Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot

[The Almond]

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour.

This is a pretty bold claim. 115 Roentgens is equivalent to 1 Gray (Gy), and 2 Gy is the point at which some rather nasty radiological effects begin to occur. At your arbitrary "several hundreds" definition, about 50% of the people in the vicinity of GZ should have died from radiation poisoning.
So, a few questions:
1) What was the type of radiation being measured, and what detector was being used? You mention a geiger counter, which would indicate that you're measuring gamma radiation. You could be measuring both alpha and gamma if you don't have a plastic cover in front of the detector. But then again, Geiger counters don't output in Roentgens, they output in the arbitrary "counts" unit. It requires a radioactive standard to translate counts into one of the SI units (rads/REM/Sievert, or Grays).
2) Where were the measurements being taken? As you know, radioactive intensity varies with the square of the distance to the source.

Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks.

The radiation drop off you note here is not consistent with radioactive decay of any of the "nukular bomb" type fission materials (U235 or Pu241). How do you explain this?

Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

Were there any actual radioactive material at GZ, any person should be able to go there and measure approximately 1/4th the radiation you measured on 9/11 (I'm assuming for the sake of argument a Pu241 isotope). That would be about 0.5 Gy, which would be more than sufficient to make any Geiger counter go nuts.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.

You know it for sure, but you want us to believe it. Why? Why should we trust you?

All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.

Dimitri, let me level with you. It takes no more than 10 minutes to investigoogle radiation effects, dose rates, half lives of fissile materials, conversion rates from the now defunct Roentgen to the SI Gray, etc. You've gotten every single major fact about fissile materials wrong, including the decay rate, which I assume you made up. If you can't be bothered to get the facts you make up correct, it is futile to continue this discussion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok thread over....this guy has not got a clue what he is talking about. I think it likely he is simply a troll as no could really be that dumb as to think a 150 kiloton blast under each tower is even remotely possible as a cause for the towers collapse. Thats 10 ten times the power of the bombs dropped on Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Furthermore, studies conducted after September 11th surveying hospital responses to the event did not list a single case of radiation induced trauma or illness. Here's one such article from the Journal or Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care:
"Two New York City Hospitals’ Surgical Response to the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack in New York City"

I have the .pdf, if anyone is interested in it.

What is remarkable is the distinct lack of noting of any symptoms of radiation induced illnesses in direct studies of people trapped within the buildings themselves:
"Surveillance for World Trade Center disaster health effects among survivors of collapsed and damaged buildings"

Given that those survivors would be trapped in the very buildings that were supposedly demolished by nukes, you'd think they'd be the first to get irradiated. But, no reports... Well, anyway, you all see my point. There are other articles on this subject; a search on Google scholar can lead you to them. The two I'm listing are merely examples of what's available. The ultimate point is that all of that hooey about radiation victims is just that: Hooey. Any evidence that is ultimately provided to butress this claim of radiation victims at Ground Zero must not merely support the claim, but it must explain why other studies examining general health effects from the disaster did not cover the radiation induced health problems. Or in short, if there were radiation victims there, why did general health studies on 9/11 victims miss them?

 

[Sabrina]

Furthermore, studies conducted after September 11th surveying hospital responses to the event did not list a single case of radiation induced trauma or illness. Here's one such article from the Journal or Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care:
"Two New York City Hospitals’ Surgical Response to the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack in New York City"

I have the .pdf, if anyone is interested in it.

What is remarkable is the distinct lack of noting of any symptoms of radiation induced illnesses in direct studies of people trapped within the buildings themselves:
"Surveillance for World Trade Center disaster health effects among survivors of collapsed and damaged buildings"

Given that those survivors would be trapped in the very buildings that were supposedly demolished by nukes, you'd think they'd be the first to get irradiated. But, no reports... Well, anyway, you all see my point. There are other articles on this subject; a search on Google scholar can lead you to them. The two I'm listing are merely examples of what's available. The ultimate point is that all of that hooey about radiation victims is just that: Hooey. Any evidence that is ultimately provided to butress this claim of radiation victims at Ground Zero must not merely support the claim, but it must explain why other studies examining general health effects from the disaster did not cover the radiation induced health problems. Or in short, if there were radiation victims there, why did general health studies on 9/11 victims miss them?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ah, he's chickening out.

Notice that there's a direct lie in his good-bye:

2) None of you bothered to watch my movie before asking anything.

Untrue. Poster tj15 had watched it, and was pressing for exact timestamps in the videos for support for a specific claim. 911thology chose to obsfucate. Furthermore, Mancman had also watched them, and listed his general claims.

3) All of you are preconceived with an embedded idea that I am a liar.

No, actually, we have proof now.

4) All of you have truly strange belief that I allegedly owe you something.

Yes. You owe anyone you make a claim to proof for your claim. You failed to do this.

This truther is vanquished by dint of his own failure to support his argument.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?

Well, I was actually blowing by the yield of the bomb to post what I knew of regarding the medical studies post 9/11 (recall, I once went on a hunt for barotrauma reports a couple of years ago). I do believe you're right, though; something that powerful probably would've left nothing but a big, fat hole in the ground. I'll need to defer that judgement to people more familiar with nuclear explosions than I am, but my admittedly limited understanding tells me that something that powerful wouldn't have left any debris, and therefore no survivors to be rescued within any debris. I, too, think they all would've been vaporized.

Someone better versed in the subject willing to elaborate or correct Sabrina and me here?

 

[Mangoose]

Devices were 150 kiloton.

The yield of Little Boy was 15 kt. Devices plural. So 300 kt total = the equivalent of 20 Hiroshimas at Ground Zero. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[Drudgewire]

Yes. You owe anyone you make a claim to proof for your claim. You failed to do this.

And cookies. He owes each of us seven chocolate chip cookies. And no, we will NOT accept nilla wafers.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And cookies. He owes each of us seven chocolate chip cookies. And no, we will NOT accept nilla wafers.

Will you NOT bring up chocolate chip cookies to a diabetic !! Don't you know how bad I miss those?

 

[Drudgewire]

Will you NOT bring up chocolate chip cookies to a diabetic !! Don't you know how bad I miss those?

If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes.

 

[The Almond]

Well, I was actually blowing by the yield of the bomb to post what I knew of regarding the medical studies post 9/11 (recall, I once went on a hunt for barotrauma reports a couple of years ago). I do believe you're right, though; something that powerful probably would've left nothing but a big, fat hole in the ground. I'll need to defer that judgement to people more familiar with nuclear explosions than I am, but my admittedly limited understanding tells me that something that powerful wouldn't have left any debris, and therefore no survivors to be rescued within any debris. I, too, think they all would've been vaporized.

Someone better versed in the subject willing to elaborate or correct Sabrina and me here?

I think there still would have been debris, but nothing "building" shaped. Also, alpha, beta and gamma radiation leave extremely distinct burn marks in addition to radioactive materials. I mean, the list of things that a nuclear explosion creates that was not present at GZ goes on and on. Frankly, I'm ready to declare that nuclear weapons truthers are crazier than space-microwave hologram truthers. I know, it's shocking to think that anyone could be crazier than that.

 

[beachnut]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I am not a person largely familiar with atomic bombs) but if there were a 150 kT bomb that went off underneath the towers, wouldn't everything for about a block have been completely and utterly vaporized? Or at the very least destroyed to mere fragments? If that is the case, how then could there be survivors found within the rubble? And what about the blast wave; what happened to it?

The melt zone would be 53 meters. The crush zone over 200 meters. (For underground explosions.) But there is no underground, there are buildings, subways systems, basements.

The blast would destroy most of the area, and I think he has three weapons doing the damage. The first weapon would destroy the other two.

 

[Mangoose]

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject.

Yet you want us all to watch your 25+ part Youtube video....how much of a time commitment is that, as opposed to you spending a few minutes to answer some simple questions.

I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.

If you don't care, then why are spending any time at all posting here? If you are here to drum up interest in your Youtube videos, you should show us that you are not the average random Youtuber who just posts stuff, and show that you have evidence or logical reasons behind the claims you make. All you have done is make an assertion. Anyone could do that. So why should we invest the time in watching your videos? A better way to garner interest is to explain your reasoning or evidence that shows that you are different from all the others.

Heck, even Craig and Aldo of the CIT squad make an effort in trying to supply what they regard as evidence for their claims.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?

Thats called hearsay and is not evidence acceptable in any court. So no, not remotely "enough".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes.

I can't even have too many rice cakes. Glycemic index rating is too flippin' high.

Thank goodness meat doesn't have a GI rating. If I was denied steak or bacon, I'd have killed myself when I got diagnosed.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If it makes you feel any better I miss them just as much. Stupid diet. Stupid rice cakes.

Bojangles sausage biscuit

 

[Drudgewire]

Bojangles sausage biscuit

While I can get away with one of those, their steak biscuit is sooooo much better...

...and twice as fattening.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Here is a video of an actual 15KT nuclear explosion. Which is 10 times smaller than one of your devices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obd0yAodLXk#t=39s

What characteristics do we see in the explosion? A blindly bright flash, followed by a shock wave.

There are many videos of the collapse...why don't we see these same characteristics? If the bombs were under the towers, why did the collapse begin near the top?

One of members here, Triforcharity, was a NY firefighter and spent weeks at GZ during the cleanup...why does he still have all of his hair and no radiation burns?


@Elmondo...and why does this pecan pie topped with 2 scoops of "death by chocolate" ice cream that I am eating right now taste so good? (sorry, El...I'm pure evil for rubbing it in.)

 

[Seymour Butz]

I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject. I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.

IOW, you got pwned.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Wait...I'm confused. The Granit is a Russian missile. Why would "the perps" use a Russian missile? Were they trying to blame it on the Russians?

 

[DavidJames]

Pesonally for DavidJames: I already quit this discussion, but as a matter of curtecy I will send you names and contact details you ask - please contact me over my e-mail (available on my web site) and remind me who you are and what you want.

You came here, you can PM me the names or post them here, I'm not going to your site to email you.