kill millions).
Part 15
1.   Why cover it up? The American people would not accept that killing 3000 people in order to save millions was acceptable. That could never be revealed to the public, even if it was done to protect millions. -------------------------------------- I did not mean this. In fact, the American public perhaps WOULD accept that it is better to kill the 3000 than to let be killed 6 million, because it is simply reasonable and the American public is not so devoid of any reason as might appear. I meant not this. I meant that the American public would never accept an idea that the nuclear devices did under the Twin Towers in the first instance. Because of bureaucrats from the Department of Buildings and because of stupid clause in the building code? That what I meant.
a.   Why then create 2 wars over the cover up? Explanation given by me....Rahm Emmanuel I believe said 'you can never let a disaster go to waste' or something to that effect. --------------------- in fact, I explained why the wars should have taken place. In order to distract public attention from nuclear explosion in Manhattan to something else (wars). And I put an example –after the nuclear explosion in Beirut in 1983 (for plebs referred to as a "truck-bombing" of Beirut Marine barracks), the very next day the US Government launched Grenada invasion – just to distract the public attention from the nuclear blast in Beirut towards occupation of Grenada. But that one was a small mini-nuke explosion, so the war was smaller. Here were 3x 150 kiloton explosions, so wars should be bigger in scale – to distract public attention appropriately. That what I meant to say.
2.   Says WTC 7 was destroyed because it was the base of operation (and housed the devices) that would deploy the nuke device if it was ever needed, it was destroyed to hide that fact and that fact alone. The fact that Secret Service and many other government buildings were housed there is just a coincidence.
3.   Talks about alarm system that should be in place for this nuclear demolition option that should have been deployed that morning was disabled.  Mentions a timeline that should take place from when the device are put in place and detonation.
a.   Side note.....the above point is not clear on the time line...and an interesting video edit is made right after Dimitri says he thinks that that part of the demolition is a conspiracy...and then edit. ----------------------------------------- there was a special alarm system based on WTC-7 that was designed to produce alarm signals towards the WTC-1 and -2 should the nuclear demolition scheme of the Twins become activated (to my knowledge there should be at least 20 minutes, perhaps even 25 minutes, between the press of the Red Button and till the time of actual nuclear explosion. So, all this time some continuous alarm signal should have been transmitted towards the dangerous areas urging everyone immediately to get out. This system for some not so-clear reason was put in "test mode" very early in the morning of the 9/11 and so all signals produced by it (if any at all) should have been ignored. That is official information. So, when he asked me why would they disable the alarm system, I answered that in my opinion it was some kind of conspiracy. I didn't' specify, but I think that Larry Silverstein was a part of the 9/11 gang from the very beginning and it was his order to disable the alarm system. However, I don't have any proof of it. It is only a suspicion. So, I say it is in my opinion only.
4.   Talks of damage to a building behind WTC 7, Fiterman Hall, because of where the nuke device would have been placed because of the shape of WTC7, shows Google search and link that says that this building is being decontaminated. Then another that shows the building was demolished. Shows quotes from article about the building, EPA 'Fiterman's got to go'.
5.   Explains why post office and Verizon on either side of WTC7 were not damaged...because of placement of device and blast zone.
6.   Show where he believes nuke charges would have been placed under WTC 1 and 2
a.   Explains why some of the corner structures seemed to have 'survived'.
Part 16
1.   Explains why damage would look like it did based on location of device.
2.   Explains why the blast wave only affected the structure and didn't produce and 'outside' blast wave.
3.   Gives example of another French scientist who gave same equations he did about blast waves, but they differed on why and how....but the calculations were the same for the damage.
a.   French scientist says that there was a nuclear reactor under the WTC complex...this is where the two men disagree, Dimitri and the French Scientist.
4.   Shows article from 3 Dec. 2001, 12 weeks after, that says Deputy Chief Charles Biaich of New York Fire Department would not predict when the last fire might be extinguished.
a.   Says same hotspots were found under WTC 7
5.   Talks about the way the fires were extinguished in WTC1 and 2 were the same that had to be used to put out WTC 7 underground fires weeks later, says this proves that all 3 were brought down by the same method. ---------------------- also in the same interview with Blaich it is said that underground fires were not typical and represented a mass of mixed combustible materials as deep as 50 meters. Very important point that you have missed. Also you missed the point that in the same interview it was said that two apparent radioactivity absorbents were mixed into waters of firefighters and used to extinguish 'underground fires' under spots of the WTC -1, -2 and... -7.
Part 17
1.   Starts off with report from Pentagon where reporter is talking about small debris, and the collapse of the wall that happened 45 mins later. ----------------------------- in this interview, in fact,  the CNN reporter clearly explains that there was no plane in the Pentagon's case. Very clear.
2.   Goes into Russian missile he says is used for pentagon attack.
a.   Says Russian officials new missiles had been stolen but had to cover that up. ------- you perhaps mean "knew", not 'new'.
b.   Talks about missing submarine, also, im having trouble following this part and how it is all a part of this. I guess it background on where the missiles came from.....
3.   Shows article about nuclear powered vessel 'Kursk' and test it conducted with firing them. -------------- it seems that you completely missed my point here. What I meant that after salvaging the sunken submarine, the Russian officials made a kind of 'production' by claiming that missiles' silos can not be opened, because it was allegedly too dangerous – just in order to hide the fact that the missiles were no longer in their silos and the silos were empty. Then the Russians proceeded to cutting the silos 'as is' from the body of the submarine using welding and then, without opening the empty silos, brought them to some remote location and destroyed them with mini-nukes without opening – so to hide completely the fact that the missiles were stolen. Two Russian newspapers articles (with English translation of both) are provided that confirm this seemingly insane claim.
Part 18
1.   Talking about the missing Russian missiles, 22 or 24 total, interviewer asking what they are doing with the, he says breaking them down possibly because uranium and plutonium are very valuable, or expensive. -------------------------- the matter of expensive nuclear materials arises because of the question whether it would be reasonable to destroy the missiles and their warheads by 'mini-nuking' them, instead of disassembling and finding some other good use of the expensive nuclear materials inside the warheads. It seems you again completely missed the point.
a.   Side note....i still am confused about who stole or acquired the Russian missiles, and who actually deployed them against the US. I am following why he thinks its is underground nukes, but after 180 mins or so, I sure be clear on WHO attacked us....if it wasn't a self inflicted wound, was it the Russians? ---------------------- I didn't mention it in the interview, but only mentioned that it was not he Americans. But for you personally I can tell who it was. It was the Freemasons in collaboration with the Israeli Mossad.
2.    Talking about the missile test from the Kurst was to cover up the fact that 20 some Russian missiles were missing.  22 were missing, 1 was used on the pentagon, and that leaves 20 missing missiles with 500kiloton nuclear warheads on them. They are saying the US gov't knew this because Russia had told them under the nuclear agreements. ----------------------- no, I have never said that the Russians confessed to the Americans that the missile that stuck the Pentagon was stolen from Kursk. To the best of my knowledge until today the official interpretation of events is still different than my claims. The Russian claim (secretly of course) that these Granit missiles were stolen by some bad Russian guy from Ukrainian warehouse of the Black Sea Fleet and sold to Saddam Hussein. In fact, my claims about Kursk affair are extremely embarrassing for both – the Russians and the Americans, because they knock down the already established version of the 'truth'.
3.   Talking about how he has given all this info to the government and no one has even ask him anything, reason he says is because they already know it all. Says he is prepared to go to court and prove his position about 9/11 and the missing missiles that are caring the massive nuclear warheads.
a.   This is where a cover up comes into play. If the US knows this information and is not letting the public know. He is saying that the higher ups are not allowing the grunts to investigate his truthful claims because if they do they would discover what he has discovered.
b.   The interviewer says he believes that the US is ignoring his claims because the US knows he is correct AND that the US isn't worried about the missing 20 missiles because we know where they are.
Part 19
1.   Talking about why Americans or others can't buy that it is a nuclear device because there was no mushroom cloud, or massive reading of radiation. People expect Hiroshima when they hear about nuclear detonation, but that is above ground. The nuclear detonation is different above ground.
2.   They go into the timeframe of first impact, second impact, pentagon strike, and that a decision had to be made very quickly for the nuclear demolition, Dimitri says this does fit the time line because the US knows of the missing missiles and the possibility of nuclear detonation in the atmosphere so they decided very quickly to use the demolition option that was built in.
a.   Side note....Dimitri says the US was absolutely certain that the planes had the mini nukes on them....-------------------- not 'mini-nukes' but 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warheads, akin to that found in the Pentagon ------------------also much earlier it was discussed that planes could not 'penetrate' the WTC towers and cut threw them like butter, they should have impacted and basically fallen to the ground.....i remember the videos that show the plane that possibly had the 'pod' under it that makes a flash a micro second before it impacted.....maybe it had to shoot the device into the building because otherwise it would have fallen to the street level,  most likely. ------------- yes, but this is MY PERSONSL opinion that planes were digital. However, at the 9/11 an OFFICIAL version of events was that there were planes (or missiles if not planes) that struck the WTC. So, for the FBI by then it sounded reasonable. Now, perhaps, they realized already it was just bullshit, but it is simply to late to change the story now.
3.   Shows clip of news report about safety Chief Albert Turi about devices planted in the building.
a.   Says this confirms that they were aware of bombs on the plane....and in the tower, because they knew of the nuclear demolition option.
b.   Side note – Dimitri says earlier that he believes the TV fakery angle as well, or evidence points to it, and possibly no planes at all, because there is evidence of that, like it or not, but now he talks about how the safety chief saying he believes the planes had bombs and the building had pre planted bombs...doesn't that contradict itself? I am a little confused on the stance here.....and how those could both be true, TV fakery and bombs on the plane. ------------------- no, it does not contradict. Because it is MY PERSONAL opinion that there were no planes (and no warheads either). However, in opinion of the FBI officials then there were both – 'planes' and 'warheads' (another version – missiles, instead of planes, and warheads). It is simply because my personal opinion (as of today) is very different from the contemporary FBI opinion (as of the September the 11).
4.   Goes back to Sears's tower being evacuated and other events around 835 and beyond.
a.   They are talking about the sears tower being ordered evacuated at 1002a, 3 mins after the first collapse. They say the Empire State Building and Trump Towers and other building were not evacuated. This is not true, I know for a fact. I worked in the Empire State Building on 9/11 on the 13th floor facing the twin towers. I stated this above. Sometime around 940 am the building was ordered evacuated. An announcement came over the intercom that was building wide and said that everyone should evacuate the building...I believe it mentioned it was ok to use elevators, because I chose the stairs. I did not evacuate immediately, me and a co-worker stayed for a few mins longer and the announcement was made again..we then took the stairs to  the lobby where everyone from our office met in the intersection....the middle of the road....5th ave. and 33rd st. We could see the tops of the twin towers and after being there for not long...ten or fifteen mins the first tower came down...we could see the smoke rushing down the streets..even from that far away. So I don't know why they have mentioned this twice already, but it is not true, at least for the empire state building. It may not have made the news crawl but we were ordered evacuated. And actually the building was closed the next day...and for 2 weeks after that we were evacuated several times for bomb scares. ------------------------- and again, you have to distinguish by the scale of these events. Evacuation of the Empire State building was a local matter. Evacuation of the Sears Tower – by the centralized order, transmitted by channels of the civil defense system. See the difference? Just to make it easier to understand – in the 9/11 there were actually 2 distinctly different orders to ground all aircraft. One – by orders of respective airlines flight dispatchers (local matter) – because of fear of hijackings. The other – centralized order by the NORAD (centralized command SCATANA) – because of necessity to immediately clear all skies because of atomic alert and expectation of massive arrival of enemy missiles and enemy aircraft. That is about the same huge difference between the order to evacuate the Sears Tower and the order to evacuate the Empire State Building. While the second one was evacuated merely because of fear of possible terror actions, the first one was evacuated clearly in connection with implementation of a nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC. Hope, you realize how huge is the difference between these two events.
5.   Saying that Sear's tower was evacuated because it had the same built in design of nuclear demolition and they had to evacuate just in case it was also a target, to save lives. Again, this contradicts the TV fakery, unless there were pre planted bombs in the tower that were not nuclear that started the event, and to explain that they added the planes so mentally people would be able to handle the towers coming down. Unfortunately people are ignorant and they assume that a plane hitting a building would bring it down, its easy to deceive ignorant people. But I am still confused about how the TV fakery can also mesh with the bombs on the planes, etc. ------------------ no, it does not contradict that. It was simply because it was so awful thing to do – to nuke the Tower with life beings still in it, that no normal person would allow other live beings to continue to remain in the Sears Tower with a similar 150 kiloton nuke underneath it just because no plane yet hit the Sears Tower. Just think about it from this point of view.
6.   Says he knows from his work experience that the twin towers for sure had the nuclear demolition option and heard rumors that the sears tower did as well, and on Sept. 11 when it was evacuated that is when he knew, because they were afraid that the sears tower was a target that day as well, thus they evacuated it in case they needed to bring it down. Side note...seems like they waited a long time to evacuate, when the first tower came down, if they knew they were a target because of the nuclear demolition option. ----------------- about the last I can 't comment, because I don't know.
Part 20
1.   Talking about other government having known a nuclear device went off based on seismic readings and knows how to interpret those reading.
2.   Says that seismic readings are not that of the nuclear devices.....in short that it is bogus evidence that has been put out to distract or discredit the nuclear demolition theory. ------------------ no, probably, you missed the point. These bogus seismograms clearly represented two mini-nukes explosions (perhaps 1 kiloton each in underground parking lots) and as such this bogus evidence was depicted to represent the same story as published by the Spanish "El Mundo" newspaper – that the Twins were nuked by Osama bin Laden, using stolen Soviet mini-nukes.
3.   Give quoted testimony of Bradley Mann, EMS, "Shortly before the first tower came down I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then the debris just started flying everywhere.'
4.   Says the seismic reading put out paired with the testimony of witnesses proves that the seismic reading are false because the ground wouldn't shake at a 2.2 it would take a 5-5.5 for the ground to shake or rumble.
5.   Give more quotes of ground shaking from Fire Patrolman Paul Curran
6.   Shows what people feel from different seismic level and what forces can cause seismic reading other than natural earthquake...or what an earthquake's equivalent man made force would be.
Part 21
1.   Going back to TV fakery....they show the video of the man on the street smoking and responding to the plane hitting the building. The question is 'Is he reacting to the plane hitting or is he reacting simply to an explosion that did not involve a plane?' I have to say even before the video slowed it down that has always been my reaction to him, he should have heard the plane coming in from that low well before he reacted. I know sound reaches us later than the event, but his reaction, to me, is that of only an explosion and no plane.
2.   Shows live footage of witnesses who are questioning a reporter saying it was a plane, the witness says it was a bomb, the reporter who is also right there....says it was a plane 'we saw it on tv'.....but the witness is adamant that it was a bomb. -------------- you missed the very first witness – a woman interviewed by Dick Oliver as shown by CNN, who clearly saw that the explosion was INSIDE, and she repeated it twice – INSIDE. Very important.
3.   Shows footage of President Bush news conference talking about how explosives were designed to go off where people above could not escape.....this may be somewhat misleading. When he is referring to the explosive going off higher point to prevent from escaping....his use of explosive could be referring to the planes being used as explosive.....not sure how much credence that adds ... but it doesn't take any away.
4.   Says that the original planes with the people on them were ditched in the ocean. ------------------ no, I said that the planes were empty of passengers, not full of them.
5.   Shows footage again with a witness on the phone...the tv is showing a plane coming in toward the tower ..no one is reacting to seeing this incoming plane...then the fire ball, then everyone reacts, studio people and live witness on the phone, never a mention of an incoming plane....the person on the phone then starts saying the building just blew up, never mentioning a plane. He is then put on 'pause' according the in studio voice over.
a.   The video points out that the 'live' shot from CNN indicates it is live by a red banner with the word LIVE in white capital letters...as the plane approaches the tower until the fireball the LIVE banner is there, then 12 frames (not seconds) of complete black screen, when the 'live' shot is returned the red 'LIVE' banner is now missing. When they come back to the 'live' feed the red banner is missing and replaced by a blue 'LIVE' banner.  The middle missing 'live' banner may be because of a different camera being used....but when they return to the helicopter shot it appears to be from the original live shot with the red banner. This to me, as small as it is, says a lot. The devil is in the details. I know people hate the TV fakery part of this, and I don't know why, all angles should be safe for discussion, but this is a small little smoking pistol to me in that argument. ---------------- thanks for noticing that.
6.   Shows live footage from helicopter to the in studio people, Charles Gibson I believe by the voice, in studio they see a plane, the witness says he does not see a plane.
Part 22
1.   Talking about the Shanksville crash site....Dimitri says that 2 of the planes were shot down. I'm confused about which other plane was shot down. They are saying a lot about United reporting to planes down but not saying where. ----------------- I thought I made it clear – two planes were shot down – the one later assigned to the Pentagon and the Flight 93. Besides, I did not state that they were shot down, I said I suspect that they were shot down.
2.   Talks about cell towers and about how mobile calls would not have been able from high altitude flying planes.
3.   Talks about why he knows the trade center were nuclear demolitions, but his main research was not on the plane or no plane theory. Just that the building were ultimately destroyed by the nuclear demolition.
4.   Says United 93 was shot down by 'cannon' ... I think they mean by bullets type projectiles and not missile type because US missile could not shoot down a friendly aircraft, it would have to be done by 'cannon'. Side note....they may not be saying cannon, it is hard for me to tell. ----------- yes, what I meant was 'cannon'.
Part 23
1.   Talking about hijackers and that some are alive and some have alibis, one was a Pakistan ISI agent, and one was a Christian.
2.   Says that if the 9/11 commission is reporting these 19 hijackers are responsible then the entire commission is false because some of the named and pictured hijackers are alive.
3.   Talks about the found passport, unburned and intact.
4.   Talks about Pakistan ISI and the $100000 wire transfer and why the FBI didn't look at ISI, considering the director was in the US during the attacks, he would have been easy to detain and question. --------- at least to question – even without detaining 
5.   Talks again that the US was a victim put in a desperate situation that it then had to cover up.
6.   Talks about how the US tried its best to tie Saddam Hussein and couldn't.
7.   Talks about how FBI has not evidence against bin laden. Only wanted for crimes outside the US which means he didn't have anything to do with 9/11
Part 24
1.   Talks about the blast crater and the temps again. What the hole would have been filled with since then.  Side note – a problem I have with this nuclear theory is that the sub levels were not completely destroyed......the mall underground was intact for the most part. I think the Lauder Brothers movie showed footage of fireman walking around in the Mall area, and the Path station and subway station. If everything above ground was turned to dust from ground level to 300 meters up....why wasn't the 27 meters of sub levels also turned to dust? Based on the graphics shown in the interviews everything from 27m underground up to 300 meters above ground should have been turned to dust....including the parking garages, mall, mechanical rooms, etc. But they weren't why is that? -------------------------- note my drawing in regard to the destruction zone around the WTC-7 – where I explained that it slightly touched the Fitterman Hall, but spared both – Verizon and the U.S. Post Office – despite of them being dangerously close to the WTC-7. As you can see from that diagram, the nukes were quite precise and both nukes produced similar destruction zones around the Twins, sparing the rest of environment. I don't see any contradiction at all.
2.   Talking about what should be found underground. Saying if they dug underground that we would find 'volcanic' glass. Testing would show radioactivity. --------------------------------- but not the radioactivity of volcanic glass. Volcanic glass does not retain any atomic structure, nor radioactivity. It is former plasma now set solid. What might retain atomic structure and radioactivity – is former liquid materials, apart of plasma. I think you have to listen to that what I said again.
3.   Talks about a NYC detective that contracted leukemia and had a bone marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the first part affected by radiation. He had worked at ground zero and freshkills landfill, an article written about him brings up question of why certain FBI agents would come dressed in full HazMat protection and everyone else had simple face masks.
4.   Talks about some Dr.'s assigned to these cases would have to have signed a non disclosure agreement because they would know that these people had been exposed to radiation.
Part 25
1.   Talking about how people are subject to radiation and how long it

[Christopher Marlowe]

I watched them all. He sounds very credible.

Welcome to old WUFYS alum Claymoremind!

[Claymoremind]

The reason this is worth pursuing, besides the fact that the physics is plausible and his research squares with 9 years of evidence gathering, is the notion that the presence of these devices was supposedly declared and documented in the Peaceful use of nuclear weapons treaty he referred to.

If the Us is a signator to that treaty, then they either declared the devices and kept the treaty, or didn't declare the devices and violated the treaty.  It then becomes a matter for international inspection and INVESTIGATION - it's all about calling in an independent investigation!!!

Also, the evidence of a cavity would be revealed by GP radars.  He also said such a scheme was in place for the Sears tower. The molten steel would leave a giant iron core there.  Residual heat reading records.  Radiation readings.  Lots of rabbit holes to look into.

I heard very early on, before the disinfo campaign got it's wheels, that there was a set of demolition plans fir the WTC.

He mentions a patent held by CDI for nuclear skyscraper demo plans.  Patent search??

I've heard a lot of bullshit in 9 years, all kinds of disinfo, but this explanation is the best I've seen.

Those buildings were built by the Rockefellers to be brought down at the opportune moment.

The GRAND ILLUSION!

[MikeWB]

Get me a remedy, create the "Speculation Topic"

That's a good idea. This forum is not called "Nonsense, disinformation and speculation"

[Christopher Marlowe]

I wrote an email to an engineer with AE9/11, and who has a background leading high tech projects.  I mentioned this video and the suggestion that a nuke was used to demolish the WTC. He responded:

The way I look at this, I don't have a good explanation for a mechanism to explain the dust (powder). I wouldn't rule out anything, including what Dmitri suggests.

The nuke explains the dust and the heat. Ruling nukes out at this point only proves bias. That is not the scientific approach.  

I used to think no-planers were nuts, but I strongly believe the CNN video is fake. Are all the videos fakes?  I don't know.  But SOME of them are fakes.  I'm trying to keep an open mind.  That is how I learn.  If I already know everything, there is no point in learning.

[/tab]

I wrote an email to an engineer with AE9/11, and who has a background leading high tech projects.  I mentioned this video and the suggestion that a nuke was used to demolish the WTC. He responded:

The way I look at this, I don't have a good explanation for a mechanism to explain the dust (powder). I wouldn't rule out anything, including what Dmitri suggests.

The nuke explains the dust and the heat. Ruling nukes out at this point only proves bias. That is not the scientific approach.  
I used to think no-planers were nuts, but I strongly believe the CNN video is fake. Are all the videos fakes?  I don't know.  But SOME of them are fakes.  I'm trying to keep an open mind.  That is how I learn.  If I already know everything, there is no point in learning.

Chris, don't forget the seismographic data and all the cancer cases


Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.


Seismic record at Palisaded - NY - 34KM north of the WTC disaster - what are the huge seismic spikes happening just before the two collapses? - Give an answer if you can . . .





http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/911seismic_records_of_911_Palisaded.html


Molten steel being extracted weeks after 9-11











J. Robert Oppenheimer - Top Alchemist of the Empire

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

.
.

[Christopher Marlowe]

From Wikipedia:

The energy released by nuclear weapons is traditionally expressed in terms of the energy stored in a kiloton or megaton of the conventional explosive trinitrotoluene (TNT).

A rule of thumb equivalence from seismology used in the study of nuclear proliferation asserts that a one kiloton nuclear explosion creates a seismic signal with a magnitude of approximately 4.0.  This in turn leads to the equation

    Mn = {2/3log10 (mTNT/Mt)} + 6,

where mTNT is the mass of the explosive TNT that is quoted for comparison (relative to megatons Mt).

Such comparison figures are not very meaningful. As with earthquakes, during an underground explosion of a nuclear weapon, only a small fraction of the total amount of energy transformed ends up being radiated as seismic waves. Therefore, a seismic efficiency has to be chosen for a bomb that is quoted as a comparison. Using the conventional specific energy of TNT (4.184 MJ/kg), the above formula implies the assumption that about 0.5% of the bomb's energy is converted into radiated seismic energy Es. For real underground nuclear tests, the actual seismic efficiency achieved varies significantly and depends on the site and design parameters of the test.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10471&page=41

To interpret detection threshold maps such as shown in Figure 2–2 in terms of underground explosive yield we must use magnitude-yield relationships, which for tamped underground explosions typical of past experience are known to show some variability for different source regions, different depths for the explosion, and different propagation-path geologies. Table 2–2 lists yields as a function of decreasing magnitude for two representative magnitude-yield relationships in hard rock. The first (Y1) is based on a relationship derived from extensive studies of Soviet underground nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.11  The second (Y2) uses a relationship which is more appropriate for small explosions fired at a fixed depth.12  Table 2–2 also indicates approximate yield values that are representative of hard rock explosions with magnitude 3.5 and smaller. Figure 2–3 uses these approximate yield values to indicate yield detection thresholds of the IMS primary seismic network for major parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Thus Figure 2–3 is an expanded view of part of the global map in Figure 2–2, but with magnitude contours now interpreted as approximate yields (via Table 2–2) for small tamped explosions in hard rock.

Table 2–2 Yields (in kilotons) of small nuclear explosions tamped in hard rock that correspond under different assumptions to a set of decreasing seismic magnitudes. (The approximate values listed in the final column are used in Figure 2–3 to indicate detection thresholds in terms of nuclear yield for tamped explosions in hard rock.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seismic Magnitude..............Y1..............................Y2..............................Approximate Y
3.50.............................0.055...........................0.125.................................~0.10
3.25.............................0.025...........................0.071.................................~0.06
3.00.............................0.012...........................0.040.................................~0.03
2.75.............................0.005...........................0.022.................................~0.02
2.50.............................0.003...........................0.013.................................~0.01
_________________
11  Magnitude=4.45+0.75 log Y (in kt): ....The slope here, with value 0.75, is less than unity because larger shots are usually fired at greater depth, and hence couple less efficiently into seismic energy. This manitude yield relation applies to the southern Novaya Zemlya test location and (with slightly lower intercept of about 4.25) to the northern Novaya Zemlya test location.

12  Magnitude=4.4+log Y (in kt).

_________________
Yields at a given seismic magnitude can be different from those listed in Table 2–2 to the extent that an explosion is not tamped and/or not in hard rock. Thus, explosions in clay or water couple more efficiently into seismic signals so that the yield producing a given magnitude can be 10 or more times smaller than listed. Explosions in soft rock couple less efficiently and the yield producing a given magnitude can be 10 or more times larger than listed. An explosion in an underground cavity also couples less efficiently, raising the question of evasive testing, discussed below.

Figure 2–3 [Not shown here.-ed.] is important as indicating that the detection capability of the IMS primary seismic network is very significantly better than 1 kt for nuclear explosions conducted in a fashion typical of past underground nuclear testing (i.e., tamped and without efforts to reduce signals). For most of Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, the detection threshold is down in the range from 30 to 60 tons in hard rock. The IMS was intended (but not formally specified) to support monitoring down to about one kiloton. During most of the more than 20 years of planning and building up the seismic components of this network, monitoring experience was almost all based on teleseismic waves although it was expected that regional waves would be superior for monitoring at lower yields. The IMS was designed with station spacing sufficiently close to enable use of regional waves, but it is only now becoming apparent from results such as those of Figures 2–2 and 2–3 that regional waves enable monitoring to be done well below 1 kt.
Association of Signals

A consequence of the low thresholds indicated in Figures 2–2 and 2–3 is the large number of seismic events that are detected and therefore require some analysis. Each year, somewhat more than 7,000 earthquakes occur worldwide with magnitude greater than or equal to 4, and about 60,000 with magnitude greater than or equal to 3. While chemical explosions having magnitude greater than or equal to 4 are rare (a few per year, if any), there are probably on the order of a few hundred per year worldwide with magnitude greater than or equal to 3, and many thousands per year at smaller magnitudes that are detectable with stations close enough.

The problem then arises of sorting through the tens of thousands of signals each day that will be detected from network analysis of array data and three-component station data, and collecting together all the signals that are associated with the same seismic source.13 In the work of assembling sets of detections common to the same event, array stations in principle have the advantage, over three-component stations, of permitting determination of the direction of the source from a station at which there is a detection.

Associating signals correctly to the underlying seismic events is currently the most challenging software problem at the IDC. This challenge has been met in recent years for detections from the primary network. It could also be met using a larger network (for instance, with the addition of the auxiliary network, if it were enabled to report continuously), which would drive detection thresholds down to lower magnitude.
_____________________
13  Each seismic source generates several different waves, each arriving at a different time. Signals from different events can therefore overlap in time at each station. Effective methods of sorting through the interspersed detections have been found, but in practice 40 percent or more of the detections recorded on a given day have remained unassociated at the PIDC. The unassociated signals are typically from events of such small size that they are not detected by three or more stations, and have magnitudes lower than those contoured in Figure 2–2. These unassociated detections from low magnitude events are an unavoidable consequence of operating a very sensitive network.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html

All of lower Manhattan lies on mica schist, also called Manhattan schist, that is some 75 feet below ground. ... when you look at the New York City skyline, the tallest buildings are in the middle of Manhattan and the shorter buildings stand out toward the Hudson River and the East River. "The reason for that is because if you follow the heights of the buildings, the higher the buildings, the higher the rock is in Manhattan and the lower the buildings, the deeper [and lower] the rock is," Hahn says. [Daniel Hahn, senior associate engineer at the consulting company Mueser Rutledge.]

MICA-SCHIST, in petrology, a rock composed essentially of mica and quartz, and having a thin parallel-banded or foliated structure, with lamellae rich in mica alternating with others which are principally quartz.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The interesting thing about this is that the Hydraulics would "pop" with a hot "Grease spray" if that heat was that close to the Crane...  

[/tab]

The interesting thing about this is that the Hydraulics would "pop" with a hot "Grease spray" if that heat was that close to the Crane...  

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, can you please elaborate a little more on that ?  /tab -  mee speako engliko na to gooko  
.
.
.