14 Responses to “People are still talking about 9/11. Here’s a video from a while back, but not widely seen. It certainly shows up mythbusters and Nat Geo, for what they are.”

  1. sovereigntea says:

    What disease was becoming common among the survivors in Hiroshima?
    Leukaemia was the first cancer to be associated with atomic bomb radiation exposure, with preliminary indications of an excess among the survivors within the first five years after the bombings. An excess of solid cancers became apparent approximately ten years after radiation exposure.

    Health Effects of 9/11 Still Plague Responders and Survivors

    Those who were exposed to Ground Zero have increased rates of certain cancers and other health problems

    By Tara Haelle on September 10, 2021

    Health Effects of 9/11 Still Plague Responders and Survivors

    Submitted by Heinz Pommer with Jeff Prager to Veterans Today Introduction by Gordon Duff with Ian Greenhalgh and Jeff Smith (Nuclear weapons designer/particle physicist) The material here is overwhelming, hours of lectures and dozens of detailed slides. This is not an easy read. It is another piece of irrevocable proof regarding 9/11 and the use […]

  2. sovereigntea says:

    Radioactive fallout found by the U.S. Geological Survey in samples from 35 sites surrounding the WTC for nearly a mile. Other signs were the speed of the Towers disintegrations (8 to 10 seconds), the shock and blast waves, the pyroclastic main cloud, base-surges of street-level dust clouds, electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), upwellings of clouds from street gratings blocks away, the 2,800ºF heat under the WTC debris, and, possibly, the giveaway light-blue Cerenkov Radiation when the debris “pile” was cleared in mid-March.

    Add to all these signs, the molten metal in the footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that for three months could not be extinguished by water or daily soil changes as it consumed concrete, steel, glass, office combustibles. The increasing incidence of radiation-only cancers from residents is another tell-tale sign of a nuclear “event.”

    • ian says:

      Thanks for that S’. Very interesting.

    • ROTH says:

      I’m a subscriber to Dimitry Khalezov’s nuclear demolition theory, it seems the most logical to me.


      • ian says:

        Hi ROTH, nuclear weapons may well have been used on the twin towers, but the internal structure had to have been compromised for the full height of the building to get it to collapse in on it’s own footprint. Photographs of a room full of detonators exists. A well timed rolling detonation like in a quarry under the debris field was likely used too, to cut the steel debris to size. Anything tall that would have been left, would have fallen like a chimney stack on Manhattan. Apparently very deep heavy explosions were heard long before the collapse sequence started. The video here at 1:25 shows what I think happened.

      • ian says:

        Sorry, 1:17 ends 1:25

      • ROTH says:

        Hi ian, yeah I’ve seen the pictures of the steel beams cut at 45 degrees. That seems like thermite or thermate charges, though I’m working from memory here as I haven’t looked at 9/11 in a long time now. I certainly don’t disagree with you on that.

        This is the subject that started my path down the rabbit hole many years ago when someone pushed me in the direction of Loose Change. At the time I probably watched every video and read every article available on the subject.
        One of the things that stood out for me was the reference to Cerenkov luminescence and the ‘Freedom Lights’ being put up immediately afterwards to hide it that Khalezov wrote about.

        A DEW from outer space would need an awesome amount of energy to cause that kind of destruction, and while I’m not saying that’s impossible it does seem somewhat implausible to me.

  3. stevie k says:

    Whatever was the true cause of the Towers collapse it certainly wasn’t jet fuel or plane impact which I don’t think happened anyway. A 3mm aluminium tube which is basically what a plane is apart from the engine cannot slice through the solid structure of massively strong buildings like the Towers. It would be like firing an aluminium drinks can at a steel shipping container and expecting it to go straight through leaving a round hole… ain’t gonna happen.
    I still think Dr Judy Woods book “Where Did the Towers Go” offers the best theory as to what really happened that day. Nobody else can seem to explain issues such as the photos of steel columns just turning into dust and blowing away. Well worth a read if you want to explore all the alternative theories.

    • ian says:

      Yes indeed stevie. I doubt the picture that you mention though. I think that the steel girder was hit and collapsed leaving rust dust in the air. Hit by another beam perhaps while they were being demolished to hide the evidence.

      • stevie k says:

        If I’m correct Ian I think the girder was caught disintegrating on video, I saw nothing hit it. I may be wrong I’ll have to check.

      • stevie k says:

        As the title of the book states Ian, Where Did the Towers Go”, where were the massive piles of steel beams, the thousands and thousands of tons of concrete and everything else that was in the buildings? The debris pile should have been enormous. The only answer to me is that most of it was turned to dust and blew away as witnessed in the pyroclastic clouds. I don’t think the Thermite or Nuclear device theories answer these questions.

      • ian says:

        Possibly stevie, however there were cavernous underground chambers 4 or 5 floors down too to absorb all or a lot of the debris. I obviously don’t know for sure what happened that day, but I do know that conventional explosives were used, as was military grade thermite. I am loathe to believe in directed energy weapons, and other versions like that. We all however have our own ideas, and we may never really know.

  4. sovereigntea says:

    ww1 kamekazi attacks on aircraft carriers made of steel similar to the towers planes filled with fuel + explosives yet the steel doesn’t melt 🙂

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.