Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Project Gnome is the litmus test for nukes on 9-11

Because Project gnome was unique in purpose, and was done for the purpose of
trapping a nuclear explosion underground to harvest the heat from it for generation of
electricity, AND because Project Gnome was a detonation of a known size that actually
hit it's calculated potential, AND because the cavern created by project Gnome was
entered afterwards for analysis, Project gnome stands by itself as the lone reference to
the size of the nukes used on 911.

You may wonder why I am harping on this topic. The answer is actually fairly important
for this little bit of truth. Look at the cavern created by the five kiloton nuke used in
Project Gnome in the photo to the left. There is a man standing in that cavern. The size
of the cavern is similar to the holes below the basements on 911. This would indicate
that on 911, similar 5 KT nukes were used.
The next photo is the best perspective shot of the obviously nuked out holes below the
WTC. There is a man standing in that photo also. If you compare what happened to the
bedrock at the WTC, and what happened to the bedrock during Project Gnome, you can
clearly see that the erosion patterns are similar for both. The WTC was obviously a
similar nuke, and sticking with this is important because there are many people out
there saying it was 150 KT, which would be far too large at 30 times larger than Project
Gnome and any expert would know that. Stating such a large size for the nukes when
there are clearly known reference detonations out there will cause people who are
aware of what nuclear weapon sizes are capable of to shun away from the nuke theory
entirely. And that would be bad, because we need their expertise working for the truth.

The nuke theory is the only thing that can explain the holes. It is also a great
explanation for why the workers got sick. It is also a great explanation for why the
workers said they saw large pools of melted iron below the WTC, (and melted rock
looks the same, they probably did not know for sure it was iron). It is also a good
explanation for why the public was not allowed access at the site for so long. It is also a
good explanation for the horrible weird smell people reported after the collapses (nukes
would vaporize a lot of different materials and would likely make a smell no one ever
witnessed before).
So that is my take on the nuke theory, I think it's real and they went conservative on
them to make sure nothing obvious happened on camera. And to those out there who
have mailed me saying the nukes would have appeared on the seismograms, they did,
just watch the WTC shake videos on Youtube, the cameras even captured the seismic
event that preceeded the smaller demolition detonations and the seismograms do exist.

Take a look at the seismograms for the WTC. These were recorded 34 km away from
the WTC, and clearly show the huge spike a nuke would make to initiate a seismic
event. These seismographs also, in addition to the photos above, corroborate the nuke
theory, it's pretty obviously nailed. Since the nukes were not sub surface enough to
capture their full potential on a seismograph, the magnitudes are showing lower than
what the net seismic yield would have been if they had been buried like Project Gnome.
These nukes were able to vent upwards into the parking garage which reduced their
seismic signature.





WTC Site - Project Gnome
5 Kiloton Mini-Nuke Crater






SEE THE NOW SOLID MOLTEN
BEDROCK BENEATH THE WTC SITE






WTC Site - Project Gnome 5 Kiloton
Debris-Free Mini-Nuke Craters

Emily wrote:
On 2014-06-06 07:38, emily wrote: I came across a recent article about John Leer, an
ex-CIA pilot, basically claiming that planes were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and
they used holograms instead.
http://projectcamelotportal.com/blog/31-kerrys-blog/2039-john-lear-holograms-used-in-
911 [1]
And this video of one of the planes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6bk4dMjl4g [2]
I don't know how I feel about John Leer's claims. Most of it makes sense, like not being
able to fly a plane that fast at that altitude. These videos show the planes going into a
building without breaking apart or anything, they just slip right in. You would think that
the wings would break off or something.
I just think the theory of no planes being involved makes a fair amount of sense. The
lack of plane wreckage at the pentagon and Shanksville only strengthen this theory.
And the fact that these flights didn't even exist in any flight manifest. We know there
were no planes involved with the pentagon or Shanksville so I am definitely interested in
the possibility that planes were not involved with the towers.
I would love to know how you feel about this subject.
Thanks, Emily
My response:
I saw the nose out video myself right after 911 and was amazed by how the nose of the
plane went through the building intact, and came out the other side in one piece.
Holograms would do that if they screwed up the set points in a CGI blue screen graphic.
SO, I am undecided but your mail is going up.
Thanks!
James
June 7 2014
About the nukes at the WTC
I am finally convinced, but they were not 150 KT devices, the holes match Project
Gnome, a 5 KT device. The reason why the craters are smaller than project gnome is
because they were a lot closer to the surface and the explosion was able to travel
upward rather than stay trapped, where in Project Gnome, which was buried deep the
only option was for the explosion to create a large cavern.
The appearance of the craters are consistent with nuclear devices, as proven by past
American nuclear tests. The characteristics of the rock erosion in the craters exactly
matches that of Project Gnome. I don't know how I overlooked this, but it's all obvious
now. This would explain the massive amounts of dust that made everyone sick around
the WTC.
Here we have
both towers
showing holes
right in the
center, where
the bottoms
obviously fell
out. The nukes
were for the
most part a
failure, with
most of the
towers falling to
the sides, but
the obvious
holes where
there should be
rubble piles
instead are a
dead giveaway.
There is simply no other explanation for why there would be holes dead center
other than a crater being made below the towers for the towers to fall into.



This next image
is the smoking
gun. If you look
at how the
rocks appear to
be eroded by
water, that is
how it looks
after a nuke and
project gnome,
where they
went inside the
chamber
created by the
nuke afterwards
proves it. There
is no doubt that
nuclear
weapons did
this, and that would explain why all the firefighters got sick afterwards - they
suffered radiation poisoning. There are many more images of this in Google
images, it is beyond all doubt at the WTC. There is no faking this. It's real.
New info on first WTC bombing
At least for me, take a look at this.
R wrote
Speaking of the W.T.C. demolition -- the one where the five dancing Israelis gave them
selves a hearty mazal tov --, there were some perplexing observations made -- Joe
Vialls being among those who made them -- about the first failed attempt on them by
"Muslims": the Ryder truck bomb blasted downward through 4 floors of the underground
parking garage, to a total debth of 100 feet, when surface blasts cannot produce
craters, always taking the course of least resistance, up and out to atmosphere; the only
part of the Ryder truck ever recovered was supposedly "its" rear diff. with "its" Vehicle
I.D. Number stamped on it, a number that appears on no other part, save the engine
block (And what ever became of the rest of the Ryder truck? Never there in the first
place at the time of detonation? Or vaporized by an on-board nuke?) -- exactly the
same M.O. of what happened at the O.K.C. crime scene (Or was the Ryder truck never
there in the first place at the time of the blast, as it may also not have been at O.K.C.,
having been driven away from its parking space just before a diversionary blast was
detonated just below the street, leaving a shallow crater; the rear diff. with the fake
Vehicle I.D. Number just being a fabricated plant? Lazy, sloppy cunts, couldn't even be
bothered to plant the proper engine block for a Ryder truck.).
Actually, I thought that the plan to use the Ryder truck bomb to dislodge the main
support column in the underground parking facility, sending the tower crashing down on
to its twin, and in turn, collapsing it like a domino, was overly optimistic, wishful thinking.
But would it have been wishful thinking if it had been a nuke placed 4 floors below
where the Ryder truck was said to have been parked? Assuming that was the case,
what went wrong? Why didn't things go as planned? Was the nuke not powerful enough
for the job and/or placed too far from the targeted column? Obviously this time around
they left nothing to chance, using layer-upon-layer of fail-safe back-ups.
Anyway, those are just my theories based on my understanding of certain unconfirmed
reports. Maybe you'll have better luck filling in the blanks?
My comment
There are details here I did not know. But I do know that you cannot crater concrete
from 4 floors up. That means it was not the ryder truck. And to prove it, (I can't find the
short video which explains it,) but the German dam busting documentaries give very
good explanations for the mechanics of explosives and explain why you can't just put an
explosive next to something solid and have it be destroyed, the explosive will need
something to push off on to do damage to super thick concrete. In world war 2 they
developed special dam busting bombs that went in behind the German dams and
detonated up against them at depth. It was not possible to destroy the dams by
bombing them from the front, they needed the support of the water behind the dam to
help the explosives push the front out. The WTC basement would have to be the same
way, to crater the basement it had to be HUGE and RIGHT ON THE FLOOR. It could
not have been a ryder truck on the fourth floor. Alex said they were supposed to have
given the "terrorists" a dummy bomb, perhaps they did. So now we have a new tidbit of
info here that I did not know, a crater all the way at the bottom. Interesting.
This makes sense
The following mail makes sense. Like I said, a few details may be missing with Duff. I
thought 2KT would be small considering what happened.
I do not entirely buy the nuke story, so keep that in mind while I discuss it. Also keep in
mind that 911 was such a huge crime that the conspiracy theories that surround it will
over time take the form of religions, which they obviously have. My own take? The
sprites show conventional demolition charges were used for part of it, but the tower
shake video also leaves room for two nukes under the towers. The testimony of
Rodriguez also makes it fairly obvious that they wanted the towers to fall when the
planes hit, because there were huge explosions in the basements a few seconds before
the planes impacted. SO, here is what I think went on -
They had back up after back up, to make sure the gig went down. If the towers were
garbage, the first explosion in the basements would have done the job. It did not,
because they were great. So demolition charges were used, (that is obvious, the sprite
videos prove it) but they did not want to leave it up to that either, perhaps because for
the ruse to work those charges had to be small or they would have been obvious. They
were obvious, but not as big as they would have been in a normal demolition.
The core spire video proves also that something else was at play. I don't believe
demolition charges would have remained wired after the entire structure fell away
around them, and the way the spires just turned into dust sure looks like some sort of
energy weapon did that. The scorched cars are also damning for this angle.
And then the final problem - the rubble pile just did not look big enough. And the tower
shake videos indicate that a huge explosive device was used for the final show, to get it
going, and only a nuke would have been enough to trigger the seismograms like that. I
don't buy the possibility that they could have smuggled enough conventional explosives
in to trigger the seismograms to that level. And the preceeding explosion in the
basement that Rodriguez talks about proves that there was more than 1 set of large
explosives used to do the job. Did a nuke make a cavern below that the towers could
have vanished into,thus explaining the relatively small rubble piles? Who knows.
If the nuke theory is the correct theory, the device HAD TO have been bigger than
Project Gnome, which can serve as a reference, because we know what happened with
that nuclear test. Project gnome was 5KT and did not leave a big enough hole in the
ground to fit the scenario Gordon Duff uses in his nuke theory, and he says the devices
were 2 KT. I don't entirely buy the nuke theory though I cannot discount it entirely either,
my biggest suspicion is the fact that when all was said and done, and all the debris was
cleared, there was only the basement well and not a giant cavern below. But I also
know that they kept it sectioned off and allowed no access, so any cavern could have
been filled in secretly with no one noticing.
The main problem with any story regarding the WTC is that it was an act of war,
and those who did it are not going to tell the truth about what happened, all the
while they try to spin confusion in the alternative press and everywhere else
regarding what went on. So when dealing with what you know is a lie that was
well cleaned up after, all you can really do is guess and the key thing to
remember is that it was not Arabs that put those demolition charges in, or
explosives in the basement, or made the core support columns miraculously turn
to dust when they remained standing. Arabs did not do that, WHO DID?
There is another side to the nuke story on 911, so if you are among those who are
looking for answers regarding nukes being used, I suggest you look at Dmitri Khalezov's
take on this topic. Dmitri pegs the nukes at 150KT which I think is too large, my guess is
that if nukes really were used they would have been 10 - 20 KT. See at least a part of
Dmitri's view here
Monumental productions wrote:
Duff should get off his duff
Whether the info in Duff's report is mostly correct or not, still makes it suspect as a
cover for the use of D.E.W.s to do the job. The "spire" caught on camera disintegrating
into a cloud of dust says it all. (Any sign of nukes going off while that was happening?).
They'd rather have us think it was nukes; anything but D.E.W.s.
My comment: DEW's are directed energy weapons for those who do not know.
And yes, there is plenty of evidence for this at the WTC, at least as much as there
is for nukes. They probably used the entire bag of tricks.
Gordon Duff's take on this follows
I am not a huge fan of Gordon Duff,
HOWEVER
He obviously let more truth slide out here than usual
I have independently confirmed before hand that Duff is at least 90 percent correct with
this report. Duff himself admitted to publishing 40 percent disinfo to "stay alive" and not
get censored too much, but with this particular report I think he pushed the envelope a
bit, and I will link it. Read it on his site http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-
classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/ and PRESS TV, EAT MY
HEART OUT, my stuff is probably more accurate overall but I can't entirely flush the
Duff all the time like I DID HERE MAKE SURE YOU READ THE SLAM DUNK AT THE
END, where he quotes Pons and Fleischman without reference and uses quotes
from cold fusion for hot nukes. THAT one was a zinger.
But at the end of the day, Duff is on our side, so I will let him slide on an awful lot and
will certainly link his better stuff.
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

Centres d'intérêt liés