UPDATED 20th May 2010 - WITH RESPONSE FROM DIMITRI - SEE BOTTOM
Part 2 - Here
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/
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
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
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
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
Nuclear demolition treaty not secret
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
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
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!
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
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
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:
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?
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.
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
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:
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"!!
UFO" - 11 April 2008 - Part 1
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 -
Mar 29, 2010
for your comments. As I noticed from you movies, you are close to Judy Wood?
Actually, I have sent her an invitation to watch my movies to, but she did not
reply. Hope it you find it interesting and worth attention you can invite her?
Regarding cars, I did not talk about them in the interview, but I explained it
in my book. The problem is that the 3 WTC buildings was demolished by 150
kiloton (3ps) underground nuclear explosions with hypocenters located 77 meters
below the ground surface. In this situation no thermal radiation would be
available to half-burn cars in typically 'atomic' manner (typical for
atmospheric nuclear explosions). However, some cars in the immediate vicinity
to the demolition site came into zone of high temperatures and were somehow
either burned or even melted. But this by no means would be a kind of
'half-burns' - typical to atmospheric nuclear explosions. Hope you understand
what I mean. So, after they demolished the WTC with their own 150 kiloton
nukes, the U.S. officials did not know how to explain it to public - so they
attempted to blame it to alleged 3 mini-nukes Soviet made - that Osama
allegedly bought from some bad guys from Ukraine and planted in the Towers'
basements. So, in order to support further this version, the FBI operatives
were quickly dispatched around the WTC with tourch-lamps and hammers to smash
and 'half-burn' some cars in typically 'atomic' manner. I guess some of them
also overturned some cars to imitate effects of allged 'air-blast wave'. This
is planted evidence - not different that 'landing gear' of 'planes' or a
'passport' of alleged hijackers. Simply don't pay attention to it. If you need
more details on this particular, let me know, and I will send you more detailed
explanation. But hope you see the movie first.
Ha. just tonight
one of my visitors sent me link to some extremely intereisting photo - it makes
sense if combined with my movie. Here is the link:
(mark as spam)
Mar 29, 2010
cars are planted evidence? What an achievement! 1400 cars planted!
Also, the people
levitated by nuclear explosion effects without being burned! Amazing stuff!
These nukes you
speak of must've been amazing tech - wonder how they were planted 77 meters
down - maybe they tunnelled out through the subway system to plant them? Who
planted them? And documentation or non-anonymous whistleblower testimony??
Amazing that no
seismic signatures were recorded from these explosions!
I'll have to look
at your explanation for these things!
Yes, I am
associated with Dr Judy Wood - she is very busy with her own projects etc so
you are unlikely to get a response on these matters - because most if not all
the points you raise have already been explained and pretty much pinned down -
and there is also a tie in "field effects" with Hurricane Erin too -
which nukes bear no relation to -however deep they were planted...
But if I pick up
anything interesting from your presentation, I'll let you know!
Re: Re: Re: Re:Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:Re:
You know, the problem
is that I am in Thailand, not in America and, unlike you, I don't have much
access to information (could you imagine that not too many piece of info are
accessible from Bangkok, except only the Internet - they don't even have any
archive of American newspapers in National Library here...). So, I couldn't
afford much. However, 3 basic points that I based my explanation upon are:
1) I was indeed
an officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence and I indeed know from my former
service about existence of emergency nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC. This
is a matter of fact.
2) Due to my
understanding of typical properties of underground nuclear explosions, I think
I could explain phenomena of steel pulverization from purely mechanical point
3) I knew from
reliable source (from one of the 9/11 planners personally) what was the name of
the missile that strucke the Pentagon and how they managed to obtain the
The rest is
simply a product of my observations/contemplations/conculsions and nothing more
than that - so I could easily be mistaken in the rest, but not in any of the 3
points mentioned above.
What about the
bathtub - it also surprises me that it was not damaged, but I guess it was
because of well-calculated positioning of the nukes, though, to be honest, in
my humble opinion, position of a nuke under the North Tower/Marriott Hotel was
dangerously close to the neares slurry wall - I do admit it and it remains a
puzzle to me which I could only explain by a very carefull calculation of the
positioning of the nuke. In any case, I don't think the nuke's explosion would
produce huge zones of horizontal destruction, due to major parts of its
'crushing' ability was directed upwards, as you can see from my explanations -
due to the fact that everything always goes by the way of least resistance and
the way of least resistance in this case was the way upwards. This, perhaps, is
the very 'directed energy weapons' you and Judy Wood suspected in your
research. That is what I think about it. But in any case, don't forget that I
am a simply human with quite limited abilities and I can't do absolutely ALL -
I did my best in explaining at lease what I could explain. For example, I
believe I successfully explained true causes of the Fiterman Hall damages (you
will see it later in series 16). I think I successfully explained strange
behavior of the USG which made decision to knock down the WTC for otherwise
unexplainable reason - based on the info kindly given to my by the FBI agent.
About naming the guy with whom I had that informal discussion - sorry, I can't
name him, it would be against my rules. Could you imagine what his superiors
would do with him? But I am thankful to him for giving me an idea that the USG
believed there were 2 nuclear warheads on top of the Tower that were about to
explode and the nuke in the Pentagon was just a tool to convince them to this
effect. If not that FBI person I would not get this idea even if I consumed all
hashish and all LSD availble in Thailand. Hower, as you see, this idea, despite
being bizzare, explains otherwise unexplainable behavior of the USG....
That is what I
could say in reply to your letter.
(mark as spam)
Mar 31, 2010
From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto:
Sent: 20 May 2010 14:32
Subject: from Dimitri see attached
I sent you some letter in a form of attached Word file.
This is ‘The
Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov’ who would like to disturb you once more regarding
a web page on http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cognoscence/message/4555 recently published by you (or by someone who
pretends to be you).
I would like to thank
you for being so polite towards my mysterious humble person and for your
abstaining from outright insults (which are not uncommon in a society of the US
Government-appointed shills and full-time Internet forum-trolls earmarked to
fight all dangerous conspiracy theories on various forums). I found you article
indeed unusually polite which betrays in you an intellectual person.
of your article being written in a seemingly polite manner and despite of the
fact that it does not contain any outright insults, it is still insulting due
to some reasons which are described below.
The point is that
there are three distinctly different groups of people who could claim things in
regard to the 9/11 (as well as in regard to other similar high-profile events):
1) eye-witnesses who are not experts (or who are
not necessarily experts);
2) experts who are not necessarily eye-witnesses;
3) conspiracy theorists who are not necessarily
experts and who are definitely not eye-witnesses.
Judging from the point
of elementary logic (I guess you are a logical person, after all), you can
argue against claims of the third group by implying that they are wrong in
their presumptions (which could still be polite – depending on how you would
construct and word your actual criticism). You could also argue against claims
of the second group by challenging their technical/scientific conclusions and
still you could do that without actually insulting them personally (because to
argue in such a manner is the way of life in scientific circles and no
scientist could feel offended for being criticized on account of his claims). I
hope you understand what I mean.
However, when it comes
to arguing against the first group, it is not so easy to argue with them
without actually insulting them (as you try to do in your article). Unlikely
you could challenge a testimony of an eye-witness without insulting such an
eye-witness personally. Because, unlike an expert or a conspiracy theorist (or
a scientific theorist) an eye-witness technically can not be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
in his testimony. There are only 2 states of affairs when it comes to an
eye-witness: he could only be a genuine witness who says the very truth, or a
fake witness who intentionally lies to the court. In the first case he honestly
performs his duty. In the second case he commits nothing less than a crime
which is punishable by imprisonment. By challenging my testimony (not my
technical explanation of the WTC pulverization or burned cars or undamaged
bathtub wall I mean but my claims that I knew back in the 80s about the WTC
emergency nuclear demolition scheme) you call me nothing less than a criminal.
Let’s call a spade a spade. All your sweet words you used in the article and
your seeming ‘politeness’ towards my mysterious person can not hide the main
point behind your challenge: you claim that I am a false eye-witness, i.e. you
blatantly accuse me of being a criminal.
Then it is very unfair
to use such a ‘polite’ manner of describing alleged ‘merits’ of my video
presentation and alleged ‘polite’ nature of my humble mysterious person as you
did. Because a false witness is a criminal first of all and, in fact, it is
quite a disgusting kind of a criminal. It does not matter in this light if he
is personally ‘polite’ or not and it does not matter in this case if his
presentation is plausible to any extent or not. It is just part of the crime
and nothing less than that. So, I suggest you re-write your article and to
change the priorities. You have to go to the main point: call me an impostor,
not a ‘new conspiracy theorist’. Challenge not the point that I can’t
satisfactorily explain why the bathtub wall was not collapsed (which I have no
obligation to explain in any case). You have to challenged, instead, my claims
that I used to serve as a commissioned officer in the Soviet nuclear
intelligence and I learned still back in the 80s about existence of the WTC
emergency demolition scheme.
You have to say
person claims that he allegedly knew in the 80s about the alleged WTC emergency
nuclear demolition scheme while allegedly being a commission officer in the
alleged Soviet nuclear intelligence. But I don’t believe this impostor. I state
he is a liar.”
This will be an honest
conduct from you.
You see, Andrew, I
acted in this case in a minimum of 4 capacities in the same time:
1) I was indeed a
former officer in the Soviet nuclear intelligence for 5 years. I knew back in
the 80s about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. I could go to any
court of law, lay my palm on the Holy Bible and testify that before the judge,
adding, if necessary, that “may The Most High punish me right on the spot if I
2) I indeed personally
knew chief 9/11 organizer. To the extent that I even drank wine with him in the
early breakfast of September 12, 2001 while discussing some sensitive details
of the 9/11. (Which is also well known fact to the American FBI, by the way,
therefore they even attempted to obtained extraditions of both of us to America
in 2003). I could also testify about this before any court of law revealing A
LOT of details (for example details of stealing of nuclear-tipped missiles from
“Kursk” submarine, etc.).
The abovementioned are
two of my capacities as an eye-witness. You can’t challenge them by mildly
calling me ‘wrong’ or ‘incompetent’ because it is not the way to deal with
eye-witnesses. An eye-witness can not be ‘wrong’ or ‘incompetent’. He could
only be an honest eye-witness, or a liar, a criminal. Moreover, to be honest
with you, you can not even challenge me from merely technical point of view to
the two abovementioned points because I have a lot of documentary proof to
confirm either point. So, even if you want to call me liar, you still have no
chance. If this case comes to the court I will prove what I claim.
Then, I attempted to
add here two additional capacities as an expert/conspiracy theorist:
3) Because unlike many
others I knew very well physical properties of underground nuclear explosions,
I presumed that I could provide more than satisfactory explanation why the WTC
buildings were ‘dustified’ before their collapses. Which I did. In this case I
assumed an additional role of a technical expert (again ADDITIONAL role, not a
primary role of a technical expert). You might not like my explanation, but I
do not care, to be honest. Firstly, because I have no obligation to explain it
neither to you, nor to others. It was just my gesture of good will. If you
don’t like it – then don’t take it. It was optional in any case. Primary was
not this explanation, but my statement that I knew about the WTC nuclear
demolition scheme back in the 80s. So, if you don’t like my technical
explanation on nuclear demolition effects – don’t hesitate to challenge it and
to offer your own explanation on nuclear demolition effects. I am very easy
person and I might agree with you if I find your explanation on nuclear
demolition effects more plausible than my own.
4) Because I spent a
lot of time studying various details of the 9/11 (not less than 5 years I
think) I could also feel like I possess not only some expert knowledge of
physical properties of underground nuclear explosions, but also some expert
knowledge in the 9/11 details (such as some important facts in the 9/11
timeline, the media coverage, slips of tongues of various officials, various
discrepancies in official documents, and various other irregularities).
Therefore I assumed an additional role of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (again
ADDITIONAL role). Because sometimes ago I learned from the FBI that the real
reason to demolish the WTC was (you know what, I will not repeat it), I also
attempted to construct a harmonious whole theory which I called in scientific
manner ‘9/11thology’ that attempted to explain the 9/11 in its entirety, not
each aspect of the 9/11 in isolation from the rest of its important aspects. Which I guess was successful explanation.
In any case you can
challenge me in a common way (as you would challenge any other conspiracy
theorist) only those aspects of my presentation which are covered in the above
clause 4) (i.e. my capacity as a ‘conspiracy theorist’).
To a certain extent
(within frames of undeniable fact of the ‘WTC nuclear demolition’ only) you may
try to challenge also my technical explanations in regard to the WTC
‘dustification’ – i.e. you can challenge me in my capacity of an ‘expert’ as
covered in the above clause 3). Which means that you could offer your own
explanations of the nuclear demolition technical details, instead, but without
denying the actual fact that the WTC nuclear demolition has indeed taken place.
In both of these cases
you could still exercise you trade-mark politeness and ‘objectivity’. Moreover,
you are even welcome to challenge these, because you might offer some better
points than mine and it will bring us all closer to the truth.
However, you have
absolutely no chance to encroach upon my mysterious humble person in my
capacity of an eye-witness - as covered by above clauses 1) and 2) without
actually insulting me by implying that I am an impostor, a false-witness and
therefore a criminal.
Hope you have gotten
my point now and will re-write your abovementioned article accordingly.
Copy of this my letter
to you will be sent to some of my followers and friends and also to some
followers of Judy Wood – just to inform you in advance.
I would like also to
remind you that despite of all your seeming ‘objectivity’ you always try your
best to avoid discussing one of the main points and ‘smoking guns’ of the WTC
demolition – the pre-9/11 definition of the ‘ground zero’ term in old English
dictionaries, along with the desperate attempt of the US Government to re-define
this term and/or to ‘broaden’ its definition in all post-9/11 English dictionaries.
I think it would be truly objective of yours, if you stop avoiding it and pay
some serious attention to this particular point.
Some beginning of a ‘raw’
version of my book that also deals with the ‘ground zero’ term’s manipulations
by the US authorities is enclosed below for you reference (it starts from the
next page below).
From: Andrew Johnson
Sent: 20 May 2010 17:56
To: 'Dimitri A. Khalezov'
Subject: RE: from Dimitri see attached
Hi there Dimitri,
Thank you for your letter. I am sorry you
were insulted by my pointing out where you could not explain the evidence - but
hey, that's what my website does in various places - about various topics.
I skimmed through your letter to the end. I
found your focus on the term "ground zero" very interesting, so I
will attempt to address that here. (I will post your letter under my article
(as I often do), along with this response.)
The use of the term "ground zero"
is not really 9/11 related evidence in of itself. It is merely a
"label" which was attached to the zone where the destruction took
Indeed, I believe the term may even have
come from the "air burst" nuke where, as I understand, in Hiroshima
or Nagasaki, some parts of buildings actually *remained standing* because the
explosive force was *downwards* on top of them rather than lateral. So I have
indeed thought about this.
Giving something a particular name such as
"ground zero" or "the 911 truth movement" can be a useful
ploy in creating misconceptions and starting people thinking in a certain way.
Find out, for example who coined the term "cold fusion".
Also, I spoken on 2 or 3 podcasts etc about
the NUCLEAR EFFECTS - as the Hutchison Effect seems to affect things at both a
molecular and a nuclear level, so there is indeed evidence in this area to be
The fact remains, the use of nuclear
explosives does NOT explain the available evidence - and the use of field
effect based (some call it "scalar weaponry") explains ALL of the
evidence that I am aware of.
However, as I have no official standing and
what we discuss is "way off the radar screen" for most people
(whereas nukes are not), it doesn't take a genius to work out which story most
people will believe.
P.S. A 1983 photograph from Beirut showing
a mushroom cloud has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 at the WTC -
indeed, a mushroom cloud was not even seen in NYC anyway...