RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

9/11 was a Mossad operation

Print
Written by readersupportednewsuser   
Sunday, 19 January 2014 11:27
A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0pdmokX9s8

Or read at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/170266922/9-11thology-The-third-truth-about-9-11-or-Defending-the-US-Government-which-has-only-the-first-two

In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can't build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center's demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

More info:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

You can watch the 2010 interview at:
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html
Video # 4 - WTC's demolition plan
Video # 14 - WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
Videos # 24/25 - chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:
http://www.renseradioarchives.com/harris/

Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/

I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called 'Ground Zero'. If you look up the meaning of 'ground zero' in the old dictionaries you have at home, you'll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of 'ground zero'. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you'll see:
ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

Have a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBQuoPi_grw
At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of 'ground zero'.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+2 # RICHARDKANEpa 2014-01-21 21:02
Ground Zero in an earthquake is another name for Hypocenter

As far as a nuke under the Towers, see this link for debunking,
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-test.htm
 
 
0 # EverythingSolidMeltsIntoAir 2014-02-04 21:52
The claim that a 'demolition plan' is required to be 'in place' for tall buildings constructed in the City of New York is absolutely, entirely false.

The implication that a newly constructed building is required to be rigged for controlled demolition is absolutely, incredibly false.

Controlled demolition is used when an old building needs to be taken down quickly. It costs so much money you wouldn't believe it. The conditions for a successful controlled demolition are very touchy and it takes months and months of planning with unrestricted access to the structure you are taking down.

9/11 truther claims about controlled demolition are all dubious.

Find me one installer from the supposed crew who placed the thermite/therma te - an operation taking top building demolition experts 6 months to complete on two 110 story building.

And none of them has felt guilty or come forward at all for causing the deaths of 1,629 people?

Utterly, totally, implausible.

The strength of A36 steel heated to 500 degrees F is reduced by 40%. The material does not need to reach its melting point to cause column buckling, or to cause trusses to expand or sag.

The role of properly functioning automatic fire sprinkler systems in tall buildings is very crucial to their safety during a fire. Without them, the buildings aren't safe.

It is very likely that the only conspiracy evident on 9/11/01 was between some homicidal middle eastern folks and the laws of physics.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2014-02-05 15:08
And how do you explain the free-fall speed with your 'buckling' theory? And steel melts at1,538 degrees Celsius or 2,800 F. Jet fuel is purified kerosene; the highest temperature achieved by a 'dirty' burn (one that is 'open air' without being pressurized or preheated through an admixture of fuel and air like with your gas stove or welding torch, is 825 C or 1517F. Furthermore the towers were hermetically sealed; so there was not a lot of open air flowing through them. the smoke was black, evidence of a cool burning fire. Two people Brian Clark and , i believe, Stanley Praimnath, both made it down the stairs of the South Tower past the fire to safety...how could they do that if the fire was such a raging inferno it could melt all that steel symmetrically so the tower could collapse downward against the path of greatest resistance? BTW..remember how the plane that hit S tower had giant fireball exploding OUTSIDE the building? I'd love to sell you my bridge cheap since you buy ridiculous stories as a matter of course!
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2014-02-05 14:58
considering that witnesses ...many,many witnesses including firefighters, heard 3 big explosions, considering that William Rodriguez heard a huge explosion below him before the plane hit, considering that a 600,000 lb piece of steel facade was thrown across Fezzy street to lodge in the facade of another building and that the Towers fell, pulverized into dust, at free-fall speed, I'd say that besides ordinary explosives, shaped charges and thermate (Military grade thermite..extra sulfur is added to make it burn faster) was probably used...there is evidence in the dust of thermate BTW,... the mushroom clouds and the force of the blast could very well be a mini-nuke. 9/11 was an inside job..the Mossad might have helped (although they also warned us..but that could have been a blind or perhaps like other countries' spy agencies, they were picking up info on the 'legends' that were being created for the 'hijackers) but like JFK and RFK and Wellestone..thi s was home-based, domestically arranged.
 
 
+2 # Jingze 2014-02-06 20:18
Idle minds . . .
 
 
+1 # brux 2014-02-07 17:14
Thanks for my daily laugh! HAHAHAHA
 
 
+1 # scratchmo 2014-03-12 10:21
Commentors who insist that the trade towers, including WTC7 have not looked at the facts. Tons of visual evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the expert opinions of a throng of degreed professionals, reveal the official account of 9/11 to be an absurd fabrication, and renders the question of whether or not controlled demolition was used to take down the Trade Towers no longer controversial. Until there is a new thorough investigation, questions will remain as to exactly how it was accomplished, but experts agree that with inside help, it would not be as difficult as some suggest. For an excellent article on the subject, go to: http://www.dailypaul.com/298360/at-last-how-it-was-done-9-11-and-the-science-of-building-demolition
 
 
0 # scratchmo 2014-03-12 10:27
Quoting scratchmo:
Commentors who insist that the trade towers, including WTC7 have not looked at the facts. Tons of visual evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the expert opinions of a throng of degreed professionals, reveal the official account of 9/11 to be an absurd fabrication, and renders the question of whether or not controlled demolition was used to take down the Trade Towers no longer controversial. Until there is a new thorough investigation, questions will remain as to exactly how it was accomplished, but experts agree that with inside help, it would not be as difficult as some suggest. For an excellent article on the subject, go to: http://www.dailypaul.com/298360/at-last-how-it-was-done-9-11-and-the-science-of-building-demolition


The first sentence should read: Commentors who insist that the trade towers, including WTC7, were not imploded, have not looked at the facts.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN