.

DIMITRI KHALEZOV, GORDON DUFF AND KEVIN BARRETT-NUCLEAR TERRORISM (video)


TRUTH JIHAD RADIO INTERVIEW  “WIKILEAKS ON STEROIDS”

Foreword by Gordon Duff Senior Editor Veterans Today

Audio editing by Edward Rynearson

[youtube brQqRLCxJew]


There are few more controversial figures than Dimitri Khalezov, former officer in the Soviet Union’s nuclear intelligence services.  Khalezov, staff writer for Veterans Today, an online journal that seldom ducks controversy, endures the better part of two hours, a combination of friendly questioning and inquisition, at the hands of Dr. Kevin Barrett and Gordon Duff.

Edward Rynearson describes the broadcast:

Kevin Barrett speaks with intelligence community whistleblower Dmitri Khalezov and Veterans Today editor Gordon Duff. They discuss whether an infamous Mossad agent named Mike Harari brag of organizing 9/11? Dmitri Khalezov, author of The Third Truth About 9/11, was arrested in Thailand along with Mike Harari. Khalezov says Harari was his friend at the time of 9/11, invited him to a party on 9/12/01 celebrating the successful operation, and subsequently let it be known, in so many words, that he, Harari, was an organizer of the 9/11 false-flag event. Gordon Duff, editor of Veterans Today, knows the intelligence community well and says Khalezov should be taken seriously as a potential witness in the 9/11 mass murder case.

AMERICA'S DIRTY NUCLEAR SECRET, THE MELTED GRANITE CRATER AT "GROUND ZERO" BENEATH THE WORLD TRADE CENTER


More highly classified material is made public during this interview than during any single such endeavor on record.

Khalezov functions on two levels here, telling what he knows but also telling what he believes as well.

It is difficult to tell which is more shocking.

9/11

Khalezov is the only “insider” to come forward with admissible testimony, were there to actually be an investigation on 9/11.  He is questioned in two areas:

  1. The presence of nuclear demolition materials, not “micro-nukes” but thermo-nuclear devices of considerable size, which were buried many meters into the bedrock of Manhattan, beneath the World Trade Center.  The information Khalezov offers was shared by the United States with the Soviet government in accordance with treaty.
  2. Khalezov is able to confirm the direct involvement of Mike Harari, Director of Operations for Israel’s Mossad, long time Bush-Noriega associate and key figure in the Iran-Contra scandals, in the planning and execution of 9/11.

OTHERS…

The 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut, the Bali bombings, the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, even Chernobyl, all are discussed.

HARARI'S DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT AS "HADJI MOHAMED HUSSEINI"

MYSTERIOUS LEAK, ONE DAY BEFORE 9/11

Gordon Duff

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War.He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades.

Gordon Duff is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists.He manages the world's largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues.

Gordon Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than "several" countries.He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration.Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology.

Visit Gordon Duff's YouTube Channel

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by on February 21, 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

140 Responses to "DIMITRI KHALEZOV, GORDON DUFF AND KEVIN BARRETT-NUCLEAR TERRORISM (video)"

  1. JD  March 1, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    I tried posting my comment twice today but it hasn’t appeared, what’s the deal?

  2. Dimitri Khalezov  March 1, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Regarding no-planes argument and Ron’s YouTube link. Ron, the compilation on YouTube is indeed a good job, but it is not too convincing, to be honest. I have a better set of various videos that show at least 9 different witnessess who reported not seeing any plane during first minutes of the explosion – and all of them were aired by various news agencies. Here are the links:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YarBxlIzUk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y68DfCMQS7c
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPiQf53TSr4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LXJwI-7xY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA8xD9CFu40
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-Xa7rn7K4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VpWQ88Y9WM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2lWZY869I
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c8eT99_BAs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMrF1caOmOw
    Watch and you will get the point.

    • ronisrael  March 1, 2011 at 1:59 am

      Dimitri
      I really liked the one the man corrects the interviewer “not a plane a bomb”
      poooofff – if he only knew that in future that statement was a bomb in its self.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

      Is it really that difficult to say ” SURE I SAW THE PLANE”

      two different individuals from the choppers hovering over and around WTC
      are called and asked if they saw the plane .

      Why are they not giving a straight confident answer – why the fear and hesitation ?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmx78DQA5_E

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY

    • bf  March 1, 2011 at 11:37 am

      Dimitri, the first video you posted that you said was your best example that no plane approached before the second explosion has an obvious jumping edit, a section is cut out, as obvious as day both visually and in sound. Hence, one could argue the approaching plane was cut out of the shot. And yet you claim that this proves nothing approached before the explosion. You actually tried to foist this off as a single shot with no cut. So glaringly false. Incredible.

      What do you have to say for yourself?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

    • bf  March 1, 2011 at 11:38 am

      Dimitri, excuse me, here is the one you foisted, I mean posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk

    • Dimitri Khalezov  March 3, 2011 at 11:23 am

      Dear bf.

      Sorry, I just noticed your post. I would like to state that this cheap trick of yours will not work with me. I am quite good in argument – I have a long life experience to argue with some real tough guys, so when you implement such cheap tricks that are intended for the kindergarteners it is a bit offensive. Do you now the basic rules of the argument? The most basic rules you have just violated (or pretend “not to know”) are these:
      1) In order to win the argument ALL important points of the opponent must be addressed in a satisfactory manner, not just some.
      2) The argument of secondary value can never bit an argument of primary value. Even if someone has a single, but strong primary argument, while his opponents have even a few secondary arguments, the winner is the one who has the single primary argument.
      What you did here?
      I quote myself from the above post of mine:

      ———– beginning of the quote —————
      I could only imagine how much the shills will be annoyed with my statement over this video, but I don’t really care. So, my statemnt is this: watch this video and take note of the following:

      1) At 11.45 no second plane could be seen on the clear sky approaching from the right shortly before or during the 2nd explosion.

      2) In the first minute or two after the explosion in the South Tower no plane is discussed by the people who is filming the actual events, but only an ‘explosion from INSIDE’ is discussed.

      3) And, finally, it is good to compare the quality of the sky against those fancy colors in various official videos that show you how the aluminum planes fly at full cruise speeds at 300 meters alatitude and penetrate steel thick as tanks’ armor. Just compare the quality of the sky and you will get my point.

      Enjoy.
      ———– end of the quote ———
      Out of the three arguments (the most important of which is, of course, the second one) you somehow managed to address the first one only while completely disregarding the second and the third. But anyone with brains have to realize that the second point is much more important than the first, and even if the second point were equal in value to the first point, it must have been addressed, still, (along with the third point) in order to be able to argue whatsoever.

      And what you did, dear bf? You somehow addressed the first point alone? And do you think this cheap trick will work? Try to find your opponents in some kindergarten, man. May be there you will succeed.

      Sincerely yours,
      Dimitri.

    • bf  March 3, 2011 at 10:40 pm

      You fail big, Dimitri. The first point you made that in a “clear sky” no plane is seen approaching is bogus because, as is obvious, the tape is edited to where you see 1/2 of the explosion. You expect, despite the obvious jumping edit, that if a plane were approaching we’d have all seen it. You lost all of your arguments and you lost easily because you don’t believe what you type, you just type what you pretend to believe. You get an F. Cass Sunstein should bench you.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  March 4, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      Dear bf. I would like to repeat myself: this cheap tricks in conducting arguments do not work with me. Sorry for that, man. Even after I pointed it to you, you managed to avoid everything you owed to address, moreover, you avoided even the actual reproach aimed at you. Go to find your opponents in some kindergarten, man. There you can tell them that you will act as a judge and as an arguing side simultaneously. They young children will accept this. But here are big buys. They know a bit rules of argument. And also they know that a person who argues can not declare a victory simply because he is not a judge, but merely an interested party. Relax.

    • bf  March 4, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      If no-planers were simply mistaken, or mentally fragile, that would be one thing. But what they are, no-planers, are people who know full well that 911 was staged, but seek to discredit the pursuit of that truth, by agreeing with it, but with faulty arguments.

  3. OS  February 28, 2011 at 1:36 am

    Mike,

    Dimitri’s story is so full of holes it’s laughable, they are twisting information, slanting, rewriting comments and distorting information. Introducing false information, it’s simply a complete joke. It’s sad that people would do this for such a tragedy.

    Then ask you to discredit top US Scientist and Engineers, and believe Russian Propaganda Agent who can’t seem to find his credentials or even get top scientist or engineers to support his fairy tale. And Russia likes to insert propaganda into media regarding the US, but this tragedy adds insult to people who passed away, and those who lost their lives attempting to save others.

    If you want to discuss 911 and investigations there are legitimate engineering and pilot sites, amongst other. We are more understanding of the needs of people, without distorting information and making remarks as have been made in these comment sections. Completely disregarding people and their love ones who passed away on this day.

    I have had it here, turning into a propaganda site, and that’s too bad. I think Gordon has written some good stories, but this one insults people and does nothing for the movement and disclosure for truth.

    • bf  February 28, 2011 at 2:30 am

      What planner would presume everyone with a video camera in New York wouldn’t be pointing it at Bldg 1 and 2 once the first impact happened? To suggest that video fakery was used is such pure drivel. What arrogant BS to suggest that our smartest would devise such a dumbbell strategy? There would, in a city of 8 million people, easily be a hundred videos of a second explosion with no plane whatsoever appear online (if this bs about no planes were true). And why is this so, because people who trained cameras on the first burning building would be compelled to put the second explosion online should it mysteriously not involve a plane as the “video fakery media” proclaimed. You think every tape of the second plane impact is online? There are at least three hundred other tapes in people’s homes, maybe a thousand, that are not posted online because they figure the current angles will do. This is, transparent to anyone, with any sense at all, BS and Gordon hurts his other causes, which are noble, like PTSD, by backing this crap.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  February 28, 2011 at 9:47 am

      None of the realy amateur video (that are available, indeed) shows any plane approaching the Tower prior to the explosion. Only bogus ones that were supllied by various “sayanim” who claimed they were “amateurs” show the “planes” (moreover in contradictory manner if you compare one “amateur” video of this kind to another). But the truly amateur videos show no plane whatseover.

      It will not convince you to the contrary anyway, because you seem to have an embedded opinion on the “planes”, but it may, at least, convince some other people. Here is the most famous amateur (truly amateur, not from the “sayanim”) video seen by millions of people on YouTube here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk

      This is indeed the most famous from all amateurs videos.

      I could only imagine how much the shills will be annoyed with my statement over this video, but I don’t really care. So, my statemnt is this: watch this video and take note of the following:

      1) At 11.45 no second plane could be seen on the clear sky approaching from the right shortly before or during the 2nd explosion.

      2) In the first minute or two after the explosion in the South Tower no plane is discussed by the people who is filming the actual events, but only an ‘explosion from INSIDE’ is discussed.

      3) And, finally, it is good to compare the quality of the sky against those fancy colors in various official videos that show you how the aluminum planes fly at full cruise speeds at 300 meters alatitude and penetrate steel thick as tanks’ armor. Just compare the quality of the sky and you will get my point.

      Enjoy.

    • ronisrael  February 28, 2011 at 10:50 am

      Dimitri and most importantly –
      The moment of “impact” is cut off the film (but audio is left)
      this film is mentioned in September Clues

      Most likely they caught the real thing (nothing/missile/orb)

    • bf  February 28, 2011 at 11:02 am

      Great, if this is you best proof, I suggest everyone start watching from 11:40 a few seconds before the explosion and enjoy the fact that though it is from the same angle and the same camera, there is a cut there and is not the same continuous shot. You can see it and hear it.

    • bf  February 28, 2011 at 11:12 am

      “your” not “you”

    • ronisrael  February 28, 2011 at 11:26 am

      And notice how an amateur has such great cam quality while main stream media footage is so crappy with different shades of sky,
      and how they suddenly change point of view to a horrible angle when they could have gotten a great view of the impact too

      Probably one of the best live shot compilations I know :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

    • bf  February 28, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      ronisrael – notice how in every frame set against the blue sky, you can clearly see you are a shill?

    • ronisrael  February 28, 2011 at 7:59 pm

      bf

      Who is the one avoiding to discuss the heart of the evidence I just presented here and instead goes ad hominem on me ? who is the shill here ?

      better change your nick to bs

    • Dimitri Khalezov  March 1, 2011 at 12:09 am

      Mike,
      Larry does not really care about the exact method his property was demolished and he can’t care less about whether the general public would believe his property was demolished by nukes, by so-called “nano-thermite”, or by kerosene. In fact, Larry’s position is excellent. He got the property. The US Government demolished Larry’s property. And Larry is very unhappy with this fact (he is in fact happy, because he got his insurance and pleased his Mossad friends, but he has all visible reasons to pretend that he is “unhappy”). And, as many people remember, Larry was the one who talked on TV in 2002 about the WTC-7 demolished on purpose and allegedly he even gave his agreement to demolish it. I guess everyone remembers that scandalous interview of Larry in the 2002 “America Rebuilds”? From this statement of Larry alone you can see Larry’s position: he does not give a s_*t about the awkward situation the US Government caught itself. So I can not believe that Larry would “kill any talk” about thermite, or so-called “nano-thermite” or whatever. Because he indeed does not care. He is merely an injured owner of the property whose actual property was demolished by the evil US Government. And so he behaves like an injured person. Why should Larry behave like a shill? He is rich enough. Shills in my estimation get monthly salaries of something between 6 to 12 thousands USD (considering their abilities to argue they must be some lawyers by profession). Prominent shills like Gage or Jones get a bit more – may be 25 thousands a month. But do you think that Larry would really go as low as to enlist as a shill? He is simply too rich for that.

    • bf  March 1, 2011 at 11:40 am

      I bet your 6k a month goes pretty far in Thailand.

  4. OS  February 28, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Your absolutely correct.

    • ronisrael  February 28, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      bf or should I say BS

      Who is the one avoiding to discuss the heart of the evidence I just presented here and instead goes ad hominem on me ? who is the shill here ?

    • ronisrael  February 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm

      oops wrong reply button. sorry for that

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK