Bcc: contributors
____________
WTC demolitions: was thermate sufficient?
__________
Robin Mutoid wrote:
Hi Richard,Thanks for the below. May I draw your attention to this:and this:Where a Finnish Military Weapons Expert has been suggesting since at least 2005 that ‘Nukes’ MUST have been used to fell the Towers? Makes total sense!CheersRobin.PS. You’ll be writing of UFO & ET cover-ups/disclosures next! This is good! Well Done!
Hi Robin,
Thanks for the additional references, which are very good. The long-lasting molten steel in the basement became the clincher for me, once I understood how precisely they can control subterranean nuclear blasts.
I haven’t seen anything convincing about ETs. I think we need to first understand what the Pentagon and the Russians have been doing with Tesla-type technology, before it makes sense to consider alien UFOs. The Germans were testing three different flying saucer technologies by the end of WW 2.
rkm
__________
Diana Skipworth wrote:
Dear Richard,I have watched thousands of video clips on WTC 9/11/2001.No, I do not believe thermate explosive was sufficient. The Hutchinson Effect (sp?) is also interesting. A blue sky backdrop with wrecked WTC, where steel appeared to “turn into dust” and blow away on camera! I’m sure I saved it on my YouTube favorites, somewhere.Will we ever know in our lifetimes? I doubt it; especially when they were pounding away the story on Tim McVey (sp?) as the lone crazy who blew up OK City just the other day.Diana Skipworth
Hi Diana,
Why do you say ‘will we ever know’? I’d say we do know. Are you saying we don’t have enough evidence? Do we need validation by some authority?
curious
rkm
__________
Viviane Lerner wrote:
Just for the record, a typo in the title: it’s thermite, not thermate.
Thermate is the military version of thermite, with sulphur added to increase the heat.
__________
Peter Hollings wrote:
Richard –
This might be true. However, my uneducated guess is that it would be difficult or impossible to avoid similarly damaging surrounding structures with a nuclear device radiating shock waves spherically. Plus, an effort like his website, etc., requires resources – particularly if it is well-done with graphics, etc. Why would a private individual spend those resources on this? Yes, I know – “truth,” but, still, he has to feed himself. So, I wonder if is a diversionary form of disinformation. Here is what WHOIS has to say about one of his domains: Billing in Ukraine, site in the UK, owner/admin in Thailand, tech contact in London. Kind of an elaborate setup for a lone guy, don’t you think??
Peter
Hi Peter,
I think it makes sense to start with an uneducated guess, which is another name for common sense. But that’s only a starting point, I hope, not a final conclusion. Are you going to look at the evidence? He explains the shape of the blast wave, and shows in the aftermath photos how you can clearly see the predictable boundaries of destruction. One of the key pieces of evidence is how the bottom corner of the Fireman’s Hall was demolished, with no explanation, other than being on the edge of the blast wave.
Well let’s see, I’m a private individual, with no resources, and I’ve got websites with graphics. And there are thousands of others in similar situations. I imagine that a former high-level Soviet military officer, with valuable knowledge and skills, is probably able to secure consulting contracts quite legitimately. He’d have more resources than most of us to devote to his truth work.
You might be right, with your conspiracy-theory uneducated-guess about Khalezov, but again that’s only a starting point.
rkm
__________
Life Walker wrote:
the fact that there was a huge explosion beneath towers that killed some people is well documented by witnesses. This happened just before planes hit buildings.
That was a different explosion, and I don’t know what its purpose was. Each nuclear blast was indicated by the ground shaking, and the collapses occurred several seconds later, as it takes a while for the process to unfold.
rkm
__________
Tasha wrote:
rkm> …detail by actors inside the establishment, with Mossad being the most likely source of operatives, to insulate the operation from the US intelligence community as much as possible.
i believe this is the theory also in antiwar.com justin raimondo’s book.tasha
There is direct evidence of Mossad involvement, such as the famous ‘dancing Israelis’ with the van. And they are the group with the greatest motivation to participate, the tightest security, and with widely acknowledged competence in their evil pursuits.
rkm
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Kubrick, “The Shining”, and Apollo (god of light = shining)
andrea lea wrote:
As a dedicated and intuitive Kubrick fan, I found this report to be totally engrossing and illuminating. Thanks, Richard!
You’re welcome.
__________
Chris Thorman wrote:
Hi rkm,FWIW — I haven’t read the article you are quoting yet… 🙂 but my 2-cents before doing that: Both my parents worked personally on very different aspects of the first moon landing, each of which would have given any thinking person reason to suspect if something had been “up”, had it been a fake. My dad helped process all the incoming raw data onsite in Houston (contract worker with IBM); my mom personally worked with the astronauts in quarantine both before and after (NASA employee), also onsite in Houston. She was personally present in the receiving lab when the lunar capsule was unloaded; she was perhaps the 3rd person on Earth to directly glance at moon rocks. She spent weeks personally interacting with the astronauts while they were in quarantine after the landing. I don’t think either of them has any suspicion whatsoever that the project was a fake.
Hi Chris,
Very interesting. It’s always best if we can find direct sources for things like this. I’d be quite interested in what you think after seeing the article. Even better, what your folks would think of the article, if you can get them to look at it.
Your folks were certainly on the front lines, where flaws in the scheme would be most likely to be noticed. Perhaps after reading the article they’ll remember little things that they didn’t think were significant at the time.
The faking scenario would presumably go something like this… They blasted off in a real Apollo rocket, with a real second stage, and those performed as they were advertised to perform. Nothing to hide in that dimension of the operation, from the contractors or anyone else. And on board were the command module and the landing craft, both of which were ‘real’, but neither of which was capable of its supposed mission.
The audio and video segments, with all the dialog with the astronauts, and intentionally grainy sound, was of course recorded long before. That would have been beamed down from some satellite, or from the command module, which remained in earth orbit the whole time. Then when it came time for splash down, the landing craft was left in orbit, and the command module make its descent, according to spec.
The training of the astronauts, to convincingly fake having been to the moon, was probably one of the most difficult parts of the whole operation to pull off. They probably spent hundreds of hours rehearsing what they’d say in various interview situations, what facial expressions to use, what to avoid talking about, etc. Their immediate arrival scenario, in which your mom was involved, would be their most-rehearsed bit, and they’d be fresh in their new roles.
rkm
_________________
subscribe mailto:
blog for subscribers:
Prognosis 2012: the elite agenda for social transformation
The Grand Story of Humanity
The Story of Hierarchy
Climate science: observations vs. models
related websites:
archives:
Share: