911 No Planes thread

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

I've just downloaded Dmitri Khalezov's book "911Thology: The Third Truth about 911" (version 4). It's quite an extensive book: 1,096 pages PDF, plus two additional texts. I'll confess to skipping straight to the section where he discusses how he thinks nukes were placed in the towers. At pages 335-338 he states that while he was serving in the Soviet "Special Control Service", they (the Soviets) learned of a secret plan to demolish the towers using ~150 kiloton nukes placed deep under the basements. Supposedly, this was to comply with building code regulations that required for skyscraper constructions to be accompanied with safe plans for the ultimate destruction of the structures at their end of service life. Khalezov says "I have no clue why the Soviet Special Control Service knew about it."

I would add, isn't it also possible that this information was based on some sort of error, or that it was propaganda? After all, Khalezov also offers a disclaimer (page 339), "I am not sure at all how the nukes had demolished the WTC from the technical point of view", and goes on to add that for all he knows, maybe it was "giant lizard-looking aliens", or:

...maybe, the original 150 kiloton demolition nukes were substituted for some small, nano-sized genetically modified insects? It might be that Professor Steven Jones meant the gluttonous white ants (genetically reduced to the nano-size) when he talked about his so-called “nano- thermite(s)”? Maybe he meant “nano-termites”, but his listeners mistook the word “termite” (zool.) for the word “thermite” (chem.)? And may be it was those voracious “nano”-termites that instantly chewed the WTC steel and so reduced it into the fine dust?​

I gotta love Khalezov's sense of humor -- but considering these disclaimers, I don't see how Khalezov can be seen as a counter-argument to the existence of new technology such as I'm suggesting in my articles.

Regarding your question: Is Putin, like Hitler before him, just another tool of the elite or is he in genuine opposition to them? I don't see that it has to be one or the other. But (perhaps unlike Rick & Joe) I don't necessarily believe that "the elite" is a monolithic structure, or that there's some single person at the top of the New World Order's hierarchy. Or even if there is an identifiable pinnacle, I think the actors beneath that person have very substantial degrees of autonomy and personal power, and that the elite exhibit both cooperative and competitive behaviors. But, in general, I think that the major power centers of the NWO are in New York, London and Rome; and the Anglo-American and European powers are currently pursuing an agenda to assure their control of Russian natural resources. This is to the detriment of the Russian people, and works towards their impoverishment. Putin is thus placed in an uncomfortable position in which he must navigate between contradictory demands: on the one hand, the extent of his wealth, power and prestige is dependent on the Russian economy, which is on the chopping block; on the other hand, he must also reach accommodations with the NWO power centers, to which he probably also feels some degree of personal loyalty.

Putin seems to have a better grasp on reality than some of the other players: he seems to be trying to avoid a global conflagration, while other elite players seem to be seeking one.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member

As regards the Twin Towers, in a seemingly whimsical (and fictive) redaction of Acts Paul said: "I'll take the Castor and Pollux if I have to, but I'd rather be on the Argo in search of the Golden Fleece hiding underneath their towering monuments." This because Paul knew that the divine Pollux had cried out to Zeus Pater, his father, to allow him to die with his mortal half brother, Castor, who had just been slain by their cousins, fellow cattle (Brahmas from Boston's Logan Airport perhaps?) rustlers and exceptionally heroic [sic] Argonauts. (The contemporary concept of 'hero' is now inverted from the Classical context (Francisco Gil-White).)

Some people think that Zeus Pater, aka Jupiter is the etymological and functional equivalent of Yahveh, by Jove.

As you know so well, better than me (as demonstrated by your definitive knowledge of the inner workings of the Jesu - I "submit" to you ;)) in fact, Paul (Acts 28) sailed from Malta to Italy (and onto Rome) on the 'Castor and Pollox' where these 'feckless' Jews who had formerly hailed Julius as their 'second' messiah, and whose near immediate ancestors personally witnessed him rise to Heaven and become a god and thus father of the Prince of Peace, refused to listen to Paul and rejected Christ. Even after much 'careful' reasoning. They had eyes but could not see, and ears but could not hear. They did not see or hear, .... because that was their assigned dialectic job in the New Order du jour.

Hence, the prior Greco-Roman saviors give way to the coming of Pauline Christianity to demark, literarily at least, the beginning of NWO v1.1. With the fall of Castor and Pollox, once again, we see the announcement, at least, of the end of NWO v1. In 'Roman' Mithraism the iconography clearly depicts Castor and Pollux, aka the Dioscuri, as announcing the transition of Ages, the beginning and end.

The twin upright cross of Castor and Pollux was carried before the Spartan troops into battle, but with the Flavian cruci-fictional imposition of NWO 1.1 replacing the defective Divii Julia (NWO 1.0), and likely the Chrest transitional parallel fictive 'interegnum', then the single upright cross could later take its place along with the Chi-Rho (NWO 1.3?).

Interesting too that Castor and Pollux were the brothers of Helen. It would be interesting to find out your analysis of the typology and meaning of all this in light of your yet unsubstantiated belief that the mercantile sheepdogs (cousins perhaps?) have deposed their shepherd masters. Hint - The epic nature of the Homeric works is not only a foundational substrate basis for the Gospels (MacDonald), but is similarly close to the epic aspects of the 'Mosaic' Torah, as also witnessed by the contemporaneous Ugaritic texts (Gordon, Hadas), meaning that they at least have a common source.

Jerry, at least, has a problem with flexibility of usage of metaphors, and for some reason, maybe just that, I am periodically finding myself ironically being accused of inflexibility and doctrinaire on the exact definition of the so-called actors. The last birthday party I was allowed was when I insisted that my friends not put toy Civil War soldiers on the back of my new Tonka Truck. But, in the years since I have traveled through many 'doors of perception', and for one thing eventually figured out how to stop being such a literalist. Each door lands you in a different room of your 'father's mansion', each is illuminated with a different light, one pure white, one a black light, others all shades of the spectrum, and some filled with smoke and mirrors. One room has the light spectrum of the Sun.

Let's say that you are in either the Room of the Sun or the Room of Pure White, but since you are wittingly or unwittingly wearing Rome colored glasses (from the company of Epistemological Constriction, Ltd.), then you may not know whether you are either blowing smoke out or in. In my more impetuous youth, whenever I discovered what lay behind each next new door, I thought that each was final revelation. In my hubris I thought it my duty then to enlighten others, unfortunately my friends. Now I'm left with you, or vice versa. That's the nice thing about the Internet, nobody has to care or listen to my inferior BS, if they don't want to.

As such, I respectfully have some tepid 'faith' that your, so far, bald assertions and rhetorical platitudes religiously masking as 'givens' trump my knowledge database and related attempts to coherently fill the inherent gaps that any such 'history' project has.

For instance, you claim that certain specific evil-doers are desiring to destroy our Exceptional Traditions as one means in the course of destroying the nation. I agree with you that somebody, maybe even your evil-doers, are trying to destroy the USA as part of a project to launch a(nother) NWO. But perhaps you might consider that some of the building blocks of your Pollyannish notion of New Rome on the Potomac) form either non-sequitors or distractions to your larger proposition.

If you want to engage my time any further, first go through your prior comments and precisely define all your vagaries. That is, detail the specific values and traditions you consider under threat without appealing to means such as special pleading via employing patro-mystical terms as Exceptionalism. In this case provide the list of specific attributes that are in that 'Patriotic' umbrella term and other rubrics. Do not patronize me, especially where you are a 'guest', and/or tell me I should know what you are talking about. The phrase "Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel" is because those that resort to it, and similar propagandic devices, are attempting to deflect attention from the real straw content that they are trying to base their arguments. Or just being lazy by insisting that 'my thesis is correct ... because it must be, my confirmation bias told me so'. By providing specifics wherever possible and not general platitudes, then we can make a logical, rational analysis of the matter.

Here, I already gave you a manner to contextualize your Exceptional claim which you cavalierly deflected. Your seemingly blasé position, from the perspective of my implying that the USA is a perfect historical 'type' for ancient Rome, in terms of pretext based wars and other matters is a perfectly valid response for the many Americans who share the crypto-Caesarean form of Christianity. One example is Kenneth Atchity whose revelation, in his Messiah Matrix, that Jesus was Augustus he is quite happy for and the book's plot theme is that his good Jesuits are all behind it. This based upon his extensive Jesuit based education at Georgetown University and earlier. Augustus was a really good guy, warts and all. What like, Bush and Cheney?

In this case, I'm very happy that the Jesuits want to expose Jesus, but not so much that I might be ecstatic, like Atchity, that Augustus (the real Exceptional Family Values guy) was the founder of Pax Romana, and thus by extension, the memetic agent of Pax Americana. But, nevertheless the latter is true, and so you logically need to accept all the trumped up wars of America just like the Romans did. The common Romans were every bit as patriotic as Americans.

Then you'll say, but Pax Romana really was peaceful and so I've caught you out. No you haven't. Besides which, you will then rationalize slavery, genocide of the native Americans, and all sorts of other matters under the rug via numerous devices.

"It is interesting that you also mentioned John F Kennedy's assassination as yet another blow to the Catholic church. I agree completely on this and again I stress that his removal helped the Zionists tremendously." - Collectivist
Actually, that not what I said at all, but since you decided to place a different meaning in my mouth, then for doing something I otherwise find obnoxious (to be kind) I can grant you credit for triggering my new Castor and Pollux WTC synthesis.

What I actually stated was the opposite to being a blow to the Catholic Church, especially within the USA. Immediately after it shut down most all Protestant howling about Catholics in government and other places. Look what we have now in your ZOG nation: 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, the VP, Nancy Pelosi, most of the talking heads on Fox and MSNBC, etc., etc.. That would never happen before JFK was killed, because it was not that long ago when a majority of mainstream denominational Protestants, at least, both North and South were members of the KKK, and that means anti-Catholic, not just anti-black.

But perhaps you are correct that this benefited the Zionists.

In any case, please post your analysis of why the Lubavitchers are driving the NWO (but please start a new thread).

Mark Passio does indeed mention building seven as the third pillar. He also states the ritual was a failure as it required the third plane to strike it. I have never heard that the tree of life derives from Christian and esoteric sources so I cannot comment on that. I am careful when relying on Wiki as my go to source. Jewish sources tell a different story so again it depends on interpretation. The interpretations are changing constantly so we must be prepared to accept that the sacred texts and oral laws have also changed over time.

I am more interested in your belief that planes actually crashed into the towers. Can you explain to me how an airplane was capable of melting into a steel framed structure? Did you watch Ace Baker's excellent expose for a more plausible explanation? It is replete with testimony of witnesses who were actually there that swear they did not see a plane, however those who saw it through the television unanimously saw planes. We know that fake memories can be created and the trauma of the event certainly made people susceptible to revising what they saw.

I suggest you go back and examine Ace Baker's evidence and pay close attention to the actual witnesses the moment the planes supposedly hit. NONE OF THEM say a plane hit the building; they see explosions...go back and check it out..It was only those looking at the monitors who said they saw planes. There were some planted shills there to convince those on the ground that planes hit but this is the same deception used on Christians who swear they saw religious phenomena in Fatima Portugal in 1917. We know from other recent false flags that actors are playing a greater and greater role in fabricating a scene.

Remember the Mossad's motto, "By way of deception thou shalt do war". The dancing Israelis who were caught filming the event and had explosives in their van. Remember they failed polygraph tests. How much evidence do we need to see this was a Mossad operation.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
It seems to me that there would be a huge risk of mission failure if there was no plane at the 2nd WTC tower. Too much chance that someone would be filming the event. Too many people that might see and talk. It was a very different situation from the Pentagon, which was a highly controlled environment. If you post a link to the specific Ace Baker footage you're talking about, I'll take a look.

But ultimately, whether they used real planes or video technology doesn't really help solve the problem of "who did it", much less "how was it covered up".

Dancing Israelis foolish enough to make a spectacle of themselves and get caught, strikes me as a sure sign that someone wanted to plant a meme that the Mossad did it. But not so meaningful in terms of decoding the real scope of the entire operation.

I'm also interested in how the WTC towers were brought down: curiosity about that led me to my current understanding about Cold Fusion. But there's no longer any need for the 911 WTC op as evidence that this technology exists: for technologically savvy types, it should be sufficient to read the Jacobson patent, and the papers by Del Guidice.

Are you saying it was a Mossad operation to the exclusion of any other major intelligence organization, government or corporate influence? How did Mossad arrange for the US armed forces to stand down? Do you believe that Dick Cheney works for the Mossad? And, how did Mossad manage to get elite Saudis like Bin Laden to play the part of patsies?
Ace Baker's video is on page two
Compilation of witnesses who saw no planes:

Dancing Israelis foolish enough to make a spectacle of themselves and get caught, strikes me as a sure sign that someone wanted to plant a meme that the Mossad did it. But not so meaningful in terms of decoding the real scope of the entire operation.

Jerry, those dancing israelis were posing as arabs. At any rate, they went on Israeli television and admitted they were there to document the event:

I'm also interested in how the WTC towers were brought down: curiosity about that led me to my current understanding about Cold Fusion. But there's no longer any need for the 911 WTC op as evidence that this technology exists: for technologically savvy types, it should be sufficient to read the Jacobson patent, and the papers by Del Guidice.
How did that large crater appear under WTC? The molten steel beneath the rubble (china syndrome effects) for months ? The untold cancer epidemic now affecting first responders. The ban on geiger counters in new york city. Why call it ground zero and dictionaries having to change the definition after 911? Sometimes the answer is right under your nose. I suggest you take a second look at the video interview of Khalezov. It will all make sense without resorting to exotic weaponry. I would also recommend you look into project plowshare.

Are you saying it was a Mossad operation to the exclusion of any other major intelligence organization, government or corporate influence? How did Mossad arrange for the US armed forces to stand down? Do you believe that Dick Cheney works for the Mossad? And, how did Mossad manage to get elite Saudis like Bin Laden to play the part of patsies?

The US intelligence agencies are heavily compromised. Why was the US asked to stand down in defending the USS Liberty from continued Israeli attacks? The Saudis royals are a tool of the Israelis. They know what would happen to them if they don't cooperate. I will try to give you more information with time however let us concentrate on the evidence we do have and analyze that

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

The Ace Baker video really only has ONE witness who cried, out in the moments after the attack, that nothing hit the building. There were several other direct eyewitness in that very same video, who clearly state that they saw an airplane. There were a few folks who were inside the buildings and perceived explosions in the lower floors, and I don't question that such explosions occurred. But, this is bad logic on Ace Baker's part, asserting that just because there were witnesses who were not positioned at the moment of impact to see the planes, that there were no planes.

I'm having trouble putting the crater shown in the first Khalezov video in context. All the discussions I've seen about the bathtub under the WTC towers, say it was intact and that there was no crater. Judy Wood's website has a picture dated March 15, 2002, showing the cleaned out bathtub with no crater. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/ fig. 15. Perhaps a crater was dug out later for some reason as part of the construction project?

Another big problem I have with the theory about massive nukes in the basement, is that I believe a collapse initiated from below the basement would have looked very different. I watched some of Khalezov's second video (length 14:45) and I can't think of any reason why a shock wave would take 15 seconds to propagate from the basement to the collapse zone, or why the explosion would be as well directed as he says. Somehow he is imagining that the zone of dustification propagates up the inside of the building without having any visible effect on the outer shell. This strikes me as a very bizarre theory.

If you want to analyze evidence, you have to analyze all the evidence. That's Bayes' law in a nutshell. Lots of people examined the dust from the buildings in the months and years after the collapse, and no one has detected any long-lived radioactivity. Various authors at Veterans Today make a big deal out of allegedly excessive amounts of strontium & other trace elements, but they give no evidence that these traces are the radioactive isotopes. "Anonymous Physicist" argued that the trace elements could just as easily be from paints.

As to the molten iron in the bathtub, I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but a rapid decay of radioactive iron isotopes caused by gamma irradiation seems like as good an explanation as anything else I've seen.

How were the Israelis able to make the Saudi Royals into their tools? If you include real estate holdings, the Saudi king is arguably the richest person in the world. If you were to claim that his wealth depends on US military power, I would agree with you; but that's not the same as saying he's under the thumb of Israel.

The USS Liberty incident is a real research quagmire. What evidence is there that "the US was asked to stand down in defending the USS Liberty from continued attacks"? Wikipedia says there were two attacks: an air attack that was over within about 15 minutes (~2:05 to 2:20), and a follow-up torpedo boat attack at 2:35. There was no time for any stand down orders. On 911, the stand-down orders were essentially promulgated months in advance. (See our old website, 911-strike.com).

"US intelligence agencies are heavily compromised." How do you know it's not the Israelis that are highly compromised, and thus always doing the bidding of their American "Christian Zionist" and Neocon masters? That explanation seems much more likely, based on the relative economic & military power of the two entities.

Rick asked me to follow-up briefly on your statement about feminism & homosexual rights. Surely you're aware that under "traditional American values" the rights of women were trampled, and homosexuals were in danger for their lives. Surely you wouldn't want to turn the clock back. So what is it that's bothering you about the current status of women & homosexuals in our society?
I will talk about the feminism and homosexual agenda in a later post but want to focus on 911 for now.

I am not sure what you were looking at but NUMEROUS witnesses saw no plane from the videos I provided. I gave you a video compilation of many witnesses who saw nothing.

Explain, for example, how Mr Handschuh didn't see a plane? Look at the photograph he took and his incredible vantage point ...

Also, tell me how a plane can disappear into a steel structure like that and leave a road runner cartoon like hole in its place. If that is reality, well then let's just agree to disagree because I think it is just too difficult for you to let go from the obvious lie of planes crashing into the twin towers. Look at the Hazerkani video itself ... it is so obviously fake!

As for the nukes, the physics seems quite correct to me, more so than what Judy Wood is suggesting who provides strange theories. Khalezov has first hand knowledge of the built in demolition plans and the Mossad agent who most likely planned this out (Mike Harrari). Like I told you, I think Khalezov was an arms dealer who ended up a patsy and so he started to talk. He is now missing or still in a Thai jail.

As for the crater, the so-called experts claim it is remnants from the last ice age

Judy Wood's theory was something I too thought was the best explanation until I carefully went through Dimitri's work and his is by far the most logical explanation of what happened that day. In time, Khalezov's version will be the dominant one, but it will take some time as the amount of censorship around his story is ridiculous. Both Ace Baker and Khalezov are the two best sources in my opinion that describe the mechanics of the deception.

I did some searching on the web to find other opinions on the physics of nuclear detonation and found a very interesting video. The individual commenting on that video sees things very similar to me in terms of the physics but interestingly he points the finger to the knights of Malta members carrying out the crime. I am not sure how he can suggest some of these perpetrators are actually Knights of Malta as I do not see how such membership is arrived at. He mentions some Jewish individuals as part of this group (Kissinger) and that makes no sense to me. How do Jews and militants of the Vatican army work together to conduct 911? I need more evidence. I am looking into this more and trying to figure out how such a secretive group of high level Jesuits can be so easily exposed such as Kissinger, Rockefeller, Giuliani, Paul Brenner among others.

As you guys are more familiar with the Jesuit angle, perhaps you can help me understand how the presenter connects these names to the Vatican as I have been unable to find evidence linking them to this group.

I will keep digging to connect some of these Zionists to the Vatican and the Knights of Malta.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

As to how an airplane could pass through the skin of a WTC tower leaving a roadrunner-like cutout, the basic idea is similar to how a bullet might leave a hole in a tin can as it passes through. Metals are malleable and elastic, so when two metal structures collide, the weaker one will bend and be pushed out of the way of the stronger one, with most of the bending taking place right at the edge of the impact. People seem to have an intuition that a steel skyscraper ought to be stronger than an aluminum airplane, but it isn't necessarily true. The fuselage and wing spars of modern aircraft are built very solidly and with ingenious engineering. In the WTC towers, most of the mass of the support columns was concentrated in the core, not the shell. At one point, I had attempted some calculations, and it looked very plausible to me that the wings would win, and punch holes through the relatively thin steel exterior. To have any confidence in that sort of result, you'd need to do finite element analysis. We were working on this back in 2004, see our old website:


I can think of several possible reasons why Handschuh might not have seen the plane. His photo appears to show the other side of the building, where ejecta was emerging, rather than the entry side. If he had any view at all of the trajectory of the plane, it was through a thin slit between buildings. The plane would have traversed that thin slit in a split second. Handschuh was looking at the scene through the viewfinder of a camera. His eyes might have been on a saccade away from the slit between the buildings, or the mirror of his SLR might have been up, or he might have had his attention on his camera rather than the scene above.

There is a big difference between "not seeing the plane" (because of a lack of visibility, or attention) vs. "I saw that there was no plane".

I didn't mean to say that I agree with Judy Wood's theories. It's just that she has a good collection of WTC debris photos. But, we are indeed going to have to agree to disagree about Khalezov's upward shock wave propagation theory. I prefer my cold fusion micro-nuke theory.

The article from SOTT states that the crater was found during excavations in 2008. Why wouldn't there have been obvious damage to the concrete bathtub, if there had been a nuclear explosion? Where is the crater located: directly under one WTC tower, or somewhere else? And why is there only one crater, if the towers were destroyed by two bombs? I do agree this crater looks suspicious and raises questions, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

The "Papamundi" video looks interesting. I took a quick look at their website. I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I hope to get back to it. Meanwhile, I will say that I'm not aware of anything linking the Rockefellers directly to the Vatican; conventional wisdom seems to be that they were and are Baptists, but I've never looked into it deeply. Let us know what you find out.

I have looked through several crash test videos and they show predictable behavior; the aluminum plane would never slice through steel frames thicker than a tanks armor. In my opinion, your physics is terribly flawed so I would suggest you go through and view more crash tests such as trucks, trains and jet planes on tracks and see how real physics works in the material world instead of the theoretical one. An aluminum tin can cannot penetrate stronger materials but will shatter violently against the stronger steel and concrete.

Also, it is very obvious to me the reason Handschuh didn't see a plane is because it didn't exist. You keep reaching further and further to defend a position that is so obviously indefensible. The deception is just too difficult for you to accept, which is understandable. The mind is funny that way and once convinced of something, it will defend it to the end regardless of the evidence showing it is clearly wrong. We also have never sent men to the moon but, again, the mind simply has a hard time accepting this and no amount of evidence will convince people that it was a huge deception.

In terms of the nuclear explosion, this makes sense from the overwhelming evidence I have already provided. Nuclear explosions have many interesting effects on molten rock; the Soviet Union have used nuclear blasts to hermetically seal runaway gas wells, detonating deep underground and letting the intense heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow which may explain why the bathtub was not breached. We can see some evidence of this from the images of the WTC crater walls. Nothing but nuclear explosions can explain the type of energy that is required to bring down towers of that size and reducing them to dust. You don't have to resort to exotic weapons when a far more plausible explanation exists. The site is called ground zero for a reason!

In the end, I can show you the door, but you have to make the effort to walk through it but I am afraid you are in a type of mindset whereby you simply cannot change your mind. Yuri Bezmenov describes this phenomenon quite well and I think this should be the topic of my next post. It also leads into the whole liberal agenda which I stated I would comment on anyway.

As for the Knights of Malta and its membership, I have been looking but as yet have not found anything to add credibility to the idea that Kissinger and the Rockefellers are a part of this order. I will keep looking, though and will report back if I find anything but the more I look, the more evidence I see the Vatican has been taken over by a small number of Zionist power elite.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hello Collectivist,

The columns on the facade of the WTC towers were only 1/4 inch thick. The wing spars of the jet aircraft (if indeed they existed) would have been made of thicker aerospace-grade aluminum of roughly equivalent strength, and oriented perpendicular to the columns, like knife blades. If you believe this situation would inevitably lead to a clear victory of the facade over the wings, please supply your data and calculations. Handwaving gets you nowhere with me.

Moreover, your solution has its own problems: the columns appeared to be bent inwards. How would you gain access to the surfaces of those columns to place shaped charges that would produce this configuration of damage, without having your activities detected? The logistical challenges are nightmarish.

I already explained why I don't share your views on Handschuh, and I don't see any reason to repeat myself. Can we agree to disagree?

I am not theologically or ideologically opposed to the "no planes" concept. I believe that at the Pentagon there was either no plane at all, or a small missile. it's just that at the WTC, I feel the evidence weighs more solidly in the other direction. I would characterize that as a strong hunch, more than a theological conviction.

But: supposing, for the sake of the discussion, that I were to grant your point that there might have been no impacting planes at the WTC. Why would I even care? What possible difference does this make in terms of ascertaining the identity of the perpetrators, or the political significance of the event -- whether they used real planes or holograms, shaped charges and/or mind control tricks? That is, unless we can locate the implementers of the technology.

You didn't answer my questions about why there were not two craters for the two WTC towers, or where the one crater was actually located in context. And, if the crater was caused by an explosion which did not even penetrate the concrete floor of the bathtub, how could it have possibly turned concrete into dust 80 stories up in the building? Maybe I'm not comprehending your position.

Your statements about "exotic weapons" as opposed to nuclear explosions, leave me wondering if you have even read my essays on the WTC and cold fusion. I believe that cold fusion, once its theoretical underpinnings are understood, can be scaled up to explosive power levels, as discussed in my "Haroche's Cockroach" article. Or, a more primitive form of cold fusion triggered uranium bomb may well have been used, as described in "Deuterium Shell Game". The major operational difference between my theory and Khalezov's, is that I believe it's more likely that a number of small bombs were distributed throughout the structure and exploded in sequence, rather than a single explosive in the basement.

When you refer to "Zionists" taking over the Vatican, I presume you mean Christian Zionists? Or do you mean crypto-Jews? Regardless, I don't understand what that has to do with whether Kissinger and the Rockefellers are in the Knights of Malta, or why you would attribute that position to us. It was in a video that you posted here, which we have no responsibility for, and I haven't had time to watch. If you can't find any other evidence that its claims are true, well then maybe they aren't -- a good reason why I might skip watching it.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by insulting me, my intelligence & my openness to new ideas. These insults are not going to motivate me to change my mind.
Oral disinfection. Wow Jerry ... First you argue that aluminum planes can go through a steel framed building (twin towers) but this takes the cake. I suppose next you will tell me man has landed on the moon because Wiki says so ... Unbelievable ...
Jerry, Jerry Jerry ... an airplane is NOT a bullet and even if it WAS a bullet travelling much much faster it would NOT "melt through butter" as you state but would shatter in the "real" world. I do not subscribe to kabbalah based science that gave us Einstein's theory of relativity, multi-dimensional universes or the junk that passes for science these days. Tesla himself, possibly the greatest genius the world has ever known saw through this meta-physical garbage and he paid the price for it ...

Sooner or later you will come around Jerry, I have some hope for you buddy ... In the meantime, take a look here as to what happens to aluminum bullets striking various materials less dense that the steel frames of the WTC ... Funny how it gets wedged in simple wood LOL

Also, I will go through that moon link you provided. Briefly looking there, I see Lorenhough is on the right side of that debate also, as I expected ... I also find it hilarious NASA recorded over the original tapes of the moon landing. LOL ..


As the church lady herself would say ...

Too bad Loren has the precious metals story ass-backwards :) ... I am sure he will change his tune also with time ...

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Interesting video about the aluminum bullets. Looks to me like they did pretty well against several types of plate material. A thick enough block of wood will stop any bullet.

Of course an airplane is not a bullet, nor was the WTC made of foil. My point was to illustrate my analogy about the dynamics. Many years ago, I tried to do some calculations about the plane vs. pentagon wall and plane vs. WTC situations. My conclusion was that to really prove anything definitive, you would need to do a very difficult and computationally expensive finite element analysis. But, aircraft wings are very solid constructions (the mass of the 757 wings is said to be ~27,000 pounds) while the facade of the upper floors of the WTC was rather gossamer by comparison (1/4 inch steel plate.) The analysis, such as it was, and supporting data may be found here:


Scroll down to 'Appendix 1'.

Tesla, Einstein, Kaballah etc. have all been discussed at various times here, google search (for example, search for "tesla site: postflaviana.org") works much better to find these discussions than the site search provided by wordpress and xenforo.

I guess if NASA had kept their original magnetic tape in a museum, even after copying the data to other media, you would have been utterly convinced? People also complain that the drawings of the Apollo Saturn V rocket are gone, but others say they've been safely kept on microfilm.

You never did answer my questions about why you say Abrahamic religion is necessary for a moral society? Or -- Who are these people, and what are these faiths that have a positive moral outlook (according to you)?

It makes me wonder whether it's at all productive to engage in all these side discussions, which only seem to distract from the main point we're trying to make here.
Jerry, forget about my assertions with regards to Chabad for a moment... you won't even acknowledge the basic laws of physics with respect to the impossibility of aluminum planes penetrating through steel framed buildings on 911, even after I showed you video after video of various materials colliding at high speed proving my point.

Even Trump has the common sense to realize how strange it was for planes to penetrate steel on that fateful day. It is simply unreal.

and again, look at what happens to a jet plane hitting concrete

The reason I bring this up again, Jerry is not to insult you, but to demonstrate that your view of reality does not resonate with me at all so it really is pointless for me to even try to convince you otherwise.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Collectivist, here is a bit of 911 truth movement history for you. Rick and I were the first ones to realize the relevance of that "plane and concrete wall" video for this question, and to call attention to it in this context. We used it to argue why it's correct that the wings of Flight 77 might not have penetrated the Pentagon wall on 9/11. The Pentagon walls were made of thick masonry and concrete. It's a very different material from structural steel.

For reasons we've discussed here at great length, we don't consider Donald Trump to be a trustworthy source. But, let's evaluate his statement on its own merits. He did not claim that there were no planes at the WTC towers on 911. He said he thought there were explosives involved somehow.

Trump's statement that the penetrated steel was "the heaviest caliber steel used in the building" was penetrated by the planes, is absolutely false. The caliber of steel is graduated by its height in the building. The thickest gauges were used in the basement, and the steel in the beams higher up was under much lighter load (since most of the mass of the building was below them) so they were of thinner gauge.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
As per Richard's suggestion that threads should be organized topically, I have moved all the discussion from the Group Think thread on 9/11 technology to this thread. I'm glad I did this, as it makes your strategy much more transparent.

Collectivist, would you explain why you're pushing Russian propaganda sources such as Khalezov, and now "Agent Orange Leaks", as your source of 911 Truth?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Collectivist, here is a bit of 911 truth movement history for you. Rick and I were the first ones to realize the relevance of that "plane and concrete wall" video for this question, and to call attention to it in this context. We used it to argue why it's correct that the wings of Flight 77 might not have penetrated the Pentagon wall on 9/11. The Pentagon walls were made of thick masonry and concrete. It's a very different material from structural steel.
To be precise Jerry, we used the Sugano video specifically to debunk the claim that there was a large amount of metal confetti (as consistent with the Sugano video) in the grass, including the claimed 'snowstorm' of it out on the highway.

The Pentagon's brick (and thin masonry facade) infill walls were nowhere near as thick as the concrete block in the Sugano video, nor were the reinforced concrete columns, spaced 10 feet apart as I remember. We argued that the appearance of the so-called hole, pre-collapse, was a plausible demolition stunt creation, and not really "too small" as was the frequent claim. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not that incompetent at fakery.

So in any case, the use of Sugano for C's purposes is not contextually relevant for either the Pentagon or the Twin Towers. C clearly has an uneducated understanding of physical reality (pertaining to kinetic dynamics and such), and this is generally why the stage magic fakery of 9/11 was not able to be exposed high enough into altering consensus reality.

The big problem with the Pentagon 757 scenario is that the flight path, all aspects of it, was next to impossible, if not literally impossible to carry out with any degree of operational surety. There was no need for the alleged hijackers to approach the building in such a manner, except that such a dangerous approach facilitated the stage magic and convenient structure of the building. That being that the first two stories of the Pentagon have a roof from the front of each wedge to the back of the inside 'ring'. Thus all the internal preparations could hidden from overhead view, and that particular wedge was conveniently the one that was just finished being renovated, by a British company that only was contracted for that first wedge renovation.

As for the Twin Towers, flight paths were no issue, and remote control of such planes was easily possible, especially if they were the two 767 based air tanker prototypes Boeing had built for the USAF. There were two different high precision GPS technologies available at the time as well.

The walls of the Twin Towers were made of hollow steel box columns (at those heights with only 0.25 " material) and in between the columns were mere glass. The strength of such columns is more for vertical compression loading and not so much for lateral tension strength, on their own. The kinetic energy of a multi-ton 767, loaded with (uncompressible) fuel, made with aircraft alloy aluminum, and titanium engines, and a depleted uranium load balancer to boot, would cut and/or bludgeon its way through the Twin Tower walls just like seen. And so the real strength issues here involve the tension shear strength of the column 0.25" steel and the shear strength of the bolts that hold the column assemblies together. Neither of these is addressed in your proof videos.

In the meantime, take a look here as to what happens to aluminum bullets striking various materials less dense that the steel frames of the WTC ... Funny how it gets wedged in simple wood LOL
None of these scenarios comes close to representing the circumstances of a airliner impact with structures like the Twin Towers. LOL. What you could usefully do is build a representative structural model that approximates such, but I'm guessing that you wont. Especially since you are out saving so many children from being raped by priests. NOT.
Collectivist, would you explain why you're pushing Russian propaganda sources such as Khalezov, and now "Agent Orange Leaks", as your source of 911 Truth?
Khalezov's explanation is the best I have to go on. It is also, by far, the most censored material on the web with regards to 911 truth. If you have a competing theory go ahead and reveal it.

It explains pretty much all phenomenon we saw that day such as the tremors felt just prior to the structures coming down. Instead of talking generalities, what specific truth did Trump address through Russian leaks? What I said was his explanation describing the strength of the structures is bang on. Seems straight forward to me.

As for the planes, the witnesses themselves have said they saw no planes (only those who witnessed it on TV). But aside from the lack of eye witness testimony to any planes, what I would like to see is evidence that aluminum "can" cut straight through the exoskeleton steel, the core columns and exiting the other side with an intact nose. It isn't possible in my view and no experiment will ever again replicate this. If it wasn't an airplane, what the heck was it? The wings would have sheered off, even if the nose of the plane was made of depleted uranium. As Khalezov stated, the speed of the projectile as seen on video was insufficient to penetrate anyway. It all points to image fakery. Haven't we seen image fakery before with NASA and edits to the Zapruder film. Why would this be any different? The bigger the lie, the more people will fall for it. 911 is the best chance we have in exposing those responsible and testimony of people such as Khalezov would help the case against these mad men.

Another reason this is a huge deal is because it points to media involvement in false flag operations and we must ask some very basic questions about who runs the media. It also explains what Netanyahu "is doing" when he was conversing with the Rebbe. Why is the Rebbe saying they are running out of time? Why are we seeing escalations with talk about nuking Iran?, the sudden urgency to push migrants all over Europe, the insane geo-engineering projects that have been dangerously escalated.

Things are getting very very bad ... why?

Jerry Russell

Staff member
If you have a competing theory go ahead and reveal it.

Did I forget to post the links? It looks like I did.

I have to say, though: after all our years of research, and following the new developments in the 911 truth movement, I am still feeling bewildered by what happened. There is definitely a stench of "false flag" about it. But, the 911 truthers also put forward many seemingly credible yet ultimately unsatisfactory theories, like the Pentagon missile theory, or the WTC "thermite" theory.

The results of our research about "What Really Happened" are so incredible that even I have a hard time believing that we're on the right track. We say that the Pentagon event was most likely a pure demolition, and that the scene was staged to look exactly like it should have if a plane hit the building. And, I claim that cold nuclear fusion is the only technology that can explain the collapse of the WTC towers.

People look at this stuff and say: even if it's true, we don't want to talk about it. It's too surreal.

For our Pentagon work, see our article at http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm (five page series). This is very old, most or all the reference links have gone stale, and we need to do a retrospective or update.

About the WTC, here are the articles at this site:




Another reason this is a huge deal is because it points to media involvement in false flag operations and we must ask some very basic questions about who runs the media.

I don't think you'll find any debate here, that the mainstream media is complicit in false flag operations. The media is heavily dominated by Jewish individuals, although they seem to be mostly secular or liberal in their religious views for the most part, rather than orthodox or chasidic.

Why is the Rebbe saying they are running out of time? Why are we seeing escalations with talk about nuking Iran?, the sudden urgency to push migrants all over Europe, the insane geo-engineering projects that have been dangerously escalated.

Things are getting very very bad ... why?

Two reasons, I think.

One is that there's a crisis caused by resource depletion and environmental degradation, confronting the population explosion and the need for endless economic growth. There are no good solutions to this predicament.

The other is as discussed in Richard's recent Apocalypse How post. The apocalyptic events that have long been predicted for the transition of the ages from Pisces to Aquarius, are now taking place. This is being driven by the actions of elite secret societies, including (but not limited to) the Chabad Lubavitchers.