US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords to Islamist terrorists and the 9/11 attackers and said the incident showed America and the Arab world faced similar problems.

In a television broadcast filmed before students in Abu Dhabi, Mrs Clinton was asked why the 9/11 terror attacks, the work of a handful of men, had been allowed to colour American views of a whole people.

She replied that America was "proud" of its many Muslim citizens and public servants, and said that the media exaggerated the voices of those who presented hostile views of the Muslim and Arab worlds.

She then raised the shooting at the weekend of the Arizona Democratic congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords.

"We have extremists in our country," she said. "A wonderful and incredibly brave young woman congress member was just shot by extremists in our country.

"We have the same kinds of problems, so rather than standing off of each other we should work to try and prevent the extremists wherever they are from being able to commit violence."

Ascribing the Arizona shootings to political extremism rather than the work of a mentally deranged loner has already proved controversial, and President Barack Obama avoided doing so directly in his address to the American people afterwards.

Mrs Clinton may be taking an even bigger risk in comparing the attack, even obliquely, to al-Qaeda's war on America.

This page repeats the original Wikipedia article - exactly "as is" (to be more exact - exactly "as was"). The article was originally located here

Please, note also that in order to get better understanding on how this kind of nuclear demolition scheme worked out particularly in the WTC nuclear demolition on 9/11 (including watching the WTC demolition videos), you might need to visit this website.

Nuclear demolition

Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was a new concept of a broader term of controlled demolition that first appeared at the end of 60s, when it became necessary to provide some satisfactory means of how to demolish modern tall steel frame buildings in order to meet necessary requirements set by a building code.

Atomic demolition

It shall be understood that this concept of nuclear demolition as a kind of controlled demolition had nothing to do with another concept - that of a so-called atomic demolition, which existed in the 50s. The difference between the two is as follows. In an atomic demolition, a building (or bridge, or tunnel, or bunker, or another structure) is being demolished by special small- or medium-caliber atomic demolition munitions (SADM or MADM) that produce a classical atmospheric nuclear blast. So a larger part of an entire explosive energy of such an atomic munitions would be spent on creation of a well-known atomic air-blast wave, a thermal radiation, a penetrating ionizing radiation, an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), as well as it will also cause an ensuing radioactive contamination of surroundings. So only a relatively small part of such an atomic explosion would be directed towards the main job - the demolition of the intended building, while incomparably larger part of its energy would be spent on creating unnecessary devastation around the demolished object. Judging from this point of view, an atomic demolition has never been an option when it comes to real demolition works in civil life. Real demolition works are always performed through usage of charges of conventional explosives - attached to bearing structures at right points, which allows to achieve the highest efficiency factor - meaning spending as much explosive energy as possible on the actual demolition job, and as little explosive energy as possible - on damaging surroundings. So, an atomic demolition could only be performed in times of real emergency - for example, in times of war, when to spend several weeks to calculate and prepare a "conventional" controlled demolition of an important object can not be afforded. There is yet another factor that prevents routine usage of atomic demolition munitions in demolishing any civil infrastructure, besides described above "atomic" damages that it would inevitably cause to surroundings. This is a financial factor. There is no nuclear device that could cost cheaper than 2 million US dollars, while precisely wrought SADM or MADM suppose to cost even more than that. Which makes their routine usage simply too costly.

TV host, Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, former Governor of Minnesota, hosts a documentary on prime-time American television and makes an open and shut criminal case tying Cheney, Rumsfeld and officials throughout the US government with complicity in the planning, execution and subsequent cover-up of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

Take the 43 minutes to watch this and then try and convince yourself "Muslim terrorists" were responsible.

Dr. James Fetzer, co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth, speaks at the University of Arizona four years ago about his latest research inspired by Dr. Judy Wood. Given the complete annihilation - vaporization even - of the World Trade Center towers and their contents, Fetzer reasonably asks, "where could all that energy have come from?" This clip compares the tremendous deficit in energy claimed to have been used with the energy actually needed to thoroughly destroy the Twin Towers. The source of actual energy needed may seem obvious in retrospect, but until recently few were aware that such technology existed...

Over the last century, the most astounding historical discoveries of man-made artifacts have often been accomplished by well-funded, highly experienced researchers. From the excavation of King Tut's tomb to the sighting of the sunken Titanic, stunning finds have required immense financial and human resources, as well as the leadership by distinguished. So, how did a mountain of never-before-seen footage used in NIST's World Trade Center investigations get exposed to the light of day last month? Was it the work of a billionaire adventurer? Not quite. You can thank an upstart non-profit, the International Center for 9/11 Studies, whose efforts have at last borne fruit.

The International Center for 9/11 Studies was founded in 2008 by Director James Gourley, a Texas lawyer who began questioning the events of 9/11 after watching a presentation given by David Ray Griffin on C-SPAN."

I was just floored by what I was hearing," Gourley explained, "and I've been looking into 9/11 ever since then."

In order to encourage a better understanding of the 9/11 attacks and promote scientific study of these tragic events, Gourley assembled a small team of trusted colleagues, which includes physics instructor David Chandler, activist Dr. Graeme MacQueen, and Justin Keogh, the Center's Chief Technical Officer. The Center has partnered with other key researchers in the past, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Niels Harrit.

Since its inception, the Center has contributed to groundbreaking work on the technical analysis of the WTC building destructions. Gourley, who has a chemical engineering background, co-authored several papers that exposed evidence that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed by means of controlled demolition. His critique of official-story defender Zdenek Bazant's crush down/crush up collapse theory was published as part of a formal discussion in the mainstream Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Gourley's contributions also extended to the peer-reviewed paper detailing the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust, which was published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. In addition, the Center collaborated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and other scientists and engineers to submit 26 pages of comments on the NIST WTC 7 Draft Report within the three-week deadline.

Uncovering the data NIST used in its WTC investigations proved to be a little more difficult. The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking disclosure of "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." NIST initially ignored this request, and for months dismissed attempts by the Center to gain acknowledgment of its receipt. Undeterred, Gourley filed a lawsuit on May 28, 2009 to get the data released. Since then, NIST has been periodically turning over images and video from its archives. So far, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives related to the NIST Reports - more than three terabytes of data - and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.

Investigative journalist and author of Shadow Masters, Daniel Estulin delivers an extraordinary and captivating exclusive interview with Dimitri Khalezov.

Dimitri Khalezov is a former Soviet commissioned officer of the "military unit 46179", otherwise known as "the Special Control Service" of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the Soviet Union. He has agreed to this exclusive interview and it is our pleasure to be able to offer readers of www.danielestulin.com another quality first. Dimitri is a crucial piece of the puzzle in the case of Victor Bout. It is safe to say that had it not been for Dimitri´s dedication to helping Mr. Bout, his incorruptibility and brilliance, Victor, might very well have found himself today behind bars in some high-profile American prison. Dimitri is the first man to see Mr. Bout after his world famous arrest in Bangkok and he is the man who has given more headaches to the United States government than anyone else in the world.

Furthermore, Dimitri Khalezov is the first person in the world to have uncovered the true reasons for the United States government's dogged pursuit of Victor Bout. Mr. Bout´s arrest is directly linked to 9/11, and Mr. Khalezov, because of his unique vantage point as a former member of the Soviet "atomic" and later "nuclear" intelligence says that he knew about the in-built so-called "emergency nuclear demolitions scheme" of the Twin Towers as long back as early 1980´s, while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service.

On September 25, 2010, Jesse Ventura discussed his book, American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us.

During the session before an SRO audience, he charged that the Huffington Post, aka HuffPost, a news web site, "censored my 9/11 article!"

Mr. Ventura was speaking at Baltimore's BookFest. He was joined on the program by Richard Sher, an ex-news reader for WJZ-TV in Baltimore, MD.

Figuring out exactly how 9/11 was done is the work of crime investigators or conspiracy hobbyists who will endlessly go on discussing and debating every minuscule and intricate detail of the event to no avail. It doesn't take a structural engineer to tell you that two 110 story buildings and a 47 story steel skyscraper plummeting to the ground at nearly free-fall speed requires the assistance of explosives. All you need is two eyes that can see and a brain that thinks to come to that sound conclusion. This is why it is of my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the "who" instead of the "how". It should be obvious to anyone that discovering 'who did 9/11′ is infinitely more important than discovering how they did it.

An Uncanny Prediction Comes True

First we start off with an unusual and eerie prediction that was made by a most suspicious individual. This prediction, in unison with the status of the person of who made it, is extremely indicative and foretelling of who planned and executed 9/11.

In 1979, twenty-one years before September 11, 2001, Isser Harel predicted with uncanny accuracy the events of 9-11 to Michael D. Evans, an American supporter of Zionist extremists of the Jabotinsky sort.

On September 23, 1979, Evans visited Harel at his home in Israel and had dinner with him and Dr. Reuven Hecht, a senior adviser to then prime minister Menachem Begin.

It's been nine years since 9/11. Millions of people, civilians and soldiers have died world wide in the following war on terror. The American people have lost basic rights due to the Patriot Act. In Europe and other countries, similar "security measures" have been implemented. Anyone who has been on an international flight has experienced some of it first hand. Trillions of Dollars are spent on the war on terror, while millions of people have lost their jobs and homes as the economy is disintegrating worldwide. The emperor is naked and there is an elephant in the living room, but to this day the official story of 9/11 has not been significantly challenged publicly.

I find it interesting how people in this day and age talk about a "shift in consciousness" or "awakening" into a "New Age" while after 9 years the biggest lie is still in place. Especially Liberals and people who themselves believe to be "aware" and "conscious", yet they vote for Obama and dare not to question 9/11 or man-made "Global Warming". I think most people simply don't want the truth, for the truth is a tricky thing. It's a can of worms most people are not willing to open, as it will challenge their beliefs and ideals on a core level. Hence, they rather defend/ignore the lie and the lies they tell themselves.

The furthest most people go in regards to 9/11 is that "Bush let it happen" à la Michael Moore, but to realize, by looking into it deeper, that it was actually an Inside Job leading to Israel and not "Islamic Extremists" is still too far out for most people. It's a touchy subject, because it'll require them to question much of what they ever thought to be true about this country and the world in general.