A former Soviet nuclear intelligence officer tells what really happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. The destruction of 3 WTC buildings was not a terrorist attack. It was demolition in the only available way - nuclear explosions …
The official 9/11 story is like a bag full of lies, and this seems to be a proven fact for the alternative community. So what really happened? The new series of revelations from a former Russian nuclear intelligence official shocks even those who believe they have a clear understanding of what is going on behind the scenes. Why did the buildings of the WTC collapse? The analytical work of an expert on nuclear explosions leads us to a shocking conclusion.
When ordinary people saw two planes hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, and how the Twin Towers collapsed in clouds of dust, they were too shocked by these events to critique the events themselves. And therefore, since then, strange ideas have engraved on their heads: that hollow aluminum planes supposedly can pierce through steel buildings, while completely disappearing into them; and the fact that aviation fuel (kerosene) can allegedly "melt" these steel buildings into microscopic volatile steel powder …
Sooner or later, these ridiculous delusions had to be discarded. The destruction of the Twin Towers has absolutely nothing to do with "airplanes", as well as with a fire allegedly caused by "airplanes". This is an obvious fact that has occupied the minds of millions of Americans who have been dissatisfied with the official interpretation of the destruction of the World Trade Center over the past 6 years, at least. When the initial shock caused by the events of 9/11 passed, many people began to realize that there are simply too many absurdities in the official version …
Considering that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same amount of kerosene and, given that the Towers were Gemini (i.e., absolutely identical in strength), this discrepancy was the first clear sign that their destruction had nothing to do with the fire.
The next realization came when 9/11 researchers began to consider the fact that Building # 7 of the World Trade Center (an extremely solid modern 47-story steel-framed skyscraper) also collapsed in a similar manner in the early evening of the same day, but at the same time, no planes hit it. If the destruction of the Twin Towers was officially blamed on the kerosene brought by the "planes", then the destruction of WTC-7 was inexplicable to such an extent that the official Report of the September 11 Investigation Commission chose not to mention the destruction of Building No. 7 at all - as if the fact of the destruction of 47 -storey modern skyscraper did not even deserve consideration.
Comparison of all these events and the many absurdities surrounding the destruction of the WTC led the first researchers of September 11 to the realization that the authorities were simply being fooled and that the destruction of the World Trade Center had nothing to do with either kerosene or "airplanes", since the airplanes were simply Not needed.
The very fact that Building No. 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed in the early evening of September 11, 2001 successfully proved that the terrorist planes were superfluous, and that the destruction of the World Trade Center would have happened anyway - regardless of the “planes”. Someone just wanted the World Trade Center to collapse, which is why it collapsed. From that moment on, the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement was born.
People began to accuse the US government of deliberately destroying the World Trade Center in a method widely used in the construction industry known as "demolition." More and more people in America are beginning to blame their own government for being the main culprit in the 9/11 attacks and, in the end, more than 65% of the US population expressed their disbelief in the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks and the destruction of the World Trade Center. …
In fact, anyone who watched the news videos of the time closely enough will be able to recall these freeze frames where the "third explosion" is mentioned:
Screen captions: CNN 10.03. Breaking News - Third Explosion Shattered the World Trade Center in New York and CNN 10.13. Arched News - Third Explosion Destroyed New York's World Trade Center"
Here it is - the same seditious video report of CNN, which showed lines of text claiming that there was some kind of "third explosion", which first "smashed to smithereens" and then "destroyed" the South Tower of the World Trade Center … The North Tower (the one with the antenna) had not yet fallen by that time - it will fall a little later from the "fourth explosion" - but CNN will already receive a severe reprimand from the "good people" by that time and will no longer mention such seditious things like "explosions".
The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center will be declared "destroyed by kerosene", and the WTC building number 7 (which has never been hit by a single plane of the so-called "terrorists") - "destroyed by diesel fuel" (the supply of which was stored in the building for emergency diesel power generators).
For obvious reasons, most people who disagree with the official "kerosene" theory accuse the US government of deliberately demolishing the World Trade Center. However, these people do not have a sufficient understanding of the industrial processes of demolition of buildings in general, and the actual demolition of the World Trade Center in particular.
For this reason, a number of "conspiracy theories" have emerged, ranging from claims that the WTC was allegedly "mined with conventional explosives" to claims that it was allegedly demolished with so-called "nano-termite" (a kind of mystical and hitherto unheard-of substance), which was allegedly used in the form of "spraying" on each metal part of the supporting structures of the Twin Towers. There are also more bizarre conspiracy theories - the theory of demolishing the World Trade Center using laser beams from space, for example.
It goes without saying that the authors of these varied conspiracy theories cannot concede to each other, and thus they spend precious time not only blaming the US government for allegedly being the main culprit on 9/11, but also blaming each other in attempts to "muddy the waters of truth." The common problem with all these conspiracy theorists is that they simply don't know what really happened to the World Trade Center, and, most importantly, they don't know why it happened.
The author of this article tried to present something different to the reader. Instead of offering another "conspiracy theory", he offers his expert opinion, in addition to his testimony, which goes along with his personal experience and knowledge gained as a result of serving in the relevant post in the Soviet Army.
I hope that as a result of this approach, the reader will receive a significantly more sensible explanation about the demolition of the WTC, compared to what he could get on some Internet forum specializing in conspiracy theories about 9/11.
Ground Zero and Ground Zero
To begin with, I would like to remind everyone that the site of the former World Trade Center in New York in English is called "Ground Zero" ["zero point" or "epicenter" in the understanding of the Russian-speaking reader]. Many people seem to be unaware of what exactly the words "ground zero" mean and how important they are.
Many, apparently, perceive "Ground Zero" as a proper name - as if it were the name of a city or a ship. However, few remember today that the strange name "ground zero" was given to the site of the former WTC too quickly to be a "Proper Name".
Almost immediately after the Twin Towers collapsed (a few hours before the WTC building 7 collapsed) - that is, around noon on September 11, 2001 - almost all officials and some reporters have already begun to name the site of the former WTC the strange words "ground zero". All news bulletins that were printed the next day also referred to the site of the former WTC as nothing more than "ground zero", and these strange words were still written in lowercase letters.
This use of the term "ground zero" in relation to the former WTC area continued throughout September 12, 2001. And some news outlets continued to use the lowercase term "ground zero" throughout September 13, 2001. And only then, as if someone had realized their mistake, the status of this strange name suddenly suddenly increased to "Ground Zero" from Capital Letters, and in this capacity, finally, it turned into a Proper Name. But what did the words "ground zero" mean while they were still written in lowercase letters, i.e. at a time before they have yet acquired the status of a Proper Name?
Why, almost immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers, were these strange words used to refer to the location of the WTC? Was this a mistake caused by the confusion amid the unprecedented events of 9/11?
I would answer yes. This was no doubt a mistake, caused by general confusion and confusion. However, this was not a mistake in the sense that an inappropriate name was chosen to denote the site of the demolition of the WTC - if only because at that moment it was too early to even bother with choosing a proper proper name.
In fact, the Civil Defense experts were absolutely right when they designated this area with the words “ground zero”. There was absolutely no mistake about it. It was indeed a "ground zero" in the very sense in which civil defense specialists understand the term.
However, this was a mistake in the sense that these strange words "ground zero" were inadvertently "leaked" to journalists, and through them - to the general public. After that, it was too late to try to hush up the widespread use of this strange designation for the Civil Defense. And therefore, desperate American officials simply have no other chance but to “title” these seditious words and thus transform this own definition of the Civil Defense Service into a Proper Name …
WTC nuclear demolition
The author of these lines was a career officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, which was also known as the "Special Control Service of the 12th Main Directorate of the USSR Ministry of Defense." The 12th Main Directorate, in turn, was the organization that was responsible in the USSR for safe storage, production control, routine maintenance, etc., of the entire nuclear arsenal of the country. While the Special Control Service was responsible for detecting nuclear explosions.
It was also responsible for monitoring compliance with international treaties related to nuclear tests. This is especially important in light of the existence of the so-called "Treaty on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions" of 1976 between the USSR and the United States of America [known in the USSR as the "Treaty between the USSR and the United States on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes 1976"]. In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the parties were obliged to inform each other about all nuclear explosions for non-military purposes.
During my service with the aforementioned organization in the late 1980s, I learned of the existence of a so-called "emergency nuclear demolition system" built into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. The actual "nuclear demolition system" was based on powerful thermonuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT equivalent), which were located at a depth of 50 meters below the lowest point of the foundation of each of the Towers.
In those days it seemed strange to me, to be honest, because it was hard to believe that the US authorities could be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city with underground nuclear explosions. However, if I got it right, no one was actually going to demolish the World Trade Center. It was just a way to get around some bureaucratic obstacles. A terrifying nuclear demolition system was built into the Twin Towers not to demolish them in reality, but simply to obtain permission to build them altogether.
The problem was that the then New York building code (as well as the Chicago building code) did not allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits for the construction of any skyscraper until its designer provided the Department with a satisfactory way to demolish such a building. buildings, both in the future and in the event of an emergency.
Since in the late 60s (when the construction of the Twin Towers was first proposed) this type of steel-framed buildings was a fundamentally new concept, no one knew how to demolish such buildings. Traditional (“normal”) demolition methods were only applicable to older buildings. Something fundamentally new was required for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers. Those. something new was needed to convince officials from the Department of Buildings to issue a permit to build them. And this "something new" was eventually found: nuclear demolition …
Now, since I think that the reader has already understood how strong the Twin Towers were, which could not be demolished with ordinary explosives, but only with a high-power underground thermonuclear explosion, it seems to me that it will be very interesting to consider another issue. Could aluminum passenger planes pierce through these Twin Towers, as was shown to us on TV?
This is one of the most famous videos showing with what ease an aluminum plane breaks into a steel tower - without slowing down and without the slightest detail of the plane falling back onto the street. Most revealing in this particular video is that a person accidentally caught in the frame does not react to the sound of a supposedly "approaching plane" or to the sound of an [aluminum] "plane" breaking through the South Tower's [armor] [like a knife through butter]. This person begins to react only to the explosion itself inside the Tower.
By the way, in this video, although not as clearly as in the last video at the end of this article, you can still see the very same external aluminum lining, knocked out by the explosion from the inside and flying outward, slightly ahead of the fireball, moreover, flying off to the side, diametrically opposite to the direction of movement of the "plane" that hit the Tower.
First of all, to make it easier to understand, let's briefly return to where I started this article: since the Gemini fell not due to "kerosene", but due to thermonuclear explosions of high power, and, moreover, fell in the "wrong sequence ", And, in addition to everything, building No. 7, which did not get" terrorist planes ", also collapsed for some reason, we can assume that the planes were simply not needed.
They were redundant. Because they could not add anything to the actual demolition of the WTC [kerosene for the fire could have been delivered in barrels]. And since the planes were redundant, we can safely assume that the crime of September 11 could have been committed without planes at all: the Twin Towers and WTC-7 had to go into oblivion, since someone wanted it, and their departure into oblivion did not have nothing to do with "airplanes".
Therefore, many thinking researchers on September 11 began to question the claims of the US government that there were any "planes" at all, supposedly hitting the Twin Towers. A lot of their work is available online (in particular the popular series "September clues" and "FOXED OUT" available on YouTube), which contain detailed analysis of various September 11 videos showing "airplanes". These works more than satisfactorily prove that the "airplanes" were digital.
The author of these lines, however, prefers a different approach. Instead of critically analyzing the absurdity of the videos mentioned above (since the very attempt of such an analysis will undoubtedly cause a lot of criticism), the author of these lines prefers to take the bull by the horns right away: aluminum cannot pierce steel. Point.
To believe that aluminum Boeings-767s could indeed penetrate those thick double-walled steel perimeters shown in the photographs above is the same as believing that the laws of physics decided for no reason at all to take a day off on the eleventh day of September two thousand the first year from the birth of Christ …
Someone might think like this: since airplanes, even if they are made of aluminum, fly at a speed of almost 500 miles per hour [~ 805 km / h], due to their enormous mass and speed, they have enough kinetic energy to pierce through the Twin Towers, even though the latter are made of steel.
However, this is not a legitimate approach. Yes, purely intuitively, it seems that a huge, fast-moving plane carries tremendous energy, and it may seem to someone that the plane can in fact cause damage to the building into which it crashes.
But what do you think will happen - hypothetically - if the plane is stationary in the air, while some giant takes the extremely massive steel WTC Tower, swings it properly and smashes it with a swing at a speed of 500 miles per hour on such a stationary [aluminum] an airplane? Will such a blow flatten this very plane? Or do you think that the plane will pass through the building cleanly - so that not the slightest detail of this plane will remain outside the Tower shell (which is twice as thick as the frontal armor of a tank)?
To make it even easier for you, imagine that you are hitting a stationary fly with a fly swatter at a fly swatter speed of 1 meter per second, 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, instead of flattening itself, will suddenly pass unharmed through the fly swatter, leaving a hole corresponding to its silhouette in the latter? Not?
Now imagine all the same, but a motionless fly swatter, into which a flying fly crashes sequentially at speeds of 1 meter per second, 10 meters per second, and finally - 100 and even 200 meters per second. Could it be that a fly hits a fly swatter?
Think about this hypothetical question, because whether it is a moving plane crashing into a stationary Tower, or, conversely, someone hits a stationary plane with the Tower, the physics of this event remains identical. Therefore, the "purely intuitive" opinion about the supposedly armor-piercing abilities of a "fast-moving aircraft" turns out to be not so "intuitive" in the light of the above example …
Are there those who are willing to seriously believe that an aluminum Boeing can actually break through the entire steel column (including its tail, wings and engines) through the steel columns shown below? Located a meter apart along the facades of the Towers?
It may seem difficult for some to realize that aluminum cannot penetrate steel. Therefore, just to understand this, here's a little hint - as a basic premise: it is known that armor-piercing artillery shells are made from materials that are stronger than the armor they are designed to penetrate. Usually they are made of tungsten (the Americans, instead of expensive tungsten, also use depleted uranium-238, which is a useless material, although it is quite capable of penetrating armor due to its high specific gravity and density, which exceeds that of steel).
Armor-piercing shells made of aluminum do not exist - this is obvious. Just as aluminum sabers do not exist, as well as other piercing-cutting objects made of this metal. The very idea that an aluminum tool can allegedly cut steel is somewhat "odd" if not crazy.