Double Hijack of "Arctic Sea" (ongoing)

[Peter Presland]

[quote=Peter Presland]
Is it just me? Or am I missing an essential point?

As it stands I simply cannot buy into Khalezov's "mini-nukes" story - especially the 911 Pentagon Russian nuclear-tipped missile (with thermo-nuclear warhead 25 x greater than Hiroshima) - not to mention the Bali bombing. Where's all the devastation? Where's the cancers? Where's the radiation suits of the Emergency teams?

I'm not promoting Khalezov particularly but a few of points.

1. He doesn't allege mini-nukes for the WTC. He alleges much bigger - circa 150Kt - deep underground ones. The Manhattan sub-strata is granite and 150Kt is the "Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty" max it seems. The theory is set out in that wikispooks article. I don't go all the way with it but, if the science of 'crush-zone' propagation it explains is accurate and the detonation IS at a optimum depth under the foundations, then it has considerable merit IMHO.

2. It explains otherwise very difficult to explain phenomena viz:

a) White heat molten metal 3 months after the events - not an easy one for thermite residues.
b) The apparent crumbling to dust of core columns and clearly visible in a number of NIST videos - the only other explanation I've seen is Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) which I find even less tenable - but don't entirely rule out either.
c) They don't make tank shells out of aluminum. IOW think about an aluminum tube suspended in mid air being hit by a single outer tower column of 2.5 inches thick and 12 inches square x-section at say 500 mph (slower than a tank shell) and try to visualise what happens. And we are asked to believe that the aluminium tube with aluminum wafers protruding laterally severed over twenty of those outer columns then went on to sever about ten more even bigger core ones.

On © Khalezov postulates the visible building damage as being caused by thermite enhanced charges set between the outer skin and the outer columns - whether or not the claimed commercial aircraft, or something else, or no aircraft, hit as well. That would explain the showers of molten aluminium seen in some of the videos.

3. The pictures you post show the effects of the thermal and blast waves typical of an atmospheric explosion. All that thermal/blast wave energy is translated into something very different when the blast is totally confined - and that something very different is claimed to be easily capabable of causing massive steel columns to crumble into fine powder. Again explained in the article.

Don't get me wrong on this. I just think it needs the critical attention of others who are experienced in the science and effects of deep underground nuclear explosions - and they are very thin on the ground it seems.