345 Ground Zero workers have died of cancer and other CANCER-STRICKEN Ground Zero workers have finally received a compensation checks – for zero dollars.

The city recently settled lawsuits by 10,000 WTC workers, more than 600 of whom have developed cancer. But officials have so far insisted there is no scientific proof that Ground Zero smoke and dust caused cancer.

An FDNY spokesman gave a statement for Dr. Prezant, saying: ‘The study is ongoing, and no conclusions have been reached on whether cancer rates have increased for firefighters.’ But fire union bosses in New York have expressed their concern about the findings.

Al Hagan, head of the fire-officers union, told the New York Post: ‘I’m led to believe that the numbers for those cancers across all ranks in the Fire Department of people who worked at Ground Zero is up significantly, and we’re all very concerned about it, as are our families.’ Steve Cassidy, president of the firefighters union, said Ground Zero’s ‘toxic stew’ has proven lethal. He said: ‘It’s a fact that New York City firefighters are dying of cancer in record numbers. ‘We have buried 10 firefighters in just the last 15 weeks, seven with cancer. On Sept. 10, 2001, they were young, healthy firefighters.’

In 2007, doctors at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, which monitors World Trade Center rescue workers, noted blood cancers like multiple myeloma, which normally strikes in the 60s or 70s, were being found in relatively young officers.

The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373108/9-11-fi…
———

Are these cancers all from toxins in the dust? You know what else causes high rates of cancer?

Every potential client considering a contingent fee agreement with a lawyer should first consider this story about a worker who spent hundreds of hours cleaning up the “ground zero” site in New York City after the 9/11/01 terror attacks.  He was steered to a NY law firm which is handling 10,000 such claims, so he probably assumed they knew what they were doing.  They twisted his arm to get him to accept a settlement for just $10K, all of which went to the firm’s fees, unitemized firm expenses, and paying back a small amount of his workman’s compensation benefits, leaving him, literally, with a check for $0.00, totally broke, and now diagnosed with life-threatening cancer:

CANCER-STRICKEN Ground Zero worker Edgar Galvis has finally received a compensation cheque – for zero dollars.

The man … was relieved to get a cheque in the mail for his court settlement with Merrill Lynch, whose offices he had cleaned.

But he was stunned when he saw the amount: $0.00.

His award had been $10,005, but his lawyers at the firm Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli Bern lopped off $2579 for unitemised legal expenses.

Then they took a 33.3 per cent fee of $2124. They also subtracted $352, a fee to the lawyer who referred him.

The remaining $4950 was withheld for unspecified “liens”, the letter says.

Mr Galvis thinks this was repayment of workers’ compensation for aid.

…”I couldn’t believe it. I thought it was a joke.”…In May 2005, a friend gave him a business card passed out by the law firm. A representative came to his home.

“The man told me that more than likely I will get sick and I would get 60 per cent of whatever he won,” Mr Galvis said.

“He even mentioned the words ‘millions of dollars’.”

In April 2010, he got a $10,000 offer. A letter from the law firm said he could expect about $5000 after expenses and fees.

It warned that if his case went to trial and he lost, he could owe the firm up to $100,000 in costs.

He took the settlement.  [Apparently the settlement was based on losing sleep and sinus problems, but then he was diagnosed with cancer, but the firm told him] it was “too late” to adjust his claim.  [Sounds odd to me.]

The total Merrill settlement came to $18 million for about 400 clients, documents show.

Galvis is one of nearly 10,000 Ground Zero workers represented by Napoli Bern, which led talks for a separate settlement with the city for $712 million. A partner in the firm, Paul Napoli, did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawyers working on a contingent fee basis can’t make money spending lots of time on small claims, which is what they thought this was when they settled it.  (There’s even a chance the expenses aren’t real, just another profit center.)  Even though they knew the client might get sicker — they even predicted it — they sold him out, pressured him to settle, and apparently didn’t make any effort to amend or restart the proceedings to protect his interests once he got sicker.  Settling for $10K, given his financial situation, even if he got to keep the whole $10K, wouldn’t solve any of his problems — but for the firm, assuming they spent little or no time on a matter, you can make $50 million if you make roughly $5K each on 10K cases.

A particularly dirty tactic was to threaten the client with an absurdly inflated amount for expenses to go to trial — not something they mentioned up front, apparently.  The primary expense in this sort of case is usually expert medical testimony, but this shouldn’t cost anything close to $100K and it wouldn’t make sense for the firm to recommend settlement without already having an expert opinion.  More reasonable contingent fee lawyers eat the expenses rather than bankrupt the clients they fail to help.  (This is one of the firms that also earned international disdain for the amount of money they demanded for “legal fees” from the government fund created to help the first responders, etc., who took well over half the money — including payments to government lawyers — and didn’t try a single case.  I gather they’ve been paid hundreds of millions of dollars and haven’t even come close to trying a single case.)

Lawyers doing contingent fee work often resort to the same sorts of tactics to woo clients that are used by used car salespeople and con men.  This happens every day with many of the contingent fee mills.  You need to shop around, make a record of what they tell you before and after you sign, and complain to the police and bar if you believe you’ve been taken advantage of.

In this case, the plaintiff’s lawyer rendered a far more valuable service to Merrill Lynch, which dodged a multi-million dollar bullet thanks to their opponent’s professional advisers.  We’ll have to see whether the authorities in New York decide to step in — not likely based on their track record.

Australian Story: Cancer-stricken Ground Zero worker receives compensation cheque for 0$.

The man who planned 9/11, his name is Mike Harari (now 82 or 83 years old) who is a retired counterintelligence specialist and former Deputy Chief of the Mossad But I can assure you that this was done by the Freemasons.”


by TBFWS

(The Battle For World Supremacy)
April 4, 2010

Updated May 9, 2010

from BattleForWorld Website


Dimitri Khalezov, a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, expressed his knowledge about the September 11, 2001 so-called terrorist attack on the United States.

In what appears to have been a ‘revenge attack’, which was organized by an elite man with grievances against some of the things the United States has done. What Americans saw on their televisions as the 911 reporting unfolds were attacks contrived by U.S. officials in high places when the plan became known to them so that the ‘revenge attack’ that the elite man had organized could to be masked and explained away by a scripted televised show.

The footage that everyone saw showing the plane crashing into the World Trade Center (WTC) was digitally put together by the team working for the elite man and fed to the U.S. television stations on September 11.

No planes crashed into the WTC; the terrorist attack was all make-believe. And that the U.S. officials were the ones who used the situation to begin launching fake wars in the Middle-East.

Read transcription excerpts below for more information regarding Dimitri’s revelation interviews.


The Third Truth, by Dimitri Khalezov

“I seem to be the only person on this Planet who was able to provide satisfactorily explanation in regard to the WTC-1, 2 and 7 pulverizations, plus satisfactorily explanations regarding the Pentagon attack, anthrax letters, doomsday plane, the true nature of the 9/11 cover-up, and the rest of strange things that happened on that day.

My explanations have no flaws and I can answer any and every question about 9/11 that no other ‘conspiracy theorist’ could ever answer. I know the entire truth about 9/11 whether you like it or not.

To answer the second part of your questions:

Yes, I know the Chief Organizer (of 9/11) personally. Also before the 9/11. Moreover, I was so close to him that he did not invite anyone else but me alone to his early breakfast on the 12thof September 2001 (in Bangkok, while in the United States it was still the 11th of September) and there he shared a bottle from his collection of wines with me to celebrate the 9/11 event.

The chief organizer of 911 invites YOU and YOU only to a breakfast to celebrate the 911 attacks?

To continue answering your questions. Yes, it was only me alone who was invited and no one else, but it is not the main point of my story at all. The main point is that I know why the WTC was pulverized during its collapse and I can explain the process in precise detail, as well as explain in exact details any other parts of the 9/11 attack, including all seeming ‘inconsistencies’ which no one else could satisfactorily explain so far.

To be honest, I could tell you that a larger half of the Arab and Pakistani communities in Bangkok, not to mention Russian, Serbian, Iranian and others were openly celebrating the 9/11 event because it was love from first sight. The 9/11 attack was ugly judging from the point of view of the American people and from their obedient allies, but when it comes to the rest of the bipeds the 9/11 attack seems a bit beautiful in performance.

The US officials knew perfectly well who did the 9/11 and they even know WHY they were punished in such a manner. But they can not do anything against the real culprits, because it was them – the US officials, who did the most of the actual crimes related to the 9/11 event.

So, there is nothing to complain about.

What the chief organizer (Mike Harari) thinks about you now? I think he does not give a ####, neither do I. As I have told you the Americans can not even bring him (Mike Harari) to the court, because he did not do much in reality.

All he did was this: He rented offices on the necessary floors of the WTC twin towers and had explosives installed to imitate plane impacts and holes, plus he arranged for cameramen to film the ‘planes’ (he means the scenes with stand-in actors where the planes would then be digitally inserted into the video later, TBFWS Editor), plus he arranged for a missile with broken detonators to be fired into the Pentagon. Nothing more than that.

The US officials did the rest.

  • they shoot down two planes (with people onboard to publicly account for the WTC two explosions)

  • they brought remains of one plane to the Pentagon site

  • they demolished the twin towers (with human beings still inside and around)

  • moreover, they demolished the WTC-7 building

  • they sent unprotected workers to clean up ‘ground zero’

  • they sent anthrax letters implying that they were sent by Saddam Hussein emissaries, etc, etc, etc…

Just compare the amount of guilt of the real 9/11 organizers and that of the US officials.

So, the real 9/11 organizer does not give a #### really. Because all the high-ranking US officials know who did it anyway and my book would not add to their knowledge. It would only add to the knowledge of the general public.

If you think I know the entire 9/11 story, of course I do not know the entire chain of events in precise details (such as, for example, the exact details of the plane ‘hijackings’ or the names of the low-ranking Freemasons involved in the setup, or the exact details of how exactly they pressed the red buttons and who exactly convinced them to do so and on which minute and second of the day).”

(TBFWS Editor: The ‘red button’ is a reference to the trigger device built into the World Trade Center foundation just incase the building had to be demolished at a future date. After the chief planner of 911 gave the orders to set off the explosives in both of the WTC top floors, orders were later given by U.S. officials to press the red button to bring down the buildings.)


Who Did 911?

“I also would like to remind you that I am a specialist in nuclear weapons, unlike many of you. It was my profession for several years. (Who did 911?) It is not so simple as you might think.

Because the Mossad did it firstly, but not alone, and secondly not in its entirety. It was only certain individuals from the Mossad, not the entire Mossad. And it is quite complicated, indeed, so it is not so easy to explain it in a few lines.

Besides, the Mossad did only the minor part of the job. French secret service, for example, did much more than the Mossad.

Besides, all those ‘cameramen’ and ‘witnesses’ who ‘saw’ planes were not Mossad operatives, they were members of the Freemasonic sect. As well as ‘passengers’, pilots, stewardesses and many other actors involved. (TBFWS Editor: He is referring to people who were part of the script during the 9/11 operation.)

It is really a very complicated operation and I don’t know even 5% of its details.

Though I know some people from the Mossad and from the French secret services who were involved. I don’t know for sure who exactly fired the missile and from what kind of ship it was fired from.

But I can assure you that this was done by the Freemasons.”

The man who planned 9/11, his name is Mike Harari (now 82 or 83 years old) who is a retired counterintelligence specialist and former Deputy Chief of the Mossad; a former friend of the U.S. PresidentBush Senior and the former Deputy General Manuel Noriega – the Dictator of Panama.

A rare photo is posted below.



Nuclear Device For Building Demolition

Many years ago Rayelan Allen of RumorMillNews was told by her former husband Gunther Russbacher a CIA agent that a nuclear device was built into the United Nations foundation for its eventual demolition.

(And here we have Dimitri Khalezov of Russia revealing that it is standard policy in the United States to use such a device when constructing very large buildings.)

Dimitri replied:

“About the nuclear device under the U.N. building, I did not know that before, but it sounds reasonable to me. Because since the Controlled Demolition Inc. has patented nuclear technique for demolition, it would be reasonable to expect that they would promote it to get more contracts to secure more work for the future. This is capitalism, after all and everyone is after profits…

It should be noted that the nuclear weapons manufacturers are not ‘commercialized’ and to use nuclear devices on some commercial projects is a rare opportunity for them to get into some commerce too. So, why not use such an opportunity? So, I would not be surprised at all if this is true as reported by Russbacher.

Moreover, since the publication of my 9/11 movie, I’ve read even stranger news on the Internet regarding a Japanese architect who claimed that at least two skyscrapers in Japan also have nuclear devices installed under them by the Controlled Demolition Inc. (not surprising, considering that the initial architect of the WTC was a Japanese guy and he understandably brought this kind of idea back to Japan).

It looks awful, to be honest… I do remember that the U.N. building was promptly evacuated on 9/11 and it was also reported on television as a piece of important news.”

An alternative for the ‘Dimitri Khalezov Telephone Interview’ in below video:

911 Nuclear Demolition

Telephone interview to Dimitri Khalezov

http://blip.tv/play/AYHhlyUC


NOTE

Something mysterious has happened to Dimitri’s original Youtube channel.

Video links disabled by Israeli agent Owen Mark Le Winton:

All his videos were flagged to the ‘private’ setting and are no longer available to the public.

 

An imposter and obstructionist by the name of ‘Owen Mark Le Winton’ is claiming copyright on behalf of the Israeli government and Youtube believes him. Dimitri said that ‘Big Brother’ is extremely unhappy with his movie, and that hopefully the problem with the Israeli agent imposter Owen will be settled soon.

 

(Anyone can declare another person’s work as their own on Youtube. And in this case they are helping an imposter to suppress and steal another person’s original work).


“The Third Truth” by Dimitri Khalezov, Publisher: Lulu.com, ISBN: 1409288536; Edition: Paperback; 2009-11-25. (His book is not yet published. If you’re interested in a copy, email us and your contact information will be sent to an agent of the publisher.)


News

Note: Is there a connection between the Somali pirates hijacking the Russian oil tanker, the Israeli Mossad and the Russian government? Rumor has it that the Israelis are involved in the Somali pirate setup. Are members of the Mossad sending a warning to the Russian government regarding the Dimitri Khalezov revelation videos? 

Manuel Noriega Extradited To France

May 10, 2010
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

The U.S. extradited former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to France on Monday, clearing the way for him to stand trial there on money laundering charges.

The former strongman, who had been held in a federal prison just outside Miami, was placed on an overnight Air France flight to Paris, according to a Justice Department official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to comment on the case.

Noriega was ousted as Panama’s leader and put on trial following a 1989 U.S. military invasion ordered by President George H.W. Bush Sr. Noriega was brought to Miami and was convicted of drug racketeering and related charges in 1992.


Videos

from DiscloseTV Website

911 Nuclear Demolition

Dimitri Khalezov’s Nuclear Demolition Videos Being Scrubbed Off Web!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

Part 19

Part 20

Part 21

Part 22

Part 23

Part 24

Part 25

Part 26

 

Additional Information

The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty

Peaceful nuclear explosions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
Six of the explosions by the Soviet Union are considered to have been of an applied nature, not just tests.
Subsequently the United States and the Soviet Union halted their programs. Definitions and limits are covered in the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 prohibits all nuclear explosions, regardless of whether they are for peaceful purposes or not.
Contents [hide]
1 The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty
2 United States: Operation Plowshare
3 Soviet Union: Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy
4 Other nations
5 Spaceflight Applications
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit]The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty

In the PNE Treaty the signatories agreed: not to carry out any individual nuclear explosions having a yield exceeding 150 kilotons; not to carry out any group explosion (consisting of a number of individual explosions) having an aggregate yield exceeding 1,500 kilotons; and not to carry out any group explosion having an aggregate yield exceeding 150 kilotons unless the individual explosions in the group could be identified and measured by agreed verification procedures. The parties also reaffirmed their obligations to comply fully with the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
The parties reserve the right to carry out nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes in the territory of another country if requested to do so, but only in full compliance with the yield limitations and other provisions of the PNE Treaty and in accord with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Articles IV and V of the PNE Treaty set forth the agreed verification arrangements. In addition to the use of national technical means, the Treaty states that information and access to sites of explosions will be provided by each side, and includes a commitment not to interfere with verification means and procedures.
The protocol to the PNE Treaty sets forth the specific agreed arrangements for ensuring that no weapon-related benefits precluded by the Threshold Test Ban Treaty are derived by carrying out a nuclear explosion used for peaceful purposes, including provisions for use of the hydrodynamic yield measurement method, seismic monitoring and on-site inspection.
The agreed statement that accompanies the Treaty specifies that a “peaceful application” of an underground nuclear explosion would not include the developmental testing of any nuclear explosive.
[edit]United States: Operation Plowshare

One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create the artificial harbor.
Operation Plowshare was the name of the U.S. program for the development of techniques to use nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. The name was coined in 1961, taken from Micah 4:3 (“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”). Twenty-eight nuclear blasts were detonated between 1961 and 1973.
One of the first U.S. proposals for peaceful nuclear explosions that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense. There was also talk of using nuclear explosions to excavate a second Panama Canal.[1]
The largest excavation experiment took place in 1962 at the Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site. The Sedan nuclear test carried out as part of Operation Storax displaced 12 million tons of earth, creating the largest man-made crater in the world, generating a large nuclear fallout over Nevada and Utah. Three tests were conducted in order to stimulate natural gas production, but the effort was abandoned as impractical because of cost and radioactive contamination of the gas.[2][3]
There were many negative impacts from Project Plowshare’s 27 nuclear explosions. For example, the Gasbuggy site,[3] located 55 miles east of Farmington, New Mexico, still contains nuclear contamination from a single subsurface blast in 1967.[4] Other consequences included blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere. These were ignored and downplayed until the program was terminated in 1977, due in large part to public opposition, after $770 million had been spent on the project.[5]
[edit]Soviet Union: Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy

The Soviet Union conducted a much more vigorous program of 239 nuclear tests, some with multiple devices, between 1965 and 1988 under the auspices of Program No. 6 and Program No. 7-Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. Its aims and results were similar to those of the American effort, with the exception that many of the blasts were considered applications, not tests.[6] The best known of these in the West was the Chagan test in January 1965 as radioactivity from the Chagan test was detected over Japan by both the U.S. and Japan. The United States complained to the Soviets, but the matter was dropped.
In the 1970, the Soviet Union started the “Deep Seismic Sounding” Program, that included the use of peaceful nuclear explosions to create seismic deep profiles. Compared to the usage of conventional explosives or mechanical methods, nuclear explosions allow the collection of longer seismic profiles (up to several thousand kilometers).[7]
There are proponents for continuing the PNE programs in modern Russia. They (e.g. A. Koldobsky) state that the program already paid for itself and saved the USSR billions of rubles and can save even more if continued. They also allege that the PNE is the only feasible way to put out large fountains and fires on natural gas deposits and the safest and most economically viable way to destroy chemical weapons.
Their opponents (include the academician A.V. Yablokov) [8] state that all PNE technologies have non-nuclear alternatives and that many PNEs actually caused nuclear disasters.
Reports on the successful Soviet use of nuclear explosions in extinguishing out-of-control gas well fires were widely cited in United States policy discussions of options for stopping the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[9][10]
[edit]Other nations

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.
Germany at one time considered manufacturing nuclear explosives for civil engineering purposes. In the early 1970s a feasibility study was conducted for a project to build a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara Depression in the Western Desert of Egypt using nuclear demolition. This project proposed to use 213 devices, with yields of 1 to 1.5 megatons detonated at depths of 100 to 500 m, to build this canal for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power.
The Smiling Buddha, India’s first explosive nuclear device was described by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion.
In Australia proposed blasting was put forward as a way of mining Iron Ore in the Pilbara [11]
[edit]Spaceflight Applications

Nuclear explosions have been studied as a possible method of spacecraft propulsion. The most well known example was Project Orion, which studied the possibility of a spacecraft propelled by the detonation of nuclear devices which it released behind itself.
Another application would be for deflecting or destroying celestial objects like comets, meteors, or asteroids on a collision course with Earth that have the potential for causing destruction.
[edit]See also

Project Gnome
[edit]References

^ “US Congressional Record pg. 25747, 1968-09-05”. Retrieved 2012-01-22.
^ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management: Rulison, Colorado, Site. Fact Sheet [1].
^ a b Peter Metzger (February 22, 1970). Project Gasbuggy And Catch-85*: *That’s krypton-85, one of the radioactive by-products of nuclear explosions that release natural gas Project Gasbuggy and Catch-85 “It’s 95 per cent safe? We worry about the other 5”. New York Times. p. SM14.
^ “DOE Environmental Management (EM) – Gas Buggy Site”. Em.doe.gov. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, pp. 171-172.
^ Nordyke, M. D. (2000-09-01). The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. pp. 34–35. DOI:10.2172/793554. Report no.: UCRL-ID-124410 Rev 2. U. S. Department of Energy contract no.: W-7405-Eng48.
^ University of Wyoming: http://w3.uwyo.edu/~seismic/dss/
^ “А. В. ЯБЛОКОВ, “ЯДЕРНАЯ МИФОЛОГИЯ КОНЦА XX ВЕКА””. Biometrica.tomsk.ru. Retrieved 2011-08-13.
^ Broad, William J. (2010-06-02). “Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says”. New York Times. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
^ Astrasheuskaya, Nastassia; Judah, Ben; Selyukh, Alina (2010-07-02). “Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well?”. Reuters. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ Nuclear blasting proposed for Pilbara Iron Ore Project in Industrial Reviews and Mining Year Book, 1970 pp.255-259
[edit]External links

Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission
Video of the 104Kt Sedan PNE as part of Operation Plowshare.
Video of the Soviet Chagan PNE
Video of the Soviet Taiga PNE
On the Soviet nuclear program
On the Soviet program for peaceful uses of nuclear weapons, American Office of Scientific and Technical Information
United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992 (DOE/NV-209 [Rev.14]).
ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS,Federation of American Scientists
World Reaction to the Indian Nuclear Tests, Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Nuclear Files.org Treaty between the USA and USSR on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes
Peter Kuran’s “Atomic Journeys” – documentary film includes tests of Peaceful nuclear Explosions.
[hide] v t e
Nuclear technology
Science
Chemistry Engineering Physics Atomic nucleus Fission Fusion Radiation ionizing
Fuel
Deuterium Fertile material Fissile Helium-3 Isotope separation Plutonium Thorium Tritium Uranium enriched depleted
Neutron
Activation Capture Cross-section Fast Fusion Generator Poison Radiation Reflector Temp Thermal
Reactors
Fission
reactors
by
primary
moderator
Water
Aqueous homogeneous reactor Boiling BWR ABWR Heavy CANDU PHWR SGHWR
Natural (NFR) Pressurized PWR VVER EPR Supercritical (SCWR)
Graphite
by coolant
Water
RBMK
Gas
Advanced gas-cooled (AGR) Magnox Pebble bed (PBMR)
UHTREX UNGG reactor Very high temperature (VHTR)
Molten Salt
FLiBe
Fuji MSR Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)
Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)
Hydrocarbon
Organically moderated and cooled reactor
BeO
Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)
None
(Fast)
Breeder (FBR) Integral (IFR) Liquid-metal-cooled (LMFR) SSTAR Traveling Wave (TWR)
Generation IV by coolant Gas (GFR) Lead (LFR) Sodium (SFR)
Fusion
reactors
by
confinement
Magnetic
Field-reversed configuration Levitated dipole Reversed field pinch Spheromak Stellarator Tokamak
Inertial
Bubble fusion (acoustic) Fusor electrostatic Laser-driven Magnetized target Z-pinch
Other
Dense plasma focus Migma Muon-catalyzed Polywell Pyroelectric
List of nuclear reactors
Power
Nuclear power plant By country Economics Fusion Isotope thermoelectric (RTG) Propulsion rocket Safety
Medicine
Imaging
by
radiation
Gamma camera
Scintigraphy Positron emission (PET) Single photon emission (SPECT)
X-ray
Projectional radiography Computed tomography
Therapy
Boron neutron capture (BNCT) Brachytherapy Proton Radiation Tomotherapy
Weapon
Topics
Arms race Delivery Design Explosion effects History Proliferation Testing underground Warfare Yield TNTe
Lists
Popular culture States Tests Treaties Weapon-free zones Weapons
Waste
Products
Actinide: (Reprocessed uranium Reactor-grade plutonium Minor actinide) Activation Fission LLFP
Disposal
Fuel cycle HLW LLW Repository Reprocessing Spent fuel pool cask Transmutation
Debate
Nuclear power debate Nuclear weapons debate Anti-nuclear movement Uranium mining debate Nuclear power phase-out

Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers.

Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers.

Please, note: even though this web site deals with purely technical matters and it has absolutely nothing to do with any politics, it might still be considered being “politically incorrect”. So, a possibility exists that this site could be removed one day by authorities and such a prospect can not be ignored. If so happens, you would be able to find a reference to a new source here: www.911thology.cn (note, it is a *.cn domain, not *.com ), or you could search the Internet by ‘9/11thology’ keyword and you would always find some related info. 


This article describes a general concept of nuclear demolition of skyscrapers – particularly in connection with known thermo-nuclear demolition schemes of the World Trade Center in New York and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Though, the current article does not deal with any exact details of implementation of this concept in regard to these particular structures, but provides rather general knowledge on this subject. Besides, this article does not consider any conspiracy behind nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11, neither does it consider any moral aspect of this issue – such as ground zero clean-up works and so on – it aims to explain its purely technical aspect. However, there are other articles available in the Internet that describe the WTC nuclear demolition scheme in more or less exact detail, as well as articles that describe particular conspiracy in regard to the actual WTC demolition – links to these articles are available at the end of the current description.Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by “ Controlled Demolition Inc.” – the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in Chicago.
Photo: South Tower begins to collapse.
The author of this article – Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.

Part 1. Brief history. Atomic demolition.

Initial idea to use nuclear devices in demolishing various constructions was born almost simultaneously with an appearance of actual nuclear weapons in the beginning of 50s. At first nuclear munitions were not called “nuclear”, but “atomic”, so a concept of demolition using these munitions was called accordingly – “atomic demolition”. These words managed to survive and despite renaming former atomic weapons into “nuclear weapons”, words “atomic demolition” could still be encountered today in names of special engineering devices – SADM and MADM. The first one stands for “Special Atomic Demolition Munitions”, the second – for “Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions”, while many people mistakenly believe that SADM means “Small Atomic Demolition Munitions”, rather than “Special”.In fact, there would not be a big mistake to call them “small” instead of “special”, because SADM are indeed “small” – their nuclear explosive yields usually does not exceed 1 kiloton in TNT equivalent. Considering that all modern SADM have variable yields that could be set at as low as 0.1 kiloton, and sometimes even at 0.01 kiloton (equivalents to 100 and 10 metric tons of TNT respectively), they deserve to be called “small” munitions. Other popular names for these Small Atomic Demolition Munitions are “mini-nuke” and “suite-case nuke”, though the second one is probably not logically correct. In reality most of SADM resemble big pots weighing between 50 to 70 kilograms that could be carried as back-packs – so it is very unlikely that they could fit into any suite-case. However, there are also modern “mini-nukes” made of Plutonium-239, rather than of Uranium-235, and due to a much lower critical mass of Plutonium, their size could be significantly decreased – some latest Plutonium-based “mini-nukes” could indeed fit into an attache-case. Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions (MADM) are bigger in both – their size and their TNT yield. They could be up to 15 kiloton in TNT yield, weigh up to 200 kg and be as big as a typical large gas-cylinder for home use.Either of abovementioned atomic demolition munitions could be successfully used in demolishing large objects that could not be demolished by any reasonable amount of conventional explosives – especially in times of emergency, when there is neither time, nor a possibility to prepare their “normal” demolition by conventional means. For example, it could be bridges, dams, tunnels, some reinforced underground structures, large reinforced buildings, etc. However, an efficiency factor for such nuclear demolitions using SADM or MADM is not too high. As it is probably known, the main aim of controlled demolition of buildings by implosion method is not to actually eliminate these buildings by blowing them up and sending their parts flying around, but to bring them down neatly with the least possible damage to surroundings. For this reason engineers who prepare controlled demolitions have to first figure out exact points on buildings bearing structures and attach charges of conventional explosives to the right spots – in order to break these bearing structures. In almost all cases there would be more than one spot to attach explosives, since it is unlikely that any of such structures would have only a single supporting girder or a single supporting column that it is to be broken; at best case there would be a few of them, if not many. In case with nuclear demolition using abovementioned atomic demolition munitions it is not the case. People who suppose to use atomic munitions in case of emergency would have neither time, nor enough education to make such precise calculations as in case of a conventional controlled demolition. Maximum of what these people could have – is some basic field-engineering knowledge and some basic knowledge in regard to nuclear weapons usage. Thus, usage of atomic demolition munitions in such case is to bring down a targeted structure not “neatly”, but just anyhow and at any cost. That is why an explosive yield of atomic munitions used to demolish such structure in case of emergency in any case would be excessive, with major part of their entire explosive energy spent in vain – as in case with any other nuclear explosion. So, the major part of energy, released by a nuclear explosion of such an atomic demolition device would be spent on creating well-known factors of atomic blast: thermal radiation, air-blast wave, ionizing radiation, electro-magnetic pulse – that have nothing to do with the actual demolition task and could unlikely contribute to it. However, all these destructive factors of an atomic explosion would greatly contribute to damaging of the surroundings – and this damage could be rather extreme, definitely exceeding in its cost a cost of the actual demolition. It could be said that a nuclear demolition in the abovementioned sense would have much lower performance index compare to a precisely calculated conventional controlled demolition, since the latter one directs almost entire energy of explosives used on breaking bearing structures, rather than on creating an air-blast wave or a thermal radiation. Besides of this, an atomic demolition device itself is quite a costly thing too. At minimum, a Uranium-based “mini-nuke” costs a couple of million US dollars, if not more (a Plutonium-based one costs much more than that). Apparently, a thousand tons of TNT would cost cheaper than a 1 kiloton atomic munitions. However, it is possible to demolish quite a few buildings using 1000 tons of TNT, while it is possible to demolish only one single building (but to damage many other buildings around) using a “mini-nuke”. Considering all of this, it could be concluded that it is not an option – to use any atomic demolition munitions, either small, or medium, for demolishing any civil infrastructure in times of peace when there is enough time to prepare demolishing any of such objects nicely by conventional means. And in any case a conventional controlled demolition would be cheaper than a nuclear demolition. Mini-nukes could only be used for demolition job in case of real emergency.

Part 2. Modern history. Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers.

So, how come that this old atomic demolition concept, despite of being known to be too costly and despite of having a too low performance index compare to a conventional controlled demolition by implosion was eventually revived and even implemented in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition scheme? It happens because of a new generation of buildings has come into existence at the end of 60s – namely steel-framed buildings.Despite common misconception, there were no steel-framed skyscrapers ever been demolished by an implosion anywhere in the world. Primarily, because the most of skyscrapers are new buildings and their time to be demolished has not come yet. The tallest building ever demolished by an implosion was only 47-strories high – it was the Singer Building in New York City that was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to its being obsolete. This building was a much weaker structure compare to incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers being built today. So, despite common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building by a commonly known controlled demolition (implosion) scheme. In bygone days when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-panelled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders. Sometimes these concrete bearing structures were reinforced by insertions of metal bars, but sometimes they were plain concrete. In either case it was possible to calculate right amount of conventional explosives to be attached to these bearing structures at right spots (or to be placed into holes drilled in bearing structures) in order to break them all at once and to cause the building to collapse into its footprint. However, it is no longer possible with modern steel-framed buildings – such as, for example former Twin Towers of the New Your World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7, or the Sears Tower in Chicago.Here is an example of steel structure of the WTC Twin Tower:
Photo: WTC Twin Tower under construction.
There was no any “bearing structure” in its former sense – the entire Tower was essentially a “bearing structure”. The WTC steel-frame consisted of exceptionally thick double-walled steel perimeter and core columns. This co-called “tube-frame design” was a totally new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as it was traditionally implemented in previous structures. The Twin Towers featured load-bearing perimeter steel columns (square in cross-section) positioned one meter from each other on the Towers’ facades to form an exceptionally rigid structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure contained 59 such columns per side. The core structure of the Tower consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns that run from the bedrock to the Towers’ tops. How such steel perimeter and core columns looked like could be seen from this picture showing some remnants of these columns as found on the ground zero after the WTC demolition following the September 11 attacks:
Photo: WTC core and perimeter columns.
Note that these core (rectangular) and perimeter (square) columns did not belong to lower parts of the Twin Towers, but to their upper parts. That is why they were spared by general pulverization the Towers were subjected to during their demolitions, while virtually nothing, except microscopic dust remained of similar columns belonging to the lower parts of the Twin Tower structure.Here is one more picture (from NIST report) showing the Twin Towers perimeter columns during their construction:
Photo: Twin Towers perimeter structures.

These steel columns were incredibly thick – each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare with: front armour of the best tank of the WWII period – T-34 – was only 1.8 inch (4.5 cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armour-piercing artillery shell available that time that would be capable of penetrating such front armour. Of course, no explosives whatsoever would ever be able to tear throw such front armour of a tank either (except only a hollow-charge shell which would still not be able to tear a complete piece of such armour, but only to burn some narrow hole through an armour plate). Considering that the Twin Towers’ steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost trice as thick compare to the T-34 tanks’ front amour, it would not be possible to find any solution to break such columns simultaneously in many spots in order to achieve an “implosion” effect – the basic goal of any controlled demolition. It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-charges attached to each individual column, but even such an incredible solution would not help to achieve the desired “implosion effect”. The Towers were simply too high and too rigid – their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford. And even if they could, still, such a solution would not lead to the desired effect – there would not be any guarantee that such a high-raised structure would fall strictly down to its foot print – it might as well scatter its debris as far as a quarter of a mile, considering its mere height. So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any kind of traditional controlled demolition.The same thing could be said about the WTC building # 7 and of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Either of them was constructed using similar thick double-walled steel frame that was impossible to break at once due to reasons described above. However, in accordance with the US laws governing construction of skyscrapers buildings designers had to submit some satisfactorily demolition project before their construction project could be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one could be allowed to build a skyscraper that can’t be demolished in the future. This is the main point of the skyscrapers’ in-built nuclear demolition features. Ironically, such a nuclear demolition scheme of a skyscraper is not meant to actually demolish the respective skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means – it is only intended to convince the Department of Buildings to permit the skyscraper’s construction whatsoever. It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemes sincerely hope that their ideas would not be put to use during their life-time.Anyhow, “Controlled Demolition Inc.” began to study possibilities of demolishing modern skyscrapers by underground nuclear explosions at the end of 60s, at request of the then New York Sate Governor Nelson Rockefeller – when it became necessary to get a legal approval from the New York Department of Buildings for the WTC Twin Towers construction. After some research, a final solution was found and approved by the Department of Buildings and “Controlled Demolition Inc.” got its nuclear demolition know-how patented.

Part 3. How does a modern nuclear demolition work?

.
.
.
.
.

First of all, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the former atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept. During modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion – with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, a thermal radiation and an air-blast wave. It explodes quite deep underground – much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it does produce neither any air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It could cause only relatively minor harm to surroundings by an ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, considered being a negligible factor by designers of such demolition schemes.

What is a basic difference between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion? The basic difference is this. During an initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in a form of a so-called “primary radiation” that in its main part (almost 99%) falls within X-rays spectrum (and remaining part is represented by gamma-rays spectrum that causes radiation injuries and visible spectrum that produces visible flash). So, this almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding air at tens of meters around a hypocenter of such an explosion. It happens because X-rays can not travel too far, being consumed by surrounding air. Heating of this relatively small area around the nuclear explosion hypocenter would result in appearance of so-called “nuclear fireballs” that physically is nothing else than an extremely overheated air. These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion – its thermal radiation and its air-blast wave, since both factors result exclusively from high temperatures of the air around a nuclear explosion. When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different. There is no air around a small “zero-box” a nuclear charge is placed into, so an entire amount of energy instantly released by a nuclear explosion in a form of X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding rock, instead. It would result in overheating, melting and evaporating of this rock. Disappearance of the evaporated rock would result in creation of an underground cavity, size of which directly depends on explosive yield of nuclear munitions used. You can have an idea on how much rock could disappear during an underground nuclear explosion from the below table – where quantities of evaporated and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on “per kiloton of yield” basis:

Rock type Specific mass of vaporized material
(in tons per kiloton yield)
Specific mass of the melted
material (in tons per kiloton yield)
Dry granite 69 300 (±100)
Moist tuff (18-20% of water) 72 500 (± 150)
Dry tuff 73 200 – 300
Alluvium 107 650 (±50)
Rock salt 150 800
Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter – such as the one shown in this picture:
Photo: WTC nuclear demolition idea.
Picture: underground cavity after nuclear blast.
All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations lying 20-30 meters beneath the Earth surface. So, it is possible to calculate a position of a “zero-box” under such a skyscraper in such a way that a nuclear explosion would produce a cavity upper end of which would not reach the Earth surface, but would reach only the lowest underground foundation of a skyscraper it intends to demolish.For example, in particular cases of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, their lowest underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface. While the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned as depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations. Such a thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity with its upper sphere touching the lowest underground foundations of the Twin Tower it intends to demolish. But it would still be short of reaching the Earth surface by 27 meters – so surrounding structures would not to be affected by any destructive factors of this underground nuclear explosion (except by, possibly, only its radioactive contamination). The Tower that is to be demolished supposes to lose its foundations completely, and to be sucked-in into this overheated cavity, temperatures inside of which are deemed enough to melt the entire Tower. Nuclear demolition schemes of the WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the same way.

However, there is one more factor that is to be taken into consideration during calculation of nuclear demolition projects of skyscrapers. This is about the actual evaporated granite rock inside the cavity. Where all that former granite rock now in gaseous state supposes to go from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let’s consider it.

Photo: physical process during underground nuclear blast.
This pictorial rendition schematically represents all important physical processes during an ideally deep (means occurred sufficiently far from the Earth surface) underground nuclear explosion. So, now it should become clear that an extreme pressure of the evaporated rock inside the cavity makes at least two important jobs: 1) it expands the actual cavity from its “primary” size to its “secondary” size; and 2) because it does this expansion at the expense of the neighboring areas of the rock, it produces two damaged zones around itself, each representing a different degree of damage. A zone immediately adjacent to the cavity in nuclear jargon is called a “crushed zone”. This zone could be as thick as a diameter of the cavity itself and it is filled with a very strange matter. Its filling is rock that is completely pulverized. It is reduced into a fine microscopic dust, an approximate particle of which is about 100 micron in size. Moreover, this particular state of material within this “crushed zone” is a very strange state – except after an underground nuclear tests it does not occurs anywhere else in nature. If you pick up a stone from this zone, but do so very gently, it might still stick together and still resemble a stone by its form and its color. However, it you only slightly press this “stone” with your fingers it will immediately crush into that complete microscopic dust it actually consists of. A second zone – next to the “crushed zone” is called a “damaged zone” in professional nuclear jargon. This “damaged zone” is filled with rock crushed to various pieces – from very small (millimeters in size), to some relatively big fragments. As closer to a border of the “crushed zone”, as smaller will be such debris, and as farther from hypocenter – as larger will be such debris. Finally, outside of the “damaged zone” border, there would be virtually no damage inflicted to surrounding rock.However, we have considered above the physical processes which are true to an “ideally deep” underground nuclear blast. When a nuclear charge is buried not sufficiently deep, a picture will be slightly different. “Damaged” and “crushed” zones will not be exactly round in the latter case. They would be rather elliptic – with their longer ends directed upwards – comparable with an egg facing upwards with its sharper end, or possibly even more ellipsoidal and sharper upwards than a typical egg. It happens because the pressure of the evaporated gases would encounter the least resistance towards the Earth surface (since it is too near), so either “crushed zone” or “damaged zone” would extend upwards farther than to any other direction. But when propagating upwards upper boundaries of the “damaged zone” and “crushed zone” encounter underground foundations of the Tower which is to be demolished, the picture would be even more different. It is because materials the Tower is built of differ from surrounding granite rock in a sense of resistance of materials. Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower, while the remaining granite rock towards the rest of directions (to either sides and downwards) is solid. So, expansion of the upper boundaries of “damaged” and “crushed” zones by the Tower’s structure will be the farthest. In case of the WTC Twin Towers or the Sears Tower the “damaged zone” could likely reach up to 350-370 meters, while “crushed zone” that follows immediately, would likely reach up to 290-310 meters. But in case of the much shorter WTC-7 its entire length will be within the “crushed zone” – so it would be pulverized completely. This ability of nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.The picture below shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly “concrete dust”. No, it was not. It was “complete” dust – mainly pulverized steel. Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. It was not used anywhere else. The major part of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So this finest dust was in its major part represented by steel dust accordingly. Though, it was not only “steel dust” alone – it was also a “furniture dust”, “wood dust”, “paper dust”, “carpet dust”, “computer parts dust” and even “human dust”, since remaining in the Towers human beings were pulverized in the same manner as steel, concrete and furniture.
Photo: dust from the WTC pulverization.

Some people might wonder – why the WTC-7 collapsed to its footprint very neatly, in its entirety, while either of the Twin Towers crushed down scattering not only dust, but even some debris to quite large distances. This question is very easy to answer – you have to look at the distribution of “crushed” and “damaged” zones along the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.

The picture below represents an approximate distribution of damages in case of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of a skyscraper. Don’t forget, that demolition charges in this particular case were buried not “ideally deep”, that is why forms of the “crushed” and “damaged” zones were not “ideally round” either – they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards – towards areas of the least resistance.

Photo: nuclear demolition scheme.

This particular distribution of damages along the skyscrapers structures inflicted by such a process could be better understood when you watch videos showing details of collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and the WTC-7. You can click the “Videos” button at the top panel of this page to watch these videos.It should be added also that despite an apparent insufficiency of 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charges to pulverize the tallest skyscrapers in their entirety, charges of higher yields could not be used in nuclear demolition industry due to merely legal reasons. The problem is that in accordance with the USA – Soviet so-called “ Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976” yield of nuclear munitions used for non-military purposes was limited to 150 kiloton /per individual nuclear explosion and to maximum of 1.5 megaton aggregate yield for group explosions. So, the nuclear demolition industry has to fit into these legal frames: in case of the WTC demolition it was possible to use as many charges as necessary, but not in excess of 150 kiloton per charge. That is why the WTC nuclear demolition scheme consisted of three of such charges – with aggregate yield of 450 kiloton. For those people who have difficulty to imagine how powerful 150 kiloton is, it could be reminded that an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was less than 20 kiloton.As it was mentioned in the beginning, this article does not describe any nuclear demolition scheme of a particular building in any exact detail, but does it rather on a conceptual level. But there is another article that describes a nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center in New York in particular. It is available here: http://www.wtcnucleardemolition.comThe author of this article – Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

GOOD NEWS: an interview with Dimitri Khalezov regarding the WTC nuclear demolition and 9/11 in general is now available. It contains detailed technical explanations supported by animated graphics and various contemporary 9/11 video clips.   You can find download links for this presentation on the Internet by searching for Dimitri Khalezov video in Google.

                                                                           

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

                   Funds are badly needed to keep things  

               moving and the truth spreading.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
..

Please, consider donating.

.
.
.
.
.


Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 WTC demolition scheme, which was required to obtain the original building permit in New York

http://www.911thology.com
http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com
http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

September Clues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

Amazing interview with Dimitri Khalezov, former Nuclear Intelligence officer of the Soviet Union. Because of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 between the USA and the former USSR and Dimitri’s military role in the USSR’s Nuclear Intelligence division, Dimitri had certain knowledge of the WTC demolition scheme, which was required to obtain the original WTC building permit in New York (i.e. NY did not issue a building permit without submitting a demolition scheme). Dimitri uses his insider information combined with his military background to explain the events of 911 in depth. He leaves no 911 question unanswered.

In Part 1, Dimitri explains:
– Dimitri Khalezov background
– Planes and explosions
– Pentagon mentioned (explained fully in Part 2)
– Nuclear detonations explained
– WTC1 & WTC2 nuclear demolition

All About Agenda 21, The Good, The Bad. The Ugly!

Agenda 21 for Dummies

Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center has put together an excellent one pager to educate people about Agenda 21 policies, the intent and how it is meant to affect every person on the planet!  Thanks, Tom, this is a great tool!  ~LTG

Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity (Social injustice)

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

Economic Prosperity

Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

Local Sustainable Development policies

Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

Who is behind it?

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

Where did it originate?

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

Revealing Quotes From the Planners

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced…” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

Agenda 21 and Private Property

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

Reinvention of Government

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑