The actual nuclear demolition schema was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT yield) which were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers.
It was strange to me by then and, to be honest; it was hard to believe that US authorities would be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city using underground nuclear explosions...
However, as I understood it correctly, nobody had ever actually planned to demolish the World Trade Center in such a way. It was merely a means to get around the bureaucracy: such a nuclear demolition schema had to be built into the Twin Towers not to get them demolished, but to get permission to build them in the first place.
The problem was that the then building code of New York (as well as that of Chicago) didn't allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits to build a skyscraper unless its constructor could provide a satisfactory means by which he could demolish the building either in future, or in the case of emergency.
Since the late '60s (when the Twin Towers were first proposed) this type of steel-framed buildings was a totally new concept and nobody knew how to deal with them in the sense of demolition.
Given that traditional ("conventional") controlled demolition methods were applicable purely to older-style buildings, they had to come up with something new for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers that would convince the Department of Buildings to issue permission for their actual construction. And the solution was indeed created: nuclear demolition...
The official story of September 11th is a bag of lies and this seems to be a proven fact within communities outside the mainstream. What really did happen? A new series of revelations by a former member of Soviet nuclear intelligence has shocked even those who believed they had a clear view behind the curtain.
How exactly did the WTC buildings collapse? The analytical work of an expert on nuclear explosions leads us to a shocking conclusion.
When ordinary people saw how two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how the Twin Towers then collapsed into clouds of dust during the 9/11 events, they were too shocked by the incidents to subject the events to any level of scrutiny.
Since then, the odd notion has been embedded into people's minds: that hollow aluminum planes could supposedly penetrate thick steel buildings in their entirety and that aviation fuel (kerosene) could supposedly "melt" these steel buildings into fluffy microscopic dust
Sooner or later, these ridiculous notions need to be discarded. The Twin Towers' collapses had absolutely nothing to do with neither planes nor the fires which resulted as a result of the "crashes".
This is an obvious fact that occupies the minds of millions of Americans who are unhappy with the official interpretation of the World Trade Center's destruction over the course of at least the last 6 years. After the initial shock caused by the 9/11 events had subsided, many people began to realize there were simply too many inconsistencies in the official version.
First off, what caught their attention was that the order in which the Twin Towers collapsed did not correspond to the order in which they were struck by planes.
The South Tower, which was hit second, collapsed first, and the North Tower, which was hit first, collapsed second.
This meant that it took the "fires" 1 hour and 42 minutes to "collapse" the first Tower and only 56 minutes to �collapse� the second Tower.
Considering that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same quantities of kerosene and considering that the Towers were Twins (i.e. they were absolutely identical in their strength), this became the first clear indication that their collapses had nothing to do with fire alone.
The next realization came after 9/11 researchers began to consider that World Trade Center building #7 (an enormously strong modern steel-frame 47-story high skyscraper) had also collapsed in a similar manner later on that afternoon on that very same day, but without having been hit by a plane.
If the collapse of the Twin Towers was to be officially blamed on kerosene carried by "planes", then the collapse of WTC-7 was unexplainable to such an extent that the official Report of the 9/11 Commission preferred not to mention the collapse of WTC-7 at all � as if the collapse of a 47-story high modern skyscraper was not worthy of a single mention.
Comparison of these three events and a lot of irregularities surrounding their collapses brought the first 9/11 researchers to the realization that they were being lied to by the authorities and that the destruction of the World Trade Center had nothing to do with kerosene or any "planes" because no planes were needed in the first place.
The mere collapse of WTC-7 later on that same afternoon on September 11, 2001 proved that no actual terrorist planes were required in the first place and that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings would have occurred regardless� irrespective of any "planes".
Someone simply needed the World Trade Center buildings to collapse and that is why they collapsed. From this point on, the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" had begun.
People then began to accuse the US Government of having intentionally demolished the World Trade Center in an industrial process known as a "controlled demolition".
More and more people in America started to accuse their own government of having been the main culprit behind the 9/11 attacks and eventually more than 65% of the US population expressed their disbelief in the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks and of the World Trade Center's collapse...
Ground Zero and ground zero.
To begin with, I would like to remind everyone that the location of the former World Trade Center in New York is called "Ground Zero" in English. Many people don�t seem to realize what the term "ground zer"� actually means and how important this is from an evidentiary point of view.
Most of us just accepted "Ground Zero" as some sort of proper noun � as if it were the name of a city or the name of a ship. However, not many people today realize that the rather peculiar name "ground zero" was assigned to the location of the former WTC much too prematurely for it to have been an actual "Proper Noun" when referring to the WTC.
Almost immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers (and just a few hours before the collapse of the WTC-7) -- i.e. by noon on September 11, 2001, almost every government official and even some news reporters had already begun referring to the location as "ground zero".
All news releases printed the next day even referred to the location of the former WTC as "ground zero" and this particular term continued to be spelled out in lower-case letters.
The usage of the term "ground zero" in relation to the former WTC area continued even throughout September 12, 2001 and several news agencies even continued using the term "ground zero" in lower-case letters throughout September 13, 2001.
Only then, as if someone had caught on, did this particular term immediately become elevated in status to "Ground Zero" with Capital Letters. As such, it, at last, became a Proper Noun. But what about the term "ground zero" in lower case letters -- i.e. not in the status of a Proper Noun yet?
Why would officials have referred to the WTC almost immediately after its collapse by this particularly peculiar term?
Was it a mistake caused by all the confusion going on in the midst of the unprecedented 9/11 events? I would answer "yes".
It was definitely a mistake that occurred during the overall confusion in that this particular term slipped out to the public. It was, however, not a mistake in the sense that the wrong term was being used to refer to the WTC as "ground zero" -- simply because it was just too early at the moment to have chosen a Proper Name for the site where the WTC had just been destroyed.
In fact, Civil Defense specialists were absolutely correct when they designated the area as "ground zero".
There was absolutely no mistake in making such a designation from a Civil Defense specialist�s perspective. It was definitely a "ground zero" in the sense which they understood it to be. It was, however, absolutely a mistake in the sense that the particular term "ground zero" had inadvertently been leaked to journalists and through them... to the general public.
After that, it was simply too late to quash the Civil Defense designation of "ground zero" and desperate US officials had no choice but to "Capitalize" the seditious term by converting its correct Civil Defense�s designation of "ground zero" to its very own Proper Noun: "Ground Zero"...
To begin with, I would like to quote a statement concerning a hero from 9/11 -- Detective John Walcott, a "Ground Zero" responder, who spent a considerable amount of time at the WTC site cleaning rubble from of the World Trade Center. He had spent enough time there to develop a very interesting disease: acute myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form.
Just a mere two paragraphs taken out of a frightening article entitled "Death by Dust" managed to contain and reveal practically all the "unexplainable" things many had questions about concerning "Ground Zero". The excerpts below will provide the reader with some key basic points which will allow you to better understand the main point of this article - that of dust and radiation:
..."Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen - desks, lights, and computers. But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of tiny grains of dust -- no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.
At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what Walcott likes to call "all that freaking bad air." One day, he was sitting in the shed with his colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is wrong with this picture?..."
Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong. Something was very badly wrong with that picture�
Those FBI agents, who had no shame in showing up in full haz-mat suits, moreover sealed shut with duct tape, knew the truth, as they stood in front of the "commoners". That is why today these guys don�t suffer from leukemia or from any other kinds of terminal cancer. The FBI agents will apparently live long and fulfilling lives, despite having briefly visited "Ground Zero."...
It should be noted that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who used to work at "Ground Zero" and who were not as lucky as him.
On December 17, 2007, it was briefly mentioned in an Internet news article that John Walcott had at last undergone a truly advanced (and extremely painful) operation known as a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live, but only on special immuno-depressant drugs which prevent transplant rejection; and without ever leaving his home due to the fact his entire immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection can easily prove fatal.
For anyone who doesn�t know what "marrow transplantation" is, I am obliged to explain. A marrow transplantation is required in patients who have incurred heavy doses of either penetrating or residual ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (which is responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed off by heavy doses of radiation.
This is a particularly unique property of radiation -- it strikes bone marrow cells more heavily than it does other cells in the human body. That is why the majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia.
And, the heavier the dose of radiation, the more bone marrow is killed off, thus, the worse the case of leukemia the patient suffers from. John Walcott apparently suffered from the most severe possible condition -- before obtaining his bone marrow transplantation, he was living exclusively on donors� blood because his own blood was not regenerating at all.
In addition to killing off or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone inhales or ingests radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, causes various kinds of cancers that can affect virtually any part of the human body and even several parts all at once.
It is, however, not too difficult for dishonest doctors and health officials to provide plausible "explanations" as to what may have caused these cancers. They can just claim it was due to �asbestos�, "toxic fumes", "toxic dust particles", etc. However, when it comes to bone marrow damage, these deceivers are caught right in their tracks because bone marrow damage can only be caused by ionizing radiation.
That is precisely why the FBI agents showed up in full "haz-mat" suits and even had their head masks sealed shut with duct tape to "ward off fumes" while visiting "Ground Zero". They didn't want to suffer from leukemia nor from any other cancer, so they went as far as to seal their head masks shut with duct tape, not just to "ward off the fumes", as John Walcott had believed, but because they needed to ward off airborne radioactive dust, and more specifically, radioactive vapor, which must not be inhaled or ingested at all costs.
For the rest of this fascinating analysis, Ground Zero: Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center
Originally published in German by NEXUS magazine, October-November 2010: http://www.nexus-magazin.de/ausgaben/nexus-magazin-31-oktober-november-2010, pages 2, 32-49;