Re-exploding the WTC Nuclear Demolition Myth ? The Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov
Re-exploding the WTC Nuclear Demolition Myth – The Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov
May 19th 2010
Recently, much exposure has been given to Dimitri Khalezov and his detailed presentation about the supposed “nuclear demolition” of the WTC buildings on 9/11. A number of websites seem to be linked to this: http://www.3truth911.com (currently returning “Bandwidth Limit Exceeded”), http://www.911thology.cn/ and http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/.
Dmitri also has a YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/911thology . This was how Dmitri contacted me – through YouTube – inviting me to watch his video series (why did he contact me specifically? Though I have an interest in the destruction of the WTC, I am not connected to the military, nor do I have any official standing. Myself I rarely spend much time searching for other YouTube users who have similar interests or videos on their channel – I simply don’t have the time!)
Dmitri has also contacted a couple of other people I know who are studying 9/11 and he also been posting on the GLP forum. He seems to keep himself quite busy and has achieved significant exposure for his flawed conclusions which cannot explain the evidence.
In the videos (apparently now made private on his channel), Dimitri comes across very well and seems very sincere and polite. Sadly, he cannot explain the available evidence concerning what actually happened at the WTC on 9/11. I have written about this quite some time ago, though Dimitri claims (see below) that the nuclear device was positioned 77 metres below ground and spends quite some time explaining why the normal nuclear effects, which I and others have pointed out, were not seen or not obvious. One problem is that, Dimitri does not explain how or when the nuke was planted and he cannot explain why the WTC bathtub was undamaged (except with very precise positioning of the nuke (how, exactly?)
Once again, people I know seem to have “fallen” for this new posting as if it is some kind of super-duper new explanation – when in reality it is not. Please see below for
1) My notes on his youtube video sequence (which now seems to have been deleted)
2) My correspondence, via YouTube messaging, which took place in 2010. Please note where he says he cannot explain the evidence.
Rough Notes on YouTube presentation
I haven’t had the time to type all this up and I only got to Part 11 out of 26. However, here are my rough notes…
He states he has some kind of link with Al Qaida terrorists – so presumably he is in hiding?
Doesn’t explain what caused the fire and why Edna citron was there and not burned
Granite Missile for pentagon 7 ton missile 2.5 mach – thermonuclear warhead! The US didn’t detect a nuclear missile??
Demolition feature – built in nukes??? (1984) AN IDEA or an implementation
Controlled Demolition Inc thought up the idea in the 60’s?
“In the 60’s nuclear bombs weren’t as bad” – umm Cuban Missile Crisis??
Plan accepted – built in feature “from the beginning”
Nuclear demolition treaty not secret early on
According to someone at the FBI, the reason was: someone claimed there were 3 nuclear warheads sent to America that morning. One of them hit the pentagon and it was found to be nuclear – that means it was - it was really hard proof and a very convincing thing. They claimed that the other two were inside planes which hit the world trade centre. So they say that the American officials were in fear that these 2 things up on top of the tower will produce the real nuclear explosions. So they decided to collapse the tower just to minimise the damage(s) because at ground level the damage will be very (much) less than at 3 or 400 metres above the ground.
Interviewer: If they exploded at level or floors 78 and 99…
Oh it will destroy the entire New York probably because it’s a half megaton…
News broadcast used to suggest secondary device on the plane – yet previously he discussed video fakery saying the plane crash was impossible. This is confusing.
Wikipedia discussion and deleted article.
90% x-rays - http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm
Assumes solid rock. 100m radius, 150 KT nuke
What about the hole or plug from where the device was put in?
When was it put in?
Zones of damage – greater than 100m wide presumably.
Pulverised dust is underground – pressure of gases – but no gas – you mean vaporised rock?
No thermal radiation because underground – so no heat…
Stays hot for 1 year…. No evidence of this was brought forward
77m below ground. Tower starts to melt into the explosion (but then the cavity is exposed to the air!! Out comes the heat! This did not happen!
Bathub would’ve been breached (it wasn’t) and flooded the whole area – steam explosions, boiling water etc
You claim the tower fell into the hot zone and melted, yet the video clip shown shows the top of the WTC tipping over slightly and turning to dust! What you described in your diagram IS NOT WHAT IS SEEN!
Dmitri cannot explain Hurricane Erin's presence, nor the silent disappearance of the WTC. Look at his diagram of a "nuclear furnace" created beneath the WTC which it "melted down into"! This is pure nonsense! We saw the steel turning to dust!! Anyway, here is some of the exchange I had with him.
Correspondence with Dmitri Khalezov/911Thology
Thanks for your message and invitation. I may try to watch the video, but I am intrigued to know if it addresses these basic points of evidence, discussed here, in this e-mail exchange:
Also, do you have any connection or have you communicated at all with Ed Ward MD.
In relation to the WTC destruction, 40+ points of explanation need to be addressed:
Finally, what legal or similar challenges will you or your associates be making or initiating based on what you know?
911 - The Key Evidence - 1/2
[There is 1 mistake in one of the captions in this video - it is stated that Erin was a Category 5 Hurricane - this is incorrect. It was a category 3, but by some measures, Erin was as big as Hurricane Katrina.] ===========================
To answer your questions. Yes, I read attentively your mail excange and yes, I could assure you that you will not feel sorry for spending your precious time to watch the discussed movie. Don't forget that those whom you call 'nukers' are merely conspiracy theorists that are not much different from 'thermitters' or 'nano-thermitters'. They simply guess without actually knowing anything. Here you have totally different approach. You deal with a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence who is firstly a specialist (at least to a certain extent) in actual underground nuclear explosions, who could easily explain to you all their properties, secondly - who is an eye-witness who can confirm (even could confirm under oath in front of a court of law) that in-built nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC and that of the Sears Tower existed long before it was implemented on 9/11, thirdly - who could satisfactorily explain mechanics of the Tower's collapses (including that of the WTC-7 and Marriott Hotel and even that of the Fiterman Hall), and who could satisfactorily explain mechanics of WTC steel beams pulverization (so far no mortal in This World could do so satisfactorily, in my humble opinion). See the difference?
Regarding the next part of your suggestion - about following guidelines described in 'AA2. Some of the principal data that must be explained:'. I agree with some points of that 'must' and I do explain it in the proposed movie in the most satisfactorily manner. However, being a specialist (really a specialist) I can't agree with all points that are listed in the above 'must' list, so, instead of confirming them, I preferred to disprove them - by not leaving a stone standing of some of those points. But in no case they are ignored. They are either confirmed, or disproved. I am a 'black-and-white' kind of man, I don't like to leave any 'grey' areas unadressed.
Regarding the last part of your question - what legal challenges could I bring? It is difficul to answer. Being a non-American (I am a Russian) I do not have any legal right to demand any justice on behalf of others, perhaps only on behalf of myself. And when it come to me personally, yes, I am planning to sue the US Government one day for their attempt to link me to the 9/11 perpetrators and to the 2002 Bali bombers (since they accused me personally in 2003 of supplying fake passports to non-existent 9/11 hijackers and to several top figures of Al Qaeda and Jamaya Islamiya terrorist organizations, which were absolutly groundless accusations, though registered in some courts of law and easily verifieble). However, since I knew from my former service (the Soviet nuclear intelligence) of the existence of the in-built nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC (which existed from the beginning of the 70s, being designed by the 'Controlled Demolition Inc.'), I could testify that before the court of law, if anyone asks me to do so. Besides I could testify to some other sensitive details of the 9/11 perpetration, because I personally knew some of its top planners from the Mossad (I mean personally, not by hearing some rumors about them). I could provide also some legal documents regarding some top Mossad figures' participation in the 9/11 and regarding how some US officials and French secret services managed to cover them up. In case it helps, I could do it.
Finally - just watch the movie. It is all there. I realize that you are a busy person, but this movie worth seeing, by no means you will feel sorry for spending your time watching it. But there is one warning - you have to watch it very attentively and all the 26 parts.
Thank you for your kind attention.
(mark as spam)
Mar 28, 2010
Thanks for your detailed response. I will try to get through some of your video.
I wonder at what point you will explain the upturned cars, presence of hurricane erin and how cold, silent nukes - giving of no light turned WTC steel to dust.
I wonder where you explain the earth's magnetic field anticipating the first "plane crash" by about 20 minutes.
I wonder where you explain how the holes were made...
I guess I'll have to watch and note the time codes where you explain this evidence.
To deny or ignore evidence is to deny truth:
"Any conclusion about anything can be reached - but the value of such a conclusion is inversley proportional to the amount of evidence ignored."
I hope your conclusion is "high in value"!!
"Magnetic UFO" - 11 April 2008 - Part 1
From Jaime Maussan's 2009 Presentation - this is an incredible close range film, with an interview with the person who filmed it. Part 2 gives the analysis - http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Mar 29, 2010