Thanks for the link Deborah; intriguing.See also this one (first clip of 4):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKhdZTeaZsI must say I watched the 1st 3 or 4 clips from Deborah's link, in pretty much complete disbelief of Dimitri Khalezov (his thick, hard-to-understand accent didn't help). However, by the end of the 26 clips, I was convinced at least that his theory was plausible, i.e. that it could have been the result of pre-planned nuclear devices in the bases of the 3 buildings (1, 2 and 7), and that the US government might, just might, have decided to "press the red button" because they honestly believed there were much bigger nukes (500 kilotonne) up high in the 2 towers, delivered by the Granite missiles (the first of which had earlier destroyed part of the Pentagon, although without triggering its nuke), in order to prevent a much worse tragedy - the possible destruction of most of New York City and several million people.At this stage, it would be almost impossible to prove that the pre-planned (150 kilotonne) nukes had ever been there (unless some official US government documents were leaked or released).However, what should be trivial to prove or disprove, is whether the city of New York ever insisted on a demolition programme to be planned before allowing such skyscrapers to be built. This would surely not have been a secret. (They would not have insisted on a nuclear demolition programme of course, but presumably that is what the engineers of the time came up with, and in the climate of the time (according to Khalezov) this was deemed acceptable (although not trumpeted from the rooftop of course).So what we have is the WTC being totally destroyed, not by terrorists, not by renegade CIA operatives, not by the US government, but by a piece of city planning legislation! (well, indirectly, of course). hmmm......There is also the issue of Sears Tower in Chicago. If he is correct, there is presumably still a 150 kt nuke under that as well, unless it was hurriedly removed after 9/11.Anyway, up to a point, I find he has made at least a plausible case.When I listened to the 4 other pieces, the first of which I have posted a link to (a radio interview), it starts to get more tricky. This is where he names one Mike Harari, as having been responsible for the actual missile attack. It seems that Mike Harari had befriended him (when they were both living in Thailand) specifically in order to find out whether the Soviets had known about the pre-planned Emergency Nuclear Demolition facility underneath the WTC (which they did, according to Khalezov). Mike Harari is supposed to have more or less warned Khalezov that something big was going to happen which probably would affect the value of the US dollar (so he was told to change all his dollars beforehand), and then after 9/11, MH is supposed to have celebrated, and also told DK that he was responsible.And who was he doing it on behalf of? I will list them, like in the old beauty contests, in reverse order:3. The French (motive, unclear)2. The Israelis (I can see that some Israelis might have had a motive, but they would have been mad to do it)1. Wait for it....The Freemasons....(MH is supposed to be a Freemason....he was also in his 70s at the time of 9/11).At that point, Dimitri Khalezov's credibility began to go down somewhat in my view.Despite that, I still think that the idea of relatively small (150 kt) nuclear explosions having been responsible for the sudden collapse of the 3 towers does seem to best explain what we saw.Who exactly did it and exactly why is still an open question in my mind, as is the actual perpetrators of the initial attacks, whether they were with aeroplanes or missiles.BTW, does anyone know the name of the person in the TV interview with Khalezov (Deborah's link)? He sounds English, but his face is not familiar to me; he is not a well-known TV personality here, at least not one that I know.