June 07, 2014
Have We Been Deceived About What Happened on 9/11? Christopher Bollyn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryG86S0sbW4
*David Chandler 2010 "9/11 Analysis"
*Fast and Furious - The Twin Towers
*Fast and Furious - World Trade Center 7
*Shear Ignorance NIST and WTC7
*Fast and Furious - 9/11 Reactions
*jewish involvement exposed
*WTC-7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
At 1:08:30, Christopher Bollyn cites a Gordon Duff article about nuclear bombs "in the buildings" - Chris then claims that this is a red-herring. Chris is either ignorant of Kazelov's rendition of demolition nuclear bombs UNDER the buildings, or, he is intentionally smearing Kazelov's story by misrepresenting the critical placement of the nuclear bombs as being "in the buildings" as opposed to the correct placement of "underneath the buildings", making these detonations subterranian and totally different. Chris needs to ask himself the question: "What was the original demolition plan, submitted in the early 70's as part of the building permit. The most likely answer is that Chris does not know what the original demolition plan was, as it has not been made public and is not available to the public - Kazelov claims that the original demolition plan was to use subterranean nukes to pulverize the lower 2/3 of the buildings, because of the number of charges required to demolish those buildings conventionally was prohibitive.
Any one who claims to be a 9/11 expert, who overlooks the story behind the original building permit with its original demolition plan (proposed AND ACCEPTED), is just dancing around the edges and is not serious about it.
Listen to John Friend's interview with Marc from Canada of 5/28/14 and get an earful (it is hear on mami's).
This has to be complete B.S. In the first place, I do not believe that nukes exist. But that is actually besides the point.
Nuclear weaponry is less expensive than nukes? And do you believe that the NY City building or planning commission is going to approve a plan to detonate a nuke in the area where the most expensive real estate in the world just happens to be?
Who is Kazelov? And how did he manage to see something that Bollyn in all his digging has not been able to see?
I would not have given the subterranean nuke notion any thought except for the question of why can't we the public see the original demolition plan? That is supposed to be public information!
I assume you have not seen, or heard of, anybody speaking to that issue - right? Aren't you curious as to why we can't get a copy of the original demolition plan?
There may be other reasons to withhold that plan from the public, but, not letting the public get copies of it makes me wonder if maybe Kazelov is right when he says that it called for UNDERGROUND nukes and that is why the port authority didn't allow it to go public.
If you would look into finding out what was the original demolition plan (which Kazelov says is the same for the Sears Tower in Chicago), and you get a public copy, then we can all see how the builders themselves figured out the best way to demolish those buildings. Until someone gets to the bottom of the HIDDEN aspect of the original demolition plan, I have to at least give Kazelov's story some credence, conditioned upon having the plan be made public.
What is so unreasonable about that - let us SEE the original demo plan and that would put to rest any talk about underground nukes (or maybe confirm Kazelov's story). Until then, it looms as a pesky unanswered question that won't go away (except for those who don't think demolition plans are important enough to fret over).
If you care to listen to the John Friend interview of 5/28 (marc from Canada) from a back page here at Mami's, you can get a more informed exposition of why this is an important issue.
Even if you don't believe in nukes, getting that demo plan to go public would only confirm what you are saying, right? But keeping it secret lets doubters (cooks?) like me wonder - WHY NOT!
As to Bollyn, why did he misrepresent Kazelov's (he referred to him as "soviet intelligence") as having "nukes IN THE BUILDING", instead of UNDERGROUND below the building? Why would Bollyn do that? Why wouldn't Bollyn mention the authorities CONCEALING the original demo plan? Answers, please!
i actually do believe that nukes exist , but i am skeptical to say the least about dimitri khalezov and his theories
but as for them not wanting to approve a plan involving nukes, well i dont know when this plan was supposed to be, but if it were late 60's or 1970 , i could believe,
go to youtube and search for davy crockett tactical nuke test
you will see the cavalier attitude they had back then , people sitting in bleachers watching an above ground test with no protection , US military personnel being "decontaminated"
by being briefly swept with an old straw kitchen broom
the film is from 1968
but the way the buildings fell just does not seem to jive with dimitris explanation
Post a Comment