DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

**glasscollector** · 09-09-2011, 02:18 AM

What is the method by which nuclear explosions can be directed in one direction without hitting anything else adjacent to it?

If you watch the Khalezov videos, he explains it. The point where the bomb explodes he calls 'zero-box'. The energy of the explosion is calculated to create a cavity 100 meters across in the granite bedrock under the buildings. So, they place zero box 50 meters below the lowest floor of the WTC buildings, which is 27 meters below street level. Zero box is 77 meters below street level under each tower. When it explodes, the top of the cavity is directly below the tall steel building, and since the explosion wants to go in the path of least resistance, it goes straight up--through the building. The shock wave travels up the building, pulverizing it up to the 80th floor, and shaking the rest of the building into larger pieces. The whole building is demolished instantaneously, most of it coming down as powder, and the rest easily removed, pieces of scorched steel. My vision of it is a gigantic exploding pustule under the buildings. How else do you account for an anomalous absence of solid debris? Most of the debris was swept up as dust. Khalezov does a much better job explaining than I am doing.

I think the problem with the nuclear demolition theory is that you have to overcome a strong belief that people in authority would not explode nuclear bombs in densely populated cities. Nor would they allow anyone to do so. People believe that authority protects them. So the authorities wouldn't do anything like that, and anybody who thinks that they would is crazy. That's a really tough belief to hold up to the chopping block. Authority is the 911 issue. Do you trust authority? Or are you suspicious of authority. It's a big deal to switch views. Anyway, in order to believe some of the theories proposed, you have to have a distrust of authority, or at least to lack an 'idealized' view of them--and understand that the people in power do not serve you. It's not such a big leap from this awareness to the idea that they could plant nuclear bombs under big buildings, and blow them up with a good deal of the NY Fire Department inside. Plus a hell of a lot of other people. You have to be really paranoid to believe anyone could do that, right? So you let them off the hook, and you believe the arab hijacker story. And you dismiss science and common sense and logic and reason because you know which side your bread is buttered on. So, if you don't want to believe they would cover up a nuclear demolition with a fairy tale--you'r about half way there to believing that they would actually blow three nukes in a single day--for the insurance money, and all the other 'benefits'.

Hatha

09-09-2011, 02:18 AM	#18
glasscollector Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 525 Senior Member	What is the method by which nuclear explosions can be directed in one direction without hitting anything else adjacent to it? If you watch the Khalezov videos, he explains it. The point where the bomb explodes he calls 'zero-box'. The energy of the explosion is calculated to create a cavity 100 meters across in the granite bedrock under the buildings. So, they place zero box 50 meters below the lowest floor of the WTC buildings, which is 27 meters below street level. Zero box is 77 meters below street level under each tower. When it explodes, the top of the cavity is directly below the tall steel building, and since the explosion wants to go in the path of least resistance, it goes straight up--through the building. The shock wave travels up the building, pulverizing it up to the 80th floor, and shaking the rest of the building into larger pieces. The whole building is demolished instantaneously, most of it coming down as powder, and the rest easily removed, pieces of scorched steel. My vision of it is a gigantic exploding pustule under the buildings. How else do you account for an anomalous absence of solid debris? Most of the debris was swept up as dust. Khalezov does a much better job explaining than I am doing. I think the problem with the nuclear demolition theory is that you have to overcome a strong belief that people in authority would not explode nuclear bombs in densely populated cities. Nor would they allow anyone to do so. People believe that authority protects them. So the authorities wouldn't do anything like that, and anybody who thinks that they would is crazy. That's a really tough belief to hold up to the chopping block. Authority is the 911 issue. Do you trust authority? Or are you suspicious of authority. It's a big deal to switch views. Anyway, in order to believe some of the theories proposed, you have to have a distrust of authority, or at least to lack an 'idealized' view of them--and understand that the people in power do not serve you. It's not such a big leap from this awareness to the idea that they could plant nuclear bombs under big buildings, and blow them up with a good deal of the NY Fire Department inside. Plus a hell of a lot of other people. You have to be really paranoid to believe anyone could do that, right? So you let them off the hook, and you believe the arab hijacker story. And you dismiss science and common sense and logic and reason because you know which side your bread is buttered on. So, if you don't want to believe they would cover up a nuclear demolition with a fairy tale--you'r about half way there to believing that they would actually blow three nukes in a single day--for the insurance money, and all the other 'benefits'. Hatha
	Quote