Quote of the day—anonymous

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

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

anonymous
February 15, 2014
Comment (which I marked as spam and hence can only be seen by administrators) to Quote of the day—Larry P. Card
See also 9/11 was a Mossad operation
[I’ve seen (and debunked) some truther stuff before but this is really out there. It’s amazing what people will believe and proselytize. I would like to know the psychology behind these sort of delusions. How does it benefit these people to believe such outlandish things? It’s even worse than those who believe gun control is a benefit to society.—Joe]

29 thoughts on “Quote of the day—anonymous

  1. I’m always amused but these theories. Not one has any citations. Not one is promoted by any experts who have reviewed the materials subsequent to the various investigations. As a firefighter with nearly 25 years of experience, I’ve seen what happens to steel of various thicknesses when subjected to the heat of fire from ordinary combustibles, let alone jet fuel. And yet, people will buy into theories put forth by TV show hosts, crack pots, and meth heads. Just proves that we’ll believe anything if it supports our preconceived notions…..

    • Yes. Flight 800, in glaring contrast, has real people pointing to real discrepancies and asking real questions. It still may be the official story, but there are things, at least, to hang your hat on. The Truthers are doing their research in the Sci-fi section of the bookstore an at their computer keyboards, consuming plants generally not considered safe to eat.

    • My education is as an aerospace engineer. I had a LOT of coursework covering structural analysis and failure. I have textbooks written in the 60s that describe the WTC collapse to the letter and do you know I’ve had truthers tell me to my face that I have no damn clue what I’m talking about? That it’s “obvious” they were brought down by explosives. Guess the textbook writers from 40 years ago were in on the conspiracy too….

  2. Thermonuclear? Why not space aliens? Why not George Bush with a magic hammer?
    Anyone can buy a surplus Civil Defense radiation meter off the internet for around $100, and there are places you can have them calibrated if you don’t want to handle the radioactive sample yourself; you can then bring the detector near an old wristwatch or a tritium gun sight as a further test. Go near Ground Zero and look at the meter. This doesn’t even rise to the level of a crack-brained theory; Just because it maybe could have happened doesn’t mean it actually did. This is wild hypothesis, as yet untested by the crucible of reality.

  3. It’s a form of mental illness.

    If you go on youtube, you can find a lot of interesting things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XyGC_JZnSU and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuB2uob1TTk

    My favorite used to be a woman in Southern California who swore the government was hiding helicopters behind trees because they would fly behind a tree and she couldn’t see them. If she had moved a couple of feet in either direction, she would have been able to see them again.

    There is no logic to this type of thing.

  4. That the buildings failed while on camera, and they failed at the locations of the fires, sort of dispels the “bomb at the foundation” theory right there and so one need go no farther.

    That our government lies to us and cheats us on a regular basis and as a matter of policy though, and uses insane theories and rationalizations of its own, certainly doesn’t help the situation. I guess part of the “beauty” (the beautiful wickedness) of official insanity is that it will in turn lead to wild, crazy and paranoid theories, thereby helping to discredit its opposition and rally its support.

  5. And they gave us Alex Jones. Sigh. If you’ve ever wanted to see a complete demolition (ahem) of the arguments, Popular Mechanics did a bang up (ahem again) job.

    Ubu, not saying the SoCal lady wasn’t a nutter, but they did indeed have helicopters that that was a common tactic. Bell mounted a radar dome on top of the rotor mast of a scout helicopter, and it would hover behind a treeline with only the dome poking up. Again, not saying your lady wasn’t also exhibiting schizotypal behavior.

  6. I got the same idiotic SPAM. In an attempt to further hammer-home the square-peg/round-hole notion of an nuclear detonation he cites the use of the term “Ground Zero” – as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof of the use of nukes… Why not “Ground Zero” as in Tunguska – or Krakatoa or Pompeii? Sheesh, my head hurts.

  7. So easily debunked. Its not like geiger counters are hard to come by. Even buried under the foundation blocks you’d still see a LOT of radiation from this.

    But as Ubu notes, crazy doesn’t listen to reason.

  8. Just sayin’-

    You are not going to detect anything from an intact Tritium gunsight with commonly available radiation meters. It’s a tiny source and Tritium is a VERY low energy Beta emitter, the encapsulation stops virtually everything.

    A Radium source, yes. Those you will be able to detect.

  9. It’s simply not possible to debunk stupidity. The recent report from a survey
    showing 25% of those surveyed in America believe that the earth does NOT revolve around the sun is adequate proof of the stupidity, incompetence and willful ignorance that vast numbers of people are afflicted with. We should not
    only have proof of ID required for voting we need proof of IQ also.

  10. If you really want to hear them go off the deep end, ask about the peripheral stuff instead of the “technical” stuff.

    For example: The MSM reporters that exposed the “real” story would make the country forget about Woodward and Bernstein. Fame, fortune and pulitzer prizes would be theirs. So why aren’t they doing so?

    Motive? Means? Nah. Ask instead about the “coverup” and prepare to hear conspiracy theory like no other.

    • I was reading a book about the mystery of the Mary Celeste. The author reviewed everything that was known about the ship, the crew, the cargo, where it was built, and where it finally wrecked. He discovered the Admiralty report in Portugal of the inquest that gave the salvage rights to the discoverers.
      I noticed something in his discussion of the various theories on how the crew and passengers managed to disappear without a trace. The conspiracy theories always had two features. 1. The theorists discounted something about the key actor/personality in the pet theory — some training or knowledge the person was demonstrated to possess — and substitute “normal human nature”, or “It’s only natural for the person to react in this manner, even if no evidence supports the existence of the reaction. 2, The theorists imagine some specialized knowledge possessed by the actor/personality that is both key to the functioning of their theory and completely without evidence that the person knew anything about the pet theory or ever received any knowledge or training.
      With those two features the conspiracy theories are off and running.

  11. Which is why the buildings collapsed from the top down. It’s so obvious now.

  12. Three thermonuclear charges?

    Why three?

    The specific number might make it seem more believable, I guess, but one megaton would suffice to destroy anything needing destruction, and two in case the first suffered a failure might make sense, but THREE?

    The details of insanity are usually more interesting and more confusing than the sum of craziness exhibited.

  13. I’ve come to the theory that while a minority of these people are insane, a majority of them have a deep seated need to “feel” smarter than the average citizen. This is their chosen therapy.

    Don’t bother attempting to give them the science proving how wrong they are. That only causes them to dig their heels in and possibly get violent.

    Not sure if this mental health problem is similar to the one gun bigot work under.

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

    So, if I’m reading this correctly, the “approved demolition plan” for the WTC towers included demolishing them with thousands of people inside. I’d hate to be the guy who signed off on that plan….

    • I don’t know if NYC required an approved demolitions plan for a skyscraper prior to building it (but it wouldn’t surprise me, and makes a Hell of a lot of sense, particularly in the crowded environment of a city), but I’d be willing to bet large sums of money that any such plan would have required weeks of preparation, during which the building would not be functional.

      You know, just like EVERY OTHER major skyscraper demolition intended to be used with other buildings in close proximity that are NOT part of the same demo plan.

  15. For real weapons grade conspiracy theories, you have to look at the Arab press. They are able to simultaneously believe that the Israelis did it and that bin Laden was a hero for doing it. Only conclusion I can draw is that they think bin Laden was an Israeli.

  16. ” they think bin Laden was an Israeli.”
    Good one, Richard. And their hero is a Jew?

  17. Pretty much no thought given by most posters here. I, too, was a 9-11 believer in the “official” story, then I opened my mind and took some time to explore the evidence. there are thousands of professionals who are asking serious questions about controlled demolition: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#WTC_Controlled_Demolition

    Take some time to review some materials there, after all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    • Earl,

      Pretty much every engineer I know (including myself) has looked at the data and concluded:

      “Yup, pretty much went down just like the official story says. ALL ‘Truther’ claims of ‘proof’ of some extrordinary conspiracy are bunk based on not knowing a darned thing about the subject in question they didn’t read off Wikipedia.”

Comments are closed.