The third truth about September 11th



A former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence says that actually happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. Destruction 3 WTC buildings was not a terrorist attack. It was the demolition of the only available method — nuclear explosions …

The official story of September 11 is similar to the bag, packed full of lies, and it is a proven fact for the alternative community. So what really happened? A new series of revelations of a former employee of the Russian nuclear intelligence shocks even those who believe that they have a clear idea about what is happening behind the scenes. From what is it that destroyed the World Trade Center buildings? The analytical work of an expert on nuclear explosions leads to a shocking conclusion.

When ordinary people saw how two planes hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, and then, as the Twin Towers collapsed in a cloud of dust, they were too shocked by these events to cast a critical analysis of the events themselves. And so since then strange ideas imprinted in their minds: that hollow aluminum planes supposedly can penetrate through steel buildings, thus, completely disappearing in them, and that jet fuel (kerosene) can allegedly "melt" these steel buildings in the microscopic volatile steel powder …

Sooner or later these ridiculous delusion had to be discarded. The destruction of the Twin Towers has absolutely nothing to do with the "aircraft", as well as a fire, allegedly caused by the "planes". It is an obvious fact, which occupies the minds of millions of Americans who are dissatisfied with the official interpretation of the destruction of the World Trade Center, for the past 6 years, at least. When was the initial shock of the events of September 11, many people began to realize that the absurdities in the official version is simply too much …

Given that the fires in both towers were caused approximately the same amount of kerosene and, given that the towers were twins (that is identical in strength), this discrepancy was the first clear sign that their destruction had nothing to do with fire.

The next realization came when the researchers September 11 began to consider the fact that the building number 7 World Trade Center (exceptionally strong modern 47-story skyscraper on a steel frame) also collapsed in the same way in the early evening of the same day, but at the same time, however, it did not get any aircraft. If the destruction of the Twin Towers was officially charged with kerosene, which brought the "aircraft", the destruction of the WTC-7 was inexplicable to the extent that the official report of the Commission of Inquiry on Sept. 11 chose not to mention at the destruction of the building number 7 — as if the fact of the destruction of 47 -story modern skyscraper does not even deserve consideration.

Comparing all these events and the many absurdities surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center, led the first investigators on Sept. 11 to the realization that the authorities simply fooled and that the destruction of the World Trade Center has nothing to do with kerosene, or to "aircraft", because the planes were simply are not needed.

The mere fact that the building number 7 World Trade Center collapsed in the early evening, September 11, 2001, successfully argued that the planes terrorists were unnecessary, and that the destruction of the World Trade Center would have happened anyway — regardless of the "aircraft". Someone just wanted to get the World Trade Center collapsed, and that's why he collapsed. From that moment was born the so-called "Truth Movement on September 11."

People began to accuse the U.S. government that it was deliberately destroyed the World Trade Center, a method that is widely used in the construction industry and is known as "drift." More and more people in America are beginning to blame their own government that it was the main culprit of the September 11 attacks and, in the end, more than 65% of the U.S. population has expressed its distrust of the official explanation about the Sept. 11 attacks and the destruction of the World Trade Center .

In fact, anyone who has watched the then news videos closely enough, will be able to remember these stills, which refers to "a third explosion":

Inscriptions on the screen: "CNN 10.03. Breaking news — the third explosion blew to smithereens the World Trade Center in New York City "and" CNN 10.13. Arched news — the third explosion destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City "

Here it is — one of the most seditious video clip CNN, NBC, which have been shown

lines of text, claiming that there had been a "third explosion," which at first "smashed to pieces", and then "destroyed" the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The North Tower (the one with the antenna) by that time had not fallen — it falls a little later from the "fourth explosion" — but CNN CNN has the time to get a reprimand from the "good people" and will no longer mention of such seditious things like "explosions".

The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center will be announced "Breaking of kerosene" and the WTC building number 7 (in which did not hit any plane so-called. "Terrorists") — "Breaking the diesel fuel" (whose stock was stored in the building for the emergency diesel generators).

For obvious reasons, most people who do not agree with the official "oil" theory, accusing the U.S. government that it deliberately demolished the World Trade Center. However, these people do not have sufficient understanding of industrial processes, building demolition at all, and the actual demolition of the World Trade Center in particular.

For this reason, there was a certain number of "conspiracy theories" that range from allegations that the WTC was allegedly "mined using conventional explosives" to allegations that he was allegedly taken down by the so-called "nano-thermite" (a mystical and hitherto unheard-of substance), which was allegedly used as a "dusting" on each metal piece bearing structures of the Twin Towers. There are also more bizarre conspiracy theory — the theory of the demolition of the WTC using laser beams from space, for example.

Of course, the authors of these various conspiracy theories can not give way to each other, and thus they are wasting valuable time not only to ensure that accuse the U.S. government that it was allegedly the main culprit of September 11, but also the fact that the accused one another in an attempt to "muddy the waters of truth." The general problem with all of these authors of conspiracy theories is that they simply do not know what happened with the World Trade Center in reality, and, most importantly, they do not know why it happened.

The author of this article tried to give the reader something different. Rather than offer another "conspiracy theory", he offers his expert opinion into the bargain to their testimony, that go along with his personal experience and knowledge gained as a result of service in the relevant post in the Soviet Army.

I hope that as a result of this approach, the reader will get a much more sensible explanation regarding the demolition of the WTC, compared with what he could get on any Internet forum that specializes in conspiracy theories about September 11.

«Ground Zero» and «ground zero»

To begin, I would like to remind everyone that the site of the former World Trade Center in New York, in English called «Ground Zero» [«zero mark" or "hub" within the meaning of the Russian-speaking reader]. Many people seem to not realize is that it is meant by the words «ground zero» and how they are an important piece of evidence.

Many people seem to perceive «Ground Zero» as a proper noun — as if it were the name of the city or the ship. However, few commemorated today that strange name «ground zero» was given the place of the former World Trade Center too quickly to be "a proper name."

Almost immediately after the Twin Towers collapsed (a few hours before the building collapsed number 7 WTC) — that is, after about noon Sept. 11, 2001 — almost all officials and some reporters have begun to call the site of the former World Trade Center strange words «ground zero». All news releases, which were printed the next day, also called the site of the former World Trade Center not only as «ground zero», and these strange words then still written in lowercase.

This use of the term «ground zero» with respect to the zone of the former World Trade Center continued through September 12, 2001. Some news agencies have continued to use the term «ground zero», who writes in lower case, and for September 13, 2001. And just then, as if someone had realized his mistake, the status of this strange name suddenly rose to «Ground Zero» capitalized and as such, finally, it became a proper name. But what does the word «ground zero», while they are still written in lower case, ie, at the time, as long as they have not yet acquired the status of a proper name?

Why almost immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers, these strange words were used to identify where the World Trade Center? Whether it was a mistake caused by the turmoil in the middle of the unprecedented events of September 11?

I would answer that "yes." Sure, it was a mistake caused by the general turmoil and confusion. However, this was not a mistake in the sense that the improper name was chosen to refer to the demolition of the WTC site — if only because, at that point it was too early to engage at all befitting a choice of a proper name.

In fact, the experts of the Civil Defense were absolutely right when they have designated this area the words «ground zero». This had absolutely no errors. It is, in fact it was «ground zero» in the same sense in which the term is understood specialists Civil Defense.

However, this was a mistake in the sense that these strange words «ground zero» were inadvertently "fused" to journalists and through them — and the general public. After that, it was too late to try to cover up the widespread use of this strange notation of service of the Civil Defense. And so desperate U.S. officials simply had no other chance as "headlined" these seditious words and thus transform it own definition of civil defense services in the name of your own …

WTC nuclear demolition

This writer was a career officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, which was also known as a "Special Control Service of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR." 12th Main Directorate, in turn, was the organization that responds to the USSR for the safe storage, industrial control, routine maintenance, etc. of all the country's nuclear arsenal. While the Special Control Service was responsible for the resection of nuclear explosions.

It also has to monitor the observance of international treaties on nuclear testing. This is particularly important in light of the existence of the so-called "Treaty on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions" in 1976 between the Soviet Union and the United States of America [known in the USSR as the "Treaty between the USSR and the USA on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes in 1976."] In accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the parties were required to inform each other of all nuclear explosions for non-military purposes.

During my service in the above-mentioned organization in the late 80's, I learned about the existence of the so-called "system of emergency nuclear demolitions", built into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. Actually the "system of nuclear demolition" was based on the powerful thermonuclear charges (about 150 kilotons of TNT), which were located at a depth of 50 meters below the lowest point of the base of each tower.

At the time, it seemed strange to me, to be honest, because it was hard to believe that the U.S. government may be crazy enough to demolish the building in the middle of the city inhabited by underground nuclear explosions. However, if I understand it correctly, no one was going to take down the World Trade Center in reality. It was just a means to get around some bureaucratic hurdles. The horrific nuclear imaging system was built into the demolition of the Twin Towers not to demolish them in reality, but simply in order to get permission to build them at all.

The problem was that the then Building Code of New York (and Chicago Building Code) does not allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits for the construction of any skyscraper was as long as it did not provide the designer of the Department and also a satisfactory way to the demolition of the structure, both in the future demolition and demolition in the event of an emergency.

Since the late 60's (when the construction of the Twin Towers was first proposed), this type of building a steel frame was a radically new concept, no one knew how to demolish such buildings. The traditional ("conventional") methods for demolition were applicable only in relation to the buildings of the old type. It took something completely new for incredibly strong steel Twin Towers. That is, needed something new that might convince officials from the Department of Buildings to issue a permit for the construction. And that "something new" was, in the end, found nuclear demolition …


Now, as I think the reader has already realized just how strong were the Twin Towers, which were impossible to carry conventional explosives, but only underground thermonuclear explosion of high power, I think it would be very interesting to consider another question. And could the aluminum passenger planes, these twin towers pierce through and through, as it was shown to us on TV?

This is one of the most famous video showing the ease with which an aluminum plane breaks into a steel tower — without slowing down and without the slightest details of the aircraft decidua back on the street. Most significant in this particular video that accidentally got into the frame man does not react to the sound of the alleged "approaching aircraft", or the sound of [aluminum] "airplane" to breach through the [armor] South Tower [like a knife through butter]. This person begins to respond only to the explosion itself inside the Tower.

By the way, in this video, though not as clearly as in the last video at the end of this article, but still noticeable the very outer aluminum cover, embossed explosion and flying away from the inside to the outside, a little ahead of the fireball, and, flying off to the side, diametrically the opposite direction of the hit tower "plane".

First of all, to make it easier to understand this, let's briefly go back to the point with which I began this article: as the Twins fell not because of "kerosene", but due to the high power of thermonuclear explosions, and, moreover, they fell into "the wrong order "and, in addition to all the building number 7, which did not fall into" airplane terrorists, "also hit some reason, we can assume that the planes were simply not needed.

They were excessive. As they could not add anything to the actual demolition of the WTC [kerosene fire could bring in barrels]. And because the planes were redundant, we can safely assume that the crime Sept. 11 could have been committed and does not planes: the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were to go into oblivion because someone wanted it, and they go into oblivion had no relation to the "aircraft".

Therefore, many researchers are thinking September 11 began to question the approval of the U.S. government that ever existed some "aircraft", allegedly struck the Twin Towers. A lot of their work is available on the Internet (including the popular series «September clues» and «FOXED OUT» available on YouTube), which contain a detailed analysis of the various videos for the September 11, showing the "planes". These works more than satisfactorily prove that the "planes" were digital.

This writer, however, prefers a different approach. Rather than expose the absurdity of the critical analysis of videos mentioned above (since the attempt of such an analysis, of course, will cause a lot of criticism), this writer prefers to immediately take the bull by the horns: aluminum can not penetrate steel. Point.

Assume that the aluminum Boeing 767 and could really break through those thick double-walled steel perimeters that are shown in the photos above, there is the same thing as believing that the laws of physics have decided, for no reason at all to take a day off in the eleventh day of the month of September two thousand the first year of our Lord …

Some might consider this: since the aircraft, even if it is made of aluminum, flying at a speed of nearly 500 miles per hour [~ 805 km / h], because of its huge mass and speed they have sufficient kinetic energy to to break through the Twin Towers, despite the fact that the latter are made of steel.

However, this approach is illegal. Yes, intuitively it seems that a huge fast-moving aircraft carries tremendous energy, and it may seem that the aircraft is in fact can cause damage to the building in which he crashed.

But what do you think would happen — hypothetically — if the plane will be fixed in the air, while a giant will take only a massive steel tower WTC razmahnetsya as it should be, and embeds it with a flourish at a speed of 500 miles per hour on such a fixed [aluminum] aircraft? Flatten whether such a hit that same plane? Or do you think that the plane was completely pass through the building — so that the slightest detail of the aircraft will not remain on the outside shell of the tower (which is twice as thick as the frontal armor of the tank)?

To make it even easier — just imagine that you hit a fly swatter at a fixed rate of fly swatter 1 meter per second, and then — 10 meters per second, and then — 100 and 200 meters per second. Will you be able to achieve such a "necessary" speed at which the fly, rather than flatten, suddenly pass unharmed through a flyswatter, leaving the latter in relation to its silhouette of a hole? No?

Now imagine the same thing, but a stationary swatter, which crashed flying fly at speeds consistently — 1 meter per second, 10 meters per second, and finally — 100 or 200 meters per second. Could be that a fly swatter breaks?

Consider this hypothetical question, because whether it's a moving plane crashing into a stationary tower, or vice versa — someone crashed into the Tower on a fixed plane, the physics of this event remain identical. Therefore, a "purely intuitive" opinion on the alleged anti-armor abilities, "a fast-moving plane" is not such a "intuitive" in the light of the above example …

Whether there will be those who are willing to seriously believe that the aluminum "Boeing" could really kicked in full (including the tail, wings and engines) through the steel columns shown below? Located in a meter of each other on the facades of Towers?

For some, it may seem difficult — to understand that aluminum can not penetrate steel. Therefore, solely for the understanding of this, here's a little hint — as a basic premise: we know that artillery armor-piercing shells made of materials that are stronger than armor penetration for which they are intended. Usually they are made of tungsten (Americans, instead of expensive tungsten is used as depleted uranium-238 which material is useless, however, be able to penetrate the armor due to its large specific weight and density which exceeds the density of steel).

Armor-piercing shells made of aluminum, do not exist — that's obvious. Just as there are no aluminum swords, as well as other sharps made of this metal. The very idea that the aluminum tool supposedly can cut steel, is somewhat "strange", if not crazy.

Dmitri Khalezov

Like this post? Please share to your friends: