Short non-Ukrainian sidebar: nukes on 911?

Many of you have commented on Gordon Duff, Press TV and the "Dimitri Khalezov theory" about nukes being used on 911.  I just want to tell you that I rate the credibility of Press TV as "poor", of Gordon Duff and "Veterans Today" as "terrible" and Dimitry Khazelov as "unknown".  However, one should rate the source and the information given by the source.  So to this I will say that

a) there is no physical evidence of the use of a nuke on 911.
b) there is overwhelming evidence of the use of explosives (probably a mix of various types) on 911.

Also, there is the pesky problem of WTC7 which was a very different building from WTC1 and WTC2 whose collapse mechanism was clearly different.  Explosives can - and have - explained it.  The nuke hypothesis does not.

I don't think that I have the time to go into a detailed discussion of 9/11 now, but for those of you who might wonder why I believe, please see this post (the links in the post are dead, but if there is a demand for it, I can re-upload the documents in question).

As for some US officials selling nukes I will say this: I rate Sibel Edmonds as a "good" source and the info she provides is compatible with what I know.  However, it is one thing to sell nuclear technology to Israel or Turkey and quite another to make it widely available.  In other words, I am not at all sure that the sale of these technologies has been nearly as big as some might believe.

Generally, I dislike sensationalism.  I try to keep an open mind, but as Carl Sagan liked to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I am willing to consider pretty much any theory about 9/11, except the ridiculous official fairytale of course, but it better be backed by some solid research and good evidence.  Right now, I see the "controlled demolition" as proven far beyond reasonable doubt, so any other theory would have to do better, which would be very hard indeed.

Kind regards,

The Saker