9/11: A Nuclear Meltdown?

Sendungstext
herunterladen

PDF (.pdf)

Word (.docx)

11.09.2020 | www.kla.tv/17191

1] Ever since 9/11, there has been discussion, research and speculation on what actually happened on that fateful day. Bush and Blair placed the blame on 19 Muslims who flew airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, all directed by another Muslim from a cave in Afghanistan. 2] Few people today, if they’ve put any thought to it, still believe the official version of events. 3] The first scientific paper on the destruction of the Twin Towers was Professor Steven Jones’s ‘Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?’. His university put him on paid leave and then fired him. He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, and shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions. He gave evidence of the existence of the incendiary thermite, which could be used to cut through steel. 4] However, the paper omitted vital evidence of the top section of the South Tower tilting at a 15-degree angle. The angular momentum of that would have meant that it would have hurled to the ground to the side of the tower, unless it was blown to smithereens by some unexplained mechanism. Simple controlled demolition could not explain the collapse. 5] In 2009, a paper appeared in a chemistry journal presenting evidence that the dust of the buildings contained the explosive nano-thermite. The suggestion was that it would have been painted onto the walls of the towers, but there is no analysis of the effect of painting nano-thermite gel onto walls. Would both sides of the walls have to be painted then lit simultaneously in order to pulverize the walls? How would that be done? 6] However, the paper looked only at those towers, and omitted vital evidence on the rest of the Ground Zero site. Other buildings were damaged, and there was evidence of radiation damage from ‘toasted cars’ and people trapped in the towers stripping their clothes off, a known result of Active Denial System (directed energy weapons as used in riot control in the US. These use microwaves of around 100 GHz. 7] Meanwhile, Professor Judy Wood was bringing together photographic evidence of the damage over the whole site, and in 2009 published a book, ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11’. The first several chapters presented photos and other data that went against the idea of controlled demolition by explosives. She then proposed the theory of an unknown ‘directed energy’ from the sky, which had ‘dustified’ (*Judy Wood's term for a special kind of pulverization) the towers. Based on her research she concluded that there were no high temperatures involved, and proposed that the ‘Hutchison Effect’, which is not known in current physics, was used on 9/11. 8] Her book dismissed nano-thermite, attributing the traces found to a different origin, and she dismissed a nuclear reaction, saying that there was no evidence of radioactive fallout. However, there was no analysis, and no consideration of types of nuclear devices: whether fission or fusion, above-ground or below-ground, tactical nuclear weapon or nuclear meltdown. 9] In the meantime, a former Soviet citizen, who had been part of a secret military unit responsible for detecting nuclear explosions, Dmitri Khalezov, was pursuing the idea that the towers of the World Trade Center could have been brought down by underground nuclear explosions. Moreover, he testifies that, as a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service, he knew about a built-in ‘emergency nuclear demolitions scheme’ of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the ‘80s. In 2010 he published a book, now in its fourth edition, in Russian and various other languages, proposing his theory of underground nuclear explosions. At the time his theory seemed improbable, and was dismissed by more well-known investigators. 10] This line of inquiry was followed up by the German physicist Heinz Pommer. His university major had been in nuclear physics. He studied underground nuclear tests, and came to the conclusion that such a nuclear device could indeed explain most of the unexplained phenomena of 9/11, though there were one or two problems. He later modified the theory, proposing not a nuclear explosion as such, but nuclear meltdown. This, it appears, would account even better for the lack of radiation signature in the air following 9/11. 11] Nuclear meltdown had been explored in the 1960s for purposes of ‘nuclear landscaping’. The Soviet Union had been creating massive reservoirs using ‘nuclear landscaping’. Further developments in the West would enable the cutting of deep channels through mountains for motorways or railway links. One aspect that researchers were working on was the reduction of radioactive fallout following such a blast, and that could account for the low-level traces of subsequent radioactive materials following 9/11. Since politicians were concerned about the public acceptance, the research was kept relatively quiet. It would, of course, have been known of in the nuclear industry and academia. 12] Heinz Pommer presented his technical data on his website, and he has given public talks during this development. Now he has published a ground-breaking book in English, with contributions from several other physicists, under the title: ‘The Ground Zero Model’. 13] “On the right scale everything becomes simple”. This is Heinz Pommer’s central idea, which he promotes in his book. “On the right scale we can see the major connections which go as far as nuclear blackmail against a civil society”, he writes. The book introduces the development of nuclear landscaping, and shows how that would match the traces of radioactivity left at Ground Zero. He also shows how nuclear radiation would account for interference in some of the videos taken at the time, and why paper survived, but iron didn’t. He goes into some detail on the model itself, with slow-burn underground nuclear reactions, leading to high-temperature winds gushing up the lift-shafts, and pulverizing much of the building materials. He writes, too, of the “spineless universities” which have turned a blind eye towards the evidence. If Dmitri Khalezov and Heinz Pommer are correct in their conclusions that the towers of 9/11 were brought down by nuclear devices, then the implications are grim: the start of a new era of nuclear terrorism to seize global power. Heinz Pommer’s book “The Ground-Zero-Model” should be seen as a warning to the world. The significance of this model goes far beyond a single terrorist attack.

from ian/sl

Sources/Links: ‘Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?’, Steven Jones, Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006 (http://www.journalof911studies.com/why-indeed-did-the-world-trade-center-buildings-completely-collapse/
) ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 (https://wikispooks.com/w/images/c/cc/Nano-Thermite.pdf
) ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11’, Judy Wood, The New Investigation, 1 Dec. 2010 (https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/product/where-did-the-towers-go-by-dr-judy-wood/
) ‘The Third Truth about 9/11’, Dmitri Khalezov, self-published as PDF, Full edition (version 4), 4 July 2013 (http://www.911thology.com/
) ‘The Ground Zero Model’, Heinz Pommer, François Roby, David Madlener (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-ground-zero-model-heinz-pommer/1137150656?ean=9781663537676
) ‘The Ground Zero Model – A physical model for 9/11’, Heinz Pommer, presentation at the 17th Anti-Censure Conference (AZK), 23 November 2019, in German (www.kla.tv/15477
) with voiceovers in English (https://www.kla.tv/15470
), Russian (https://www.kla.tv/15639
) and Latvian (https://www.kla.tv/15757
)