WTC Nuke Advocate Dimitri Khalezov Responds!

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2010-05-20 18:41:25

Within 16 hours of me posting my article about re-exploding the WTC I posted his response (and the attached file he sent, which he references in his letter).   Is Dimitri right? You decide….   20th May 2010 – Dimitri wrote a longish letter to me (click here for Doc file) www.checktheevidence… === —–Original Message—– From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto:]  Sent: 20 May 2010 14:32 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld…. Subject: from Dimitri see attached Dear Andrew. I sent you some letter in a form of attached Word file. Please, receive. Thanks. Dimitri Khalezov. — Best regards,  Dimitri                          mailto: === Dear Andrew. This is ‘The Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov’ who would like to disturb you once more regarding a web page 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. Nonetheless, despite 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 plainly: “This mysterious 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 lie”. 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. Sincerely yours, Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov. P.S. 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).

My response:


—–Original Message—–

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto: info@checktheevidenc…]

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 place.

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 explained.

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.


Andrew Johnson


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…

    Are you interested in what’s really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then…www.checktheevidence… happened on 9/11?    

Related articles...

Comments are closed.