LISTEN VT RADIO | JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

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 - Veterans Today -


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

Bookmark and Share

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=82520

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, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Education
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Austins School of Spa Technology
ME Online
slow aging
What Price Gold
Posted by on Feb 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

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

140 Comments for “DIMITRI KHALEZOV, GORDON DUFF AND KEVIN BARRETT-NUCLEAR TERRORISM (video)”

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

  2. Dimitri Khalezov

    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.

    • 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

    • 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

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

        • Dimitri Khalezov

          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.

          • 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

            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.

          • 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. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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)

      • 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.

      • “your” not “you”

      • 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

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

      • 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

      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.

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

  4. Your absolutely correct.

    • 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 ?

  5. Your boss should ask you to post less. You are more effective with fewer posts.

  6. “…a demolition plan is REQUIRED to be submitted to the Department of Buildings before a construction of skyscraper could be permitted whatsoever.”

    Dimitri refers to Richard Gage as a shill because he doesn’t address this??? I have never heard of such a thing.

    Dimitri, do you know for a FACT that the City of New York Building Department REQUIRES a demolition plan to be submitted along with architectural and structural working drawings prior to issuance of a permit and commencement of construction??? This sounds VERY dubious.

    The following is from an interview with Paul Laffoley, an architect who worked on the WTC and was SHOCKED when asked by outside engineering contractors to think about the best locations for explosives in the structural design.

    “Well, I knew exactly why [the trade towers came down]… people talked about Building 7 coming down at the same time, I knew why. Because, when I was there, there were these engineers from Saudi Arabia, actually part of the BIN LADEN CONSTRUCTION company, because Yamasaki [WTC main architect] worked with them and built them up…and they started in Arabia and worked for Yamasaki, and they were doing all kinds of things for them, airports, schools, doing very large projects…and he just brought them over.”

    “And I saw these guys…these swarthy looking guys wandering around, and some of them were asking me “where would you put demolition devices?” “Well, I’m not really an engineer, but I’m curious to know why…why would you put things in to demolish it, when it’s not even built?”

    This certainly doesn’t speak to your claim that a demo plan was REQUIRED by City Hall. Otherwise, Laffoley would not have been shocked by their request. In fact, the demo plan would have already been in place as part of the submittal for a building permit (if it was REQUIRED by the Building Dept.)…and Laffoley would not have questioned the reason for it.

  7. Hi to everyone. I would like to apologize for the repeating topics above. It is because when I posted them they did not appear so I was not sure if they were posted or not so I pressed the button several times. But the next day they appeared repeating. A request to the owner of the thread – please, remove the repeating post of mine above.

  8. MR.MIKE: YOUR STYLE IS VERY FLIMSY,BUT I WAS NOT ADDRESSING YOU SINCE THE LAST TIME YOU STARTED TO AGGRESS ME AFTER FLATTERING ME ON ANOTHER TOPIC. STRANGE HUMM..? AGAIN I AM NOT SEEKING FRIENDS OR ENEMIES HERE, BUT ADDRESSING A SERIOUS TOPIC OF INTEREST TO ME AND TO MANKIND AT LARGE AND I THINK THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF VT. STILL I BELIEVE ONE SHOULD CHOOSE BETWEEN BLOGGING AND HEAVY DRINKING.. CHEERS THEN..!.JUST A LAST ONE..!! (TO WHOEVER FEELS CONCERNED)

  9. mike
    bull
    there is no thermite anywhere in new york city…for some other reason
    the idea that every single trace molocule from an explosion was washed away by rain…is absurd
    we do forensic exams on trace from the ice age
    there is dust and dirt in doorways in nyc from the 19th century
    have u ever been there?
    you go to far…..to defend the DOD boy
    more denialism, more defense of israel
    g

    • Mike —

      what was that I heard about eye-witness testimony superseding that of experts in a court of law? Are these 4 citizens “eye-witnesses” whose word is all they have to offer (besides the samples)?

  10. @All Americans thinking for themself:

    W A K E U P – don’t accept further lies from your government. The truth is out there:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk
    (clearly debunks the official 9/11 story )

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OPASlJm7Is
    (earthquake and building structure dissolves into dust)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9NIxSjTy8I
    (slurry walls shifted)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrTAh36Do8
    (shills in action)

    Finally chimpanzee popping up on stage:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6mw_z1ghbU

    Think for yourself!

    @Dimitri: go ahead and don’t give up – you are a hero!!!

  11. To: Michael J Volz.

    PART 3 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    3) Why would the USA government pay Jones to bring up the subject of thermite when most Americans never heard of thermite and the USA government and the jewish owned mass media is still pushing and standing by the outlandish theory that commercial airliners brought down the WTC, plus building seven, even though not hit by a plane? ———————– in my opinion it is because the US Government and its spin-doctor realize that they would not be able to cheat public with “accidental collapse” of the WTC version for long time and sooner or later they would be forced to admit the WTC was demolished on purpose. Apparently, the intentional demolition of the WTC must be finally presented as a “prima facie” case – i.e. as done without any malicious intent, but only in good faith. In this light it is vitally important to produce a plausible story that a pre-existing demolition feature was implemented as a sudden decision. The normal controlled demolition (with multiple charges of conventional explosives) would not work in this case because the mere admission of such a thing will reveal a criminal intent on the part of the US officials. So, they can’t afford it. They could only base their admission (that they indeed demolished the Towers, but did it in good faith) upon existence of a certain emergency demolition feature built into the Towers well in advance and existing long time ago. Now they have little options remaining. If they admit it were nukes (as I claim) they would have to answer two questions of outraged public that will mix them with shit, namely:
    a) What the 150 kiloton nukes did in the middle of a populated city in the first place?
    b) Even if the WTC Twin Towers were demolished in good faith, what about demolishing the WTC-7? Was it really necessary to explode the third 150 kiloton nuke under the WTC-7 and add one third of the entire radiological consequences to Lower Manhattan?
    c) Why the US Government so cowardly sent gullible ground zero responders to clear a place of a recent nuclear explosion (moreover without issuing them haz-mat suits)? Couldn’t it wait for two-three years when the radiation dangers would naturally subside and only then – sent well-protected specialists to clean the place?

  12. PART 3 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    3) Why would the USA government pay Jones to bring up the subject of thermite when most Americans never heard of thermite and the USA government and the jewish owned mass media is still pushing and standing by the outlandish theory that commercial airliners brought down the WTC, plus building seven, even though not hit by a plane? ———————– in my opinion it is because the US Government and its spin-doctor realize that they would not be able to cheat public with “accidental collapse” of the WTC version for long time and sooner or later they would be forced to admit the WTC was demolished on purpose. Apparently, the intentional demolition of the WTC must be finally presented as a “prima facie” case – i.e. as done without any malicious intent, but only in good faith. In this light it is vitally important to produce a plausible story that a pre-existing demolition feature was implemented as a sudden decision. The normal controlled demolition (with multiple charges of conventional explosives) would not work in this case because the mere admission of such a thing will reveal a criminal intent on the part of the US officials. So, they can’t afford it. They could only base their admission (that they indeed demolished the Towers, but did it in good faith) upon existence of a certain emergency demolition feature built into the Towers well in advance and existing long time ago. Now they have little options remaining. If they admit it were nukes (as I claim) they would have to answer two questions of outraged public that will mix them with shit, namely:
    a) What the 150 kiloton nukes did in the middle of a populated city in the first place?
    b) Even if the WTC Twin Towers were demolished in good faith, what about demolishing the WTC-7? Was it really necessary to explode the third 150 kiloton nuke under the WTC-7 and add one third of the entire radiological consequences to Lower Manhattan?
    c) Why the US Government so cowardly sent gullible ground zero responders to clear a place of a recent nuclear explosion (moreover without issuing them haz-mat suits)? Couldn’t it wait for two-three years when the radiation dangers would naturally subside and only then – sent well-protected specialists to clean the place?

    Since the US Government is not brave enough to face the three questions mentioned above, it is desperately looking for some other plausible version of the in-built WTC demolition feature. Hence claims by Jones and Gage about so-called super-puper-nano-military-grade “thermite”. Because this alleged substance is the only alternative, hardly plausible, but still plausible (considering general ignorance and gullibility of the public) explanation of how would the in-built demolition feature of the WTC work from the technical point of view and without incriminating the cowardly US Government too much.

  13. To: Michael J Volz.

    PART 3 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    3) Why would the USA government pay Jones to bring up the subject of thermite when most Americans never heard of thermite and the USA government and the jewish owned mass media is still pushing and standing by the outlandish theory that commercial airliners brought down the WTC, plus building seven, even though not hit by a plane? ———————– in my opinion it is because the US Government and its spin-doctor realize that they would not be able to cheat public with “accidental collapse” of the WTC version for long time and sooner or later they would be forced to admit the WTC was demolished on purpose. Apparently, the intentional demolition of the WTC must be finally presented as a “prima facie” case – i.e. as done without any malicious intent, but only in good faith. In this light it is vitally important to produce a plausible story that a pre-existing demolition feature was implemented as a sudden decision. The normal controlled demolition (with multiple charges of conventional explosives) would not work in this case because the mere admission of such a thing will reveal a criminal intent on the part of the US officials. So, they can’t afford it. They could only base their admission (that they indeed demolished the Towers, but did it in good faith) upon existence of a certain emergency demolition feature built into the Towers well in advance and existing long time ago. Now they have little options remaining. If they admit it were nukes (as I claim) they would have to answer two questions of outraged public that will mix them with shit, namely:
    a) What the 150 kiloton nukes did in the middle of a populated city in the first place?
    b) Even if the WTC Twin Towers were demolished in good faith, what about demolishing the WTC-7? Was it really necessary to explode the third 150 kiloton nuke under the WTC-7 and add one third of the entire radiological consequences to Lower Manhattan?
    c) Why the US Government so cowardly sent gullible ground zero responders to clear a place of a recent nuclear explosion (moreover without issuing them haz-mat suits)? Couldn’t it wait for two-three years when the radiation dangers would naturally subside and only then – sent well-protected specialists to clean the place?

    Since the US Government is not brave enough to face the three questions mentioned above, it is desperately looking for some other plausible version of the in-built WTC demolition feature. Hence claims by Jones and Gage about so-called super-puper-nano-military-grade “thermite”. Because this alleged substance is the only alternative, hardly plausible, but still plausible (considering general ignorance and gullibility of the public) explanation of how would the in-built demolition feature of the WTC work from the technical point of view and without incriminating the cowardly US Government too much.

    4) That doesn’t make sense why they would pay someone to bring in a highly plausible counter theory when they are still standing by their original nonsense? —————— it makes sense if you consider carefully my suggestion above.

    5) BTW, Though you and Gordon seem to think I am ignorant I have some practical knowledge and experience with exothermics. ————————- I do not think you are ignorant. I would rather suspect that you have a technical education, good logic, and, in addition, you are well trained in arguing, and you are trying to undermine my credibility and so to save sinking ship of Jones by implementing your abilities to argue. May be I am wrong, but at least so appears to me after reading your multiple comments here and there. But rest assured that I am well trained in arguing too and I have a technical education as well. Moreover, a military education. And I know how to defend myself and my position in this type of arguments.

    However, if you have more questions (or you want to clarify any of the questions answered above) you are welcome.

    I will ask my questions later, if you don’t mind.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri.

  14. To: Michael J Volz.

    PART 2 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    1) What exactly are the specific errors in what he has written or said? (that was my question)? ————————— here we are talking about Jones. Specific [intentional] errors in his claims are as follows:
    a) he has never analyzed any WTC dust as he claims;
    b) based on the above he has never found any so-called “nano-thermite” in the WTC dust;
    c) he invented the very concept of the alleged existence of the so-called “nano-thermite” that does not exist in reality and in this way he cheats gullible people with his invention;
    d) he can not explain whether his so-called “military-grade nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary;
    e) he can not explain the actual pulverization of structural steel from the mechanical point of view based on his claims of so-called “nano-thermite”; he provides no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, but rather vague claims that the so-called “nano-thermite” allegedly “pulverized” the WTC, but without explaining HOW EXACTLY this process occurred.
    f) he can not explain the actual application method of the so-called “nano-thermite” (how exactly it was applied to the steel);
    g) he can not explain the actual ignition (or detonation?) method used to put the so-called “nano-thermite” into the action;
    h) and, finally he can not describe the actual action of the so-called “nano-thermite”.
    The summary of the above should be enough to begin with.

    2) It was a three part questions asking for his three worst errors in what he has written or said. ————————————– in my opinion his three worst errors were these:
    a) he “found” his so-called “nano-thermite” in 2007 instead of “finding” it in 2002.
    b) he can not explain whether the so-called “nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary.
    c) he failed to produce an technical explanation (or preferably a working model) – how would the so-called “nano-thermite” instantly, in a split of a second, reduce huge amounts of thick structural steel into fluffy microscopic dust.

  15. To: Michael J Volz.

    PART 2 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    1) What exactly are the specific errors in what he has written or said? (that was my question)? ————————— here we are talking about Jones. Specific [intentional] errors in his claims are as follows:
    a) he has never analyzed any WTC dust as he claims;
    b) based on the above he has never found any so-called “nano-thermite” in the WTC dust;
    c) he invented the very concept of the alleged existence of the so-called “nano-thermite” that does not exist in reality and in this way he cheats gullible people with his invention;
    d) he can not explain whether his so-called “military-grade nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary;
    e) he can not explain the actual pulverization of structural steel from the mechanical point of view based on his claims of so-called “nano-thermite”; he provides no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, but rather vague claims that the so-called “nano-thermite” allegedly “pulverized” the WTC, but without explaining HOW EXACTLY this process occurred.
    f) he can not explain the actual application method of the so-called “nano-thermite” (how exactly it was applied to the steel);
    g) he can not explain the actual ignition (or detonation?) method used to put the so-called “nano-thermite” into the action;
    h) and, finally he can not describe the actual action of the so-called “nano-thermite”.
    The summary of the above should be enough to begin with.

    2) It was a three part questions asking for his three worst errors in what he has written or said. ————————————– in my opinion his three worst errors were these:
    a) he “found” his so-called “nano-thermite” in 2007 instead of “finding” it in 2002.
    b) he can not explain whether the so-called “nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary.
    c) he failed to produce an technical explanation (or preferably a working model) – how would the so-called “nano-thermite” instantly, in a split of a second, reduce huge amounts of thick structural steel into fluffy microscopic dust.

    3) Why would the USA government pay Jones to bring up the subject of thermite when most Americans never heard of thermite and the USA government and the jewish owned mass media is still pushing and standing by the outlandish theory that commercial airliners brought down the WTC, plus building seven, even though not hit by a plane? ———————– in my opinion it is because the US Government and its spin-doctor realize that they would not be able to cheat public with “accidental collapse” of the WTC version for long time and sooner or later they would be forced to admit the WTC was demolished on purpose. Apparently, the intentional demolition of the WTC must be finally presented as a “prima facie” case – i.e. as done without any malicious intent, but only in good faith. In this light it is vitally important to produce a plausible story that a pre-existing demolition feature was implemented as a sudden decision. The normal controlled demolition (with multiple charges of conventional explosives) would not work in this case because the mere admission of such a thing will reveal a criminal intent on the part of the US officials. So, they can’t afford it. They could only base their admission (that they indeed demolished the Towers, but did it in good faith) upon existence of a certain emergency demolition feature built into the Towers well in advance and existing long time ago. Now they have little options remaining. If they admit it were nukes (as I claim) they would have to answer two questions of outraged public that will mix them with shit, namely:
    a) What the 150 kiloton nukes did in the middle of a populated city in the first place?
    b) Even if the WTC Twin Towers were demolished in good faith, what about demolishing the WTC-7? Was it really necessary to explode the third 150 kiloton nuke under the WTC-7 and add one third of the entire radiological consequences to Lower Manhattan?
    c) Why the US Government so cowardly sent gullible ground zero responders to clear a place of a recent nuclear explosion (moreover without issuing them haz-mat suits)? Couldn’t it wait for two-three years when the radiation dangers would naturally subside and only then – sent well-protected specialists to clean the place?

    Since the US Government is not brave enough to face the three questions mentioned above, it is desperately looking for some other plausible version of the in-built WTC demolition feature. Hence claims by Jones and Gage about so-called super-puper-nano-military-grade “thermite”. Because this alleged substance is the only alternative, hardly plausible, but still plausible (considering general ignorance and gullibility of the public) explanation of how would the in-built demolition feature of the WTC work from the technical point of view and without incriminating the cowardly US Government too much.

    4) That doesn’t make sense why they would pay someone to bring in a highly plausible counter theory when they are still standing by their original nonsense? —————— it makes sense if you consider carefully my suggestion above.

    5) BTW, Though you and Gordon seem to think I am ignorant I have some practical knowledge and experience with exothermics. ————————- I do not think you are ignorant. I would rather suspect that you have a technical education, good logic, and, in addition, you are well trained in arguing, and you are trying to undermine my credibility and so to save sinking ship of Jones by implementing your abilities to argue. May be I am wrong, but at least so appears to me after reading your multiple comments here and there. But rest assured that I am well trained in arguing too and I have a technical education as well. Moreover, a military education. And I know how to defend myself and my position in this type of arguments.

    However, if you have more questions (or you want to clarify any of the questions answered above) you are welcome.

    I will ask my questions later, if you don’t mind.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri.

  16. To: Michael J Volz.

    PART 1 (too big for a single post, sorry)

    Hi Mike. Sorry, I was very tired last night (the time difference between Bangkok and America is almost half-day…) I will answer your 5 questions and extra questions now. See below.

    FIVE QUESTIONS FOR DIMITRI KHALOZOV:

    What are the three principle errors in the writings of the following four men regarding 911? :

    1)Christopher Bollyn (Bollyn.com) ————————– I haven’t read him carefully enough to make any conclusions. Give me some time to read and I will come back with my answer.
    3)Professor Steven Jones ———————— have been answered already.
    4)Alan Sabrosky of VT ————————– I haven’t read him enough to make any conclusions. Give me some time to read and I will come back with my answer.
    2)Richard Gage (AE911truth.com) ——————– this one I can answer right away. I am 100% certain that Richard Gage is not an innocent person, but a paid shill acting together with Seven Jones. Because:
    a) As for Jones being an American nuclear scientist is unforgivable to hide the linguistic component of the WTC demolition (‘ground zero’ name), to the exactly same extent it is unforgivable for Richard Gage (a professional American architect) to hide a fact that a demolition plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Buildings before a construction of skyscrapers could be permitted whatsoever. Gage knows this fact very well but does not want to discuss it publicly. If, for example, Gage would come up with revelations that an advanced demolition plan was indeed required for the WTC, but the actual demolition plan was based on so-called “nano-thermite” sprayed on metal parts of the construction I would not call him a “shill” right away. I would consider a possibility that he is honestly mistaken in regard to the actual physical nature of the demolition plan. But because Gage hides from you both parts – the fact of the pre-existing demolition scheme and legal requirements for such a thing, and a physical nature of the demolition scheme (underground thermonuclear charges that are well-known for him and for any and every top US architect) this is a hard proof that Gage acts as a shill. And I have not even a slightest doubt in this regard.
    b) Even to imagine unimaginable and presume that for some strange reason Gage did not know about legal requirements for demolition schemes and about the actual physical nature of the particular demolition scheme of the WTC, and he is acting out of what is called in Latin “sancta simplicitas”, it would be logical to presume that after hearing of my claims (not my claims as an “expert”, but as my claims of an “eye-witness” – make sure to notice the difference between the two statuses) that the Soviet Special Control Service knew about the in-built WTC nuclear demolition scheme well in advance before 9/11, Gage (if he were an honest researcher) would not fail to consider such a possibility. In considering such a possibility he must have been noticed at least the following strange things (if not to say “irregularities”): 1) nuclear designation of the WTC demolition grounds (“ground zero”); 2) unexplainably high temperatures under the WTC debris that were compliant with well above 100 kiloton underground nuclear explosions and by no means with any “thermite” however super-puper-nano- or whatever – because they lasted simply too long (almost 4 months); 3) apparent symptoms of chronic radiation sickness, primarily leukemia, in gullible ground zero responders (again in combination with the linguistic component of the affair – the self-evident “ground zero” designation); 4) an attempt of the US government to re-define “ground zero” and to re-print all English dictionaries after 9/11; 5) deep underground cavities under the three WTC buildings that the desperate US Government now tries to pass for “ancient glaciers” (3ps). Gage did not pay attention to any of the above and even after hearing about my claims he stubbornly continuee to maintain his and his colleagues Jones’ claims about the so-called “nano-thermite”, in the same time claiming that he “does not see any evidence of the nuclear devices used as Khalezov claims (he knows my name very well)”.
    c) Gage was the very first of the “truthers” who was allowed a high-tribune – a TV. He was invited to Russia Today and was the first to pronounce from such a high-tribune that the US Government intentionally demolished the WTC by some means (not nuclear, of course). This was good. If not one minor detail. Two days before that I have distributed my DVDs with my video presentation to all major news media outlets here in Bangkok. Which is yet another proof that Gage is a shill that was kept by the US Government in strategic reserve and was deployed in the front-line in a last ditch attempt to hide the truth from the gullible public.
    d) Taking into consideration that unlike many of you Gage is a professional architect he knows the “resistance of materials” science. And, being a professional in this field he apparently could not afford go as low as to claim that so-called “nano-thermite” could allegedly “melt” the structural steel into complete microscopic dust (that was volatile rather than liquid). Nonetheless, he did. He claims such a nonsense. Which is yet another proof that he is a desperate shill (this is in case if a summary of considerations above was not yet enough to establish that sad fact).

    5) Where and when were you born in Russia and briefly outline your academic credentials regrading education and work experience. ———————— I was born in Golitsino, 40km from Moscow towards Minsk. I don’t have any academic credentials whatsoever, so there is nothing to outline. I am a typical commissioned military officer with typical military higher education (university-like, but from 5 years military college). My working experience – a chief of shift in the Special Control Service of the Soviet Union responsible for collecting data from peripheral detection posts regarding detection of nuclear explosions (in 99% of cases data from underground nuclear tests and natural earthquakes, since atmospheric nuclear explosions rarely occurred those days). Due to my serving in such a capacity (and also because of being a good student while in the military college) I understand about nuclear weapons in general and underground nuclear tests in particular better than commissioned military officers in general, much better than lay people who study the same thing from Wikipedia and YouTube, but, obviously less compare to nuclear scientists – akin to Steven Jones, for example. I served in various command posts of the above Service for 5 years. From 1987 till 1992.

    Fair enough? ——————————– seems to be fair enough (so far).

  17. To: Michael J Volz.

    Hi Mike. Sorry, I was very tired last night (the time difference between Bangkok and America is almost half-day…) I will answer your 5 questions and extra questions now. See below.

    FIVE QUESTIONS FOR DIMITRI KHALOZOV:

    What are the three principle errors in the writings of the following four men regarding 911? :

    1)Christopher Bollyn (Bollyn.com) ————————– I haven’t read him carefully enough to make any conclusions. Give me some time to read and I will come back with my answer.
    3)Professor Steven Jones ———————— have been answered already.
    4)Alan Sabrosky of VT ————————– I haven’t read him enough to make any conclusions. Give me some time to read and I will come back with my answer.
    2)Richard Gage (AE911truth.com) ——————– this one I can answer right away. I am 100% certain that Richard Gage is not an innocent person, but a paid shill acting together with Seven Jones. Because:
    a) As for Jones being an American nuclear scientist is unforgivable to hide the linguistic component of the WTC demolition (‘ground zero’ name), to the exactly same extent it is unforgivable for Richard Gage (a professional American architect) to hide a fact that a demolition plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Buildings before a construction of skyscrapers could be permitted whatsoever. Gage knows this fact very well but does not want to discuss it publicly. If, for example, Gage would come up with revelations that an advanced demolition plan was indeed required for the WTC, but the actual demolition plan was based on so-called “nano-thermite” sprayed on metal parts of the construction I would not call him a “shill” right away. I would consider a possibility that he is honestly mistaken in regard to the actual physical nature of the demolition plan. But because Gage hides from you both parts – the fact of the pre-existing demolition scheme and legal requirements for such a thing, and a physical nature of the demolition scheme (underground thermonuclear charges that are well-known for him and for any and every top US architect) this is a hard proof that Gage acts as a shill. And I have not even a slightest doubt in this regard.
    b) Even to imagine unimaginable and presume that for some strange reason Gage did not know about legal requirements for demolition schemes and about the actual physical nature of the particular demolition scheme of the WTC, and he is acting out of what is called in Latin “sancta simplicitas”, it would be logical to presume that after hearing of my claims (not my claims as an “expert”, but as my claims of an “eye-witness” – make sure to notice the difference between the two statuses) that the Soviet Special Control Service knew about the in-built WTC nuclear demolition scheme well in advance before 9/11, Gage (if he were an honest researcher) would not fail to consider such a possibility. In considering such a possibility he must have been noticed at least the following strange things (if not to say “irregularities”): 1) nuclear designation of the WTC demolition grounds (“ground zero”); 2) unexplainably high temperatures under the WTC debris that were compliant with well above 100 kiloton underground nuclear explosions and by no means with any “thermite” however super-puper-nano- or whatever – because they lasted simply too long (almost 4 months); 3) apparent symptoms of chronic radiation sickness, primarily leukemia, in gullible ground zero responders (again in combination with the linguistic component of the affair – the self-evident “ground zero” designation); 4) an attempt of the US government to re-define “ground zero” and to re-print all English dictionaries after 9/11; 5) deep underground cavities under the three WTC buildings that the desperate US Government now tries to pass for “ancient glaciers” (3ps). Gage did not pay attention to any of the above and even after hearing about my claims he stubbornly continuee to maintain his and his colleagues Jones’ claims about the so-called “nano-thermite”, in the same time claiming that he “does not see any evidence of the nuclear devices used as Khalezov claims (he knows my name very well)”.
    c) Gage was the very first of the “truthers” who was allowed a high-tribune – a TV. He was invited to Russia Today and was the first to pronounce from such a high-tribune that the US Government intentionally demolished the WTC by some means (not nuclear, of course). This was good. If not one minor detail. Two days before that I have distributed my DVDs with my video presentation to all major news media outlets here in Bangkok. Which is yet another proof that Gage is a shill that was kept by the US Government in strategic reserve and was deployed in the front-line in a last ditch attempt to hide the truth from the gullible public.
    d) Taking into consideration that unlike many of you Gage is a professional architect he knows the “resistance of materials” science. And, being a professional in this field he apparently could not afford go as low as to claim that so-called “nano-thermite” could allegedly “melt” the structural steel into complete microscopic dust (that was volatile rather than liquid). Nonetheless, he did. He claims such a nonsense. Which is yet another proof that he is a desperate shill (this is in case if a summary of considerations above was not yet enough to establish that sad fact).

    5) Where and when were you born in Russia and briefly outline your academic credentials regrading education and work experience. ———————— I was born in Golitsino, 40km from Moscow towards Minsk. I don’t have any academic credentials whatsoever, so there is nothing to outline. I am a typical commissioned military officer with typical military higher education (university-like, but from 5 years military college). My working experience – a chief of shift in the Special Control Service of the Soviet Union responsible for collecting data from peripheral detection posts regarding detection of nuclear explosions (in 99% of cases data from underground nuclear tests and natural earthquakes, since atmospheric nuclear explosions rarely occurred those days). Due to my serving in such a capacity (and also because of being a good student while in the military college) I understand about nuclear weapons in general and underground nuclear tests in particular better than commissioned military officers in general, much better than lay people who study the same thing from Wikipedia and YouTube, but, obviously less compare to nuclear scientists – akin to Steven Jones, for example. I served in various command posts of the above Service for 5 years. From 1987 till 1992.

    Fair enough? ——————————– seems to be fair enough (so far).

    1) What exactly are the specific errors in what he has written or said? (that was my question)? ————————— here we are talking about Jones. Specific [intentional] errors in his claims are as follows:
    a) he has never analyzed any WTC dust as he claims;
    b) based on the above he has never found any so-called “nano-thermite” in the WTC dust;
    c) he invented the very concept of the alleged existence of the so-called “nano-thermite” that does not exist in reality and in this way he cheats gullible people with his invention;
    d) he can not explain whether his so-called “military-grade nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary;
    e) he can not explain the actual pulverization of structural steel from the mechanical point of view based on his claims of so-called “nano-thermite”; he provides no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, but rather vague claims that the so-called “nano-thermite” allegedly “pulverized” the WTC, but without explaining HOW EXACTLY this process occurred.
    f) he can not explain the actual application method of the so-called “nano-thermite” (how exactly it was applied to the steel);
    g) he can not explain the actual ignition (or detonation?) method used to put the so-called “nano-thermite” into the action;
    h) and, finally he can not describe the actual action of the so-called “nano-thermite”.
    The summary of the above should be enough to begin with.

    2) It was a three part questions asking for his three worst errors in what he has written or said. ————————————– in my opinion his three worst errors were these:
    a) he “found” his so-called “nano-thermite” in 2007 instead of “finding” it in 2002.
    b) he can not explain whether the so-called “nano-thermite” is an explosive or an incendiary.
    c) he failed to produce an technical explanation (or preferably a working model) – how would the so-called “nano-thermite” instantly, in a split of a second, reduce huge amounts of thick structural steel into fluffy microscopic dust.

    3) Why would the USA government pay Jones to bring up the subject of thermite when most Americans never heard of thermite and the USA government and the jewish owned mass media is still pushing and standing by the outlandish theory that commercial airliners brought down the WTC, plus building seven, even though not hit by a plane? ———————– in my opinion it is because the US Government and its spin-doctor realize that they would not be able to cheat public with “accidental collapse” of the WTC version for long time and sooner or later they would be forced to admit the WTC was demolished on purpose. Apparently, the intentional demolition of the WTC must be finally presented as a “prima facie” case – i.e. as done without any malicious intent, but only in good faith. In this light it is vitally important to produce a plausible story that a pre-existing demolition feature was implemented as a sudden decision. The normal controlled demolition (with multiple charges of conventional explosives) would not work in this case because the mere admission of such a thing will reveal a criminal intent on the part of the US officials. So, they can’t afford it. They could only base their admission (that they indeed demolished the Towers, but did it in good faith) upon existence of a certain emergency demolition feature built into the Towers well in advance and existing long time ago. Now they have little options remaining. If they admit it were nukes (as I claim) they would have to answer two questions of outraged public that will mix them with shit, namely:
    a) What the 150 kiloton nukes did in the middle of a populated city in the first place?
    b) Even if the WTC Twin Towers were demolished in good faith, what about demolishing the WTC-7? Was it really necessary to explode the third 150 kiloton nuke under the WTC-7 and add one third of the entire radiological consequences to Lower Manhattan?
    c) Why the US Government so cowardly sent gullible ground zero responders to clear a place of a recent nuclear explosion (moreover without issuing them haz-mat suits)? Couldn’t it wait for two-three years when the radiation dangers would naturally subside and only then – sent well-protected specialists to clean the place?

    Since the US Government is not brave enough to face the three questions mentioned above, it is desperately looking for some other plausible version of the in-built WTC demolition feature. Hence claims by Jones and Gage about so-called super-puper-nano-military-grade “thermite”. Because this alleged substance is the only alternative, hardly plausible, but still plausible (considering general ignorance and gullibility of the public) explanation of how would the in-built demolition feature of the WTC work from the technical point of view and without incriminating the cowardly US Government too much.

    4) That doesn’t make sense why they would pay someone to bring in a highly plausible counter theory when they are still standing by their original nonsense? —————— it makes sense if you consider carefully my suggestion above.

    5) BTW, Though you and Gordon seem to think I am ignorant I have some practical knowledge and experience with exothermics. ————————- I do not think you are ignorant. I would rather suspect that you have a technical education, good logic, and, in addition, you are well trained in arguing, and you are trying to undermine my credibility and so to save sinking ship of Jones by implementing your abilities to argue. May be I am wrong, but at least so appears to me after reading your multiple comments here and there. But rest assured that I am well trained in arguing too and I have a technical education as well. Moreover, a military education. And I know how to defend myself and my position in this type of arguments.

    However, if you have more questions (or you want to clarify any of the questions answered above) you are welcome.

    I will ask my questions later, if you don’t mind.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri.

  18. Dimitri,

    After reviewing your case that the planes were video fakery, that the founding fathers of 911 Truth are mere shills, that you, having laid down with dogs are not covered in fleas, and that the government used preplanned mini-nukes to take care of a higher yield enemy nuke dilemma, having absorbed all of that, I do not stand with those who believe you are a fraud. I believe, instead, you should get an award. Unfortunately it would be the Cass Sunstein Dissonancing Man of the Year. Please come to the staged and accept your Cognito.

    • To bf.

      Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, and you, apparently, entitled to have yours. However, no one has right to demand that his opinion must be necessarily respected by others. That is what I am trying to imply that I don’t give a ..t about your opinion. Please, don’t make any mistake at this point. I really care of the opinions of those I respect. You have too high an opinion of your importance if you think I should really care.

      BTW – I have never talked about any “mini-nukes”, moreover, I was always very careful to debunk this wrongful theory and I have never ever associated myself with those “mini-nukers”. By claiming that I allegedly promote a “mini-nuke” theory you have proven that you had not bothered to read my free book, nor to watch my video presentation. Thus you proved that you know nothing about my actual claims and so you opinion could have any value to your own self. It is as ridiculous as to have an opinion on microbiology while believing that infectious diseases are caused by simple dirt around. Thus your precious award you can keep for your own self.

      For the rest of the listeners: I revealed to you things that most of you did not even suspect, namely:
      1) I reminded everyone what “ground zero” used to mean in pre-9/11 English language;
      2) On an example of a few real pre- and post-9/11 dictionaries I showed you that the desperate US Government undertook an attempt to re-define the “ground zero” meaning;
      3) I showed you the photos of huge underground cavities covered with signs of molten rock under the WTC buildings which the desperate US Government tries to pass for the effect of the “ancient glacier” (3ps);
      4) Finally, for those who did not know much about physical properties of underground nuclear explosions I explained that an underground nuclear explosion typically crushes surrounding rock into microscopic dust by the pressure of gazes – that are the evaporated rock.

      So, for any logically thinking person it should be enough to understand what really happened without any additional credentials from my side. But for those who want to know more, I additionally explained that I used to know about the in-built emergency nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC (based on huge underground thermonuclear charges, not on “mini-nukes”) while being a commissioned officer in the Soviet Special Control Service. Plus, I explain for those who are interested that I personally knew the operational chief of the Israeli Mossad and he used to ask me about the same thing prior to 9/11. However, the last to points represent interest from the judicial point of view since in that case I could act in a capacity of an eye-witness. It does not have much value from the practical point of view. Because the practical point of view is represented by the 4 points mentioned above.

      But if guys like bf claim that you should deny the 4 points of mine listed above only because I dare to challenged the “founding fathers” of his movement (whom I plainly call “shills”), then it is up to you whom you follow. You want to follow “founding fathers” – follow them. You want to follow what your eyes see – follow what your eyes see. But as you can see all of it has little to do with me personally. Yes, I can be a clown, but it will not change the pre-9/11 definition of “ground zero”. Yes, I can be a fraud, but it will not hide back an attempt of the US Government to re-define “ground zero” term and to re-print the dictionaries that I unmasked. Yes, I can be an impostor, but it will not devaluate the most revealing photos of deep underground cavities under the WTC. Isn’t it?

      • Actually I did see your entire presentation and have read all of your posts.
        So, right back at you. The semantics for “ground zero” are overstated… it was used once to describe the impact zone of a bottle some kid hucked at us from across the street in high school. Ground zero was where it landed and burst apart. It was used to describe where a fight broke out at a party. “This was ground zero.” Americans use words as wrong as they possibly can. Say you drank too much you might say, “gah, I got nuked last night.” I’m not saying there aren’t some points you are making, like the massive cavern in the pictures.

        • When I was a kid “Ground zero” was used to describe the bar a band would regularly play at before they became famous. You’re banking too much on the linguistics. And it is number 1 on your list to discredit Richard Gage and Steven Jones. The word “normalcy” came into being when an American politician who meant to say “normality” said “normalcy”… and then that became a word because everyone went with it. How come no one corrected that? Just because.

        • As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “the most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

          Stressing the semantics of “ground zero” is a faulty argument, when you consider that easily 1/3 of Bohemian coffee shops are called “Ground Zero”… what else were they supposed to call the WTC area? An American man in a bitterly contentious divorce is likely to refer to his own home as “Ground Zero.” The “Ground Zero” semantics haven’t the strength to hold up and are easily dismissed. Same is true for the video fakery you espouse. Going on and on about demolition would be like making a nice bowl of punch, adding that the planes were video fakes is the dropping in of a turd.

          As for Jones and Gage being paid shills of the DOD, if that were so, they must be getting paid to make millions of people who never heard of building 7 start to wake up.

  19. To: Michael J Volz.

    Ok, Mike. Even though you refused to explicitly define your position regarding the particular school of thought you belong to, you, at least, demonstrated a more or less civilized approach to the argument by reducing your tone to an appropriate one admissible for a gentlemen’s talk. So let’s hope that we could argue in a civilized manner without any personal insults. As agreed you can ask me the first five questions and I will answer them. I am not afraid of any question and you can ask me anything you want. As long as the question is appropriate and answering it is beneficial to understanding the truth it will be answered to the best of my abilities. But rest assured I will ask you five questions in exchange for any five questions you will ask me.

    Dimitri.

    • To: Michael J Volz

      So then you have an undeniable right to ask me your questions. Go ahead.

      Regarding your respect to Steven Jones. I am very sorry but I do not share you respect to that person. I am sure that this person is a shill and I will never ever change my opinion. The reasons whey I am sure he is a shill are below:

      1) He was a shill in his young age (he was employed to murder a cold fusion science); for any one who does not believe here is a link to a nice video – how Jones was hired to act as a shill: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6562030534380820378#
      So, if Jones was a shill in his young age it would be reasonable thing to presume that he remained a shill through his entire life and acts in this capacity right now.

      2) Jones is a nuclear scientist. Thus it is reasonable to presume that the nuclear folks that are responsible for nuking the WTC have deployed Jones to mislead the gullible flock of the plebeian ‘truthers’. At least it is logical to presume so.

      3) Jones is not just a “nuclear scientist”. He is an AMERICAN nuclear scientist. Do you sincerely believe that an American nuclear scientist “did not know” what “ground zero” term used to mean in pre-9/11 English language? But despite of his self-evident knowledge of this fact, Jones has never ever discussed the linguistic component of the WTC demolition affair with his gullible followers. This conduct of his could be called by a variety of words (cheating, exploiting gullibility, hiding the truth, misleading, covering up, duping, fooling, etc.) but not by the word “honesty”.

      4) Jones found his so-called “nano-thermite” only in 2007. Why not in 2002? Why not in 2003?

      5) Jones found his so-called “nano-thermite” in 2007 AFTER the first edition of my book with my claims about the in-built nuclear demolition scheme was sent by me to the US Justice Department.

      6) Jones (being a nuclear scientist, by the way) does not only deny any possibility of using nukes in the WTC demolition personally. He explicitly prohibits such discussions in his ranks and banishes from his ranks any dissident “truthers” who attempts to discuss this forbidden subject.

      I guess all of this is more than enough not to have even a slightest respect towards Jones (especially in my personal case, since I know about the nukes under the Twin Towers from my former position in the Soviet Army). And I hope you understand my feelings towards this shill.

      You are still welcome to ask your questions as agreed above if you still want to make a discussion.

  20. Very interesting Video of Nuclear Tests. Read the description.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1870730456324813920#

    I always thought “Mushroom cloud” when Nuclear devices exploded.
    This is fascinating to say the least…

    .

  21. To: Michael J Volz.

    Dear Mike.

    I am surprised how much you felt offended and irritated with my joke about microscopic insects that might swallow the structural steel and also dig underground cavities.

    May be my joke was silly (since as I honestly told you I got the idea after a couple of beers), but your reaction on this was not adequate. I even suspect now that it was Prof. Steven Jones who posts here under the name of “Michael J Voltz” – at least so the level of your actual irritation suggests.

    Yes, my English is indeed broken, because it is not my native language. But unlikely you have any chance to injure me with your statements, because English is not may language anyway, and my native Russian I know very well.

    Still, as you can see, despite my broken English I am still capable of making silly jokes that apparently get someone extremely annoyed. This is not a bad result in my opinion.

    Anyway, coming to the actual argument.

    I would like to conduct a certain argument between me and you here. So that the community could judge who of two of us is right and to which extent he is right.

    Please, consider it as a challenge. The rules of engagement: you have right to ask me five questions and I answer. In turn I ask you five questions and you answer. Then – you ask me 5 questions and I answer. Then – I ask you 5 questions and you answer. And so on.

    Is that OK for you?

    Ignoring a question or avoiding answering it is not permitted. However, an explicit refusal to answer a question is permitted, providing that a reason is clearly stated for such a refusal.

    Is that OK with you? If OK, then go ahead.

    However, my first questions (to define your position) are:

    1) What school of thought do you represent in regard to the demolition mechanics of the WTC Twin Towers?
    2) What school of thought do you represent in regard to the demolition mechanics of the WTC-7?
    3) What school of thought do you represent in regard to the planes/no-planes argument (regarding the Twin Towers hits)?
    4) What school of thought do you represent in regard to the Pentagon attack? (what do you claim was that thing that hit the Pentagon?)
    5) What school of thought do you represent in regard to the health effects observable in ground zero responders?

    As you can see my first five questions are not intended to criticize your position, but merely to understand your position. So, please define your position clearly before asking me the first five questions of yours and then be prepared to answer first five questions of mine in return.

    If you agree – just go ahead. And let the community judge between us.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri Khalezov.

    P.S. I hope my broken English will not be counted against me? I will try to define both my questions and my answers in the most understandable manner that will exclude any ambiguity. I promise it.

    • Michael
      Jones, according to Bob Nichols, hatched his theories at the behest of the US government in order to derail calls for a 9/11 investigation. Jones is a “see the monkey” guy.
      His paper is transparent junk science, just like the NIST report. He lacks chain of evidence and testing certifications.
      This was no accident, not for a scientist.
      You simply don’t know who Jones works for or where he comes from.
      If you want to know, get with Bob about this.
      Otherwise, you are peddling government sanctioned phony conspiracy theories.
      I don’t agree with some of Dimitri’s conclusions on things. I do, however, recognize his value.
      He brings facts to the table with his conjecture.
      Jones brings NOTHING.
      Mike, I know you are doing the best you can but what you don’t have is folks around you who have worked in science and know the games. I have that staff, folks who have had to deal with Jones and the DU denialists.
      I pick Dimitri over Jones. I have put questions to both. I get honest answers from Dimitri. Some of those answers are not properly supported, some are.
      When I told you a couple of days ago to “raise your game” this is what I meant.
      You can’t sit there…without information…other than what you are fed on the internet…and get to the truth.
      I, at least, have the sense to ask people and the luck of having the right people around.
      This is 2011…and we are getting the same hare brained theories….
      If there was nano-thermite…if…..and it was used….get me some real science that models the effect and explains the energy use.
      Look at the design of the WTC. It is a heatsink.
      This disproves the government case quickly.
      Nobody used this methodology, the most obvious one for an engineer.
      All the calculations should have involved energy dispersion, not “cutting.”
      There is little evidence of cutting and much of a massive energy surge. If it was nano-thermite, then a model for the energy surge that explained the result would have been nice.
      Instead….
      Instead….
      Time wasting assholes.
      g

  22. CHEERS..! JUST THE LAST ONE!

  23. FOR CONFIRMATION OF PREPLANNED DEMOLITION PLANS AT THE BUILDING TIME OF WTC,HERE IT IS!! AND KHALEZOV IS RIGHT AND I FOUND THIS MYSELF. HE WAS STILL A TEEN AT THE TIME AND SO WAS I. SO HE DID NOT MAKE IT UP. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY HERE AND THOSE WHO ARE TOO LAZY TO READ SWITCH TO HARD LIQUOR THANKS.. AND THOSE WHO KEEP REPEATING WE WILL KNOW THEY ARE THE DRINKERS!: http://Www.just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/building-wtc-to-detonate-it.html
    and http://www.factsnotfairies.blogspot.com (such deep topics) and

    • Dr. Nur:
      This is mind boggling stuff (the info on the link)…and news to me. You just can’t make this stuff up.

      Paul Laffoley was an architect who worked on the WTC towers and gave an interview on Radio Orbit, with host Mike Hagan back in 2007.

      It really wasn’t the FACT that BIN LADEN CONSTRUCTION worked on the project that was the real bombshell of what Laffoley had to say in this interview. The real shocker concerned the explosive charges that were built into the buildings AS PART OF THEIR DESIGN! Laffoley commented on how shocked he was when he was asked to think about HOW he would build in explosive charges, to take down the building complex, BEFORE it was even built! And it was Arab engineers working for Bin Laden Construction asking him to think about the locations for explosives.

      Khalezov mentions freemasons, who are all about symbolism, as major players in 9/11 and it makes one wonder if the ‘Twin Towers’ had some kind of connection to the pillars of Jachin (or Joachim) and Boaz which stood at the entrance to the Temple of Soloman.

      If the World Trade Centre was set up to as a target right from the start then the clue was in plain sight all along , part of the Masonic/Satanic conspiracy that hides behind many political events.

    • I’ve had this Laffoley interview on my website since 2006. I’m not sure it is the documentary evidence they asked for, but it struck me at the time as so sensible. It agreed with what I had assumed without prompting.

      “Paul: “Well, I knew exactly why [the trade towers came down]… people talked about Building 7 coming down at the same time, I knew why. Because, when I was there, there were these engineers from Saudi Arabia, actually part of the Bin Laden construction company, because Yamasaki [WTC main architect] worked with them and built them up…and they started in Arabia and worked for Yamasaki, and was doing all kinds of things for them, airports, schools, doing very large projects…and he just brought them over. And I saw these guys…these swarthy looking guys wandering around, and some of them were asking me “where would you put demolition devices?” “Well, I’m not really an engineer, but I’m curious to know [laughing] why, why would you put things in to demolish it, when it’s not even built?” Then he replied “Well, that’s the way things are going now.” Here’s why.”

  24. Michael Volz,
    All very well said. Khalezov is the most egregious fraud to come down the pike in quite awhile, &c.

  25. There is one admissible witness on 9/11 and ten thousand time wasting bullshitters
    damn it michael…start paying attention

  26. Again,to the professional “doubters” or “thinkers” who get “convinced” based on their moods,alcohol intake or high “self esteem” without even honoring Dimitri’s courage and professionalism by downloading or reading his book,I am sorry to say that they represent the great sickness and weakness of which americans suffer today that everything must be spoonfed to them by their politically “correct” media,their bought-out politicians and “role models”their high gullibilty,fear of the unknown,fear of foreigners inspired by Hollywood and their “friday the 13th”jewish mentors and the unshakable belief in “America-the-Apple-Pie”superiority etc…,i recommend to them to reassess from scratch all their myths and thought patterns for the benefit of all. If not,then I recommend them as usual to increase the intake of their favorite “spirits”for the benefit of all again.
    Those who want to be sober enough may want to read this independent proof: http://Www.just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/building-wtc-to-detonate-it.html
    and http://www.factsnotfairies.blogspot.com (such deep topics) …….
    on current events:

    such posted material or parts therein.
    Tuesday, February 22, 2011
    LIBYA, THEN RUSSIA AND CHINA?
    Muttasim Gaddafi, who reportedly once plotted against his father.

    We imagine that many of the top people in Libya have long been working for the CIA and its friends.

    There will be CIA-generals and Loyal-to-Gaddafi generals.

    Worryingly, NATO may use the unrest as pretext to invade Libya.

    The USA’s ‘Delta Force’ entered Libya in 1984. (“How Delta Force Works”)

    Are they back again?

    Saif Gaddafi, friend of the Rothschilds.

    Can Gaddafi trust his own children?

    Gaddafi’s adopted daughter Hannah was murdered by the USA in 1986.

    Saif, the president’s second-eldest son, runs a charity called the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation.

    It has sent hundreds of tons of aid to Haiti. (Gaddafi’s sons and their lavish spending)

    Saif “has extremely powerful friends in Britain, among them Prince Andrew and the Rothschilds as well as Peter Mandelson.” (Gaddafi heir Saif inevitably is a friend of Andy and Mandy)

    Saif did a PhD at the London School of Economics, a place that reportedly recruits spies.

    Saif and Prince Andrew “have a mutual close friend, the Kazakh-born socialite and businesswoman Goga Ashkenazy.”

    Nat and Saif and Nat Rothschild “have a friend in common, Oleg Deripaska.” (Gaddafi heir Saif inevitably is a friend of Andy and Mandy )

    Sa’adi, third-eldest son, has been a professional footballer and has had problems with drugs and alcohol. (WikiLeaks cables: A guide to Gaddafi’s ‘famously fractious’ family.)

    Mutassim Gaddafi, the fourth son, is currently National Security Advisor.

    He spent years in Egypt after allegedly plotting to oust his father. (France24 – The Gaddafi family tree)

    Ayesha, a Gaddafi daughter, joined the defence team of the fake Saddam Hussein.

    She is a ‘UN Goodwill Ambassador’.

    The Land Destroyer blog (The Middle East & then the World) reports that the CIA plans are revealed in the RAND Corporation’s 2007 report entitled “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” and the Brookings Institute’s “Which Path to Persia?”.

    The chief targets are still Russia and China.

    And they have already been infiltrated.

    According to Land Destroyer:

    “Men like Mikhail Khodorkovsky … began building networks of NGOs modeled directly after those of the Anglo-Americans in the West, even naming this network the ‘Open Russian Foundation’ after George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

    “According to geopolitical researcher William Engdahl, this Open Russian Foundation included Henry Kissinger and Lord Jacob Rothschild on its board of directors and its goal was to transform Russia from a sovereign state and into something more palatable for globalist consumption.”

    Thanks to Putin, Khodorkovsky is now in jail.

    Freedom House’s list of “Who’s Next” includes: Belarus and the Ukraine.

    “The globalists’ hope is to renew political unrest in Russia’s satellite regions.” (Land Destroyer)

    Bread market in Benghazi
    Libda’s Gallery

    The globalists are keeping an eye on China which buys oil from the Sudan and Iran.

    Chinese has been building ports in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

    The US Strategic Studies Institute’s (SSI) suggests that China can either join the New World Order or face military confrontation. (Land Destroyer)

    “The US … is attempting to balkanize Pakistan … specifically the Baluchistan region where China is establishing a naval presence…

    “The US is also heavily involved in destabilizing Myanmar (Burma)…”

    Strategically important Thailand “has suffered multiple attempts by the US to affect regime change.

    “Their man, Thaksin Shinawatra is an overt globalist, having formally served as an adviser to the Carlyle Group… (The Middle East & then the World)

    Tripoli
    Tripoli by Sammy Naas

    What about South America?

    Recently Argentina seized weapons and drugs onboard a US Air Force plane.
    “This is leading many, including the government of Argentina, to believe the US is staging another round of destabilization efforts in South America.” (The Middle East & then the World)

    Venezuela and Bolivia are among the countries that have recently been targeted by the CIA.

    ~~

    Thanks to Brian for this link: BBC News Africa Mandela welcomes ‘brother leader’ Gaddafi………… http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/

    LIBYA-MOSSAD-CIA RAT-CAT ZIOCON+TALMUDIC-”MASTER-RACE” NEW MIDEAST TRUE-FALSE ARAB REVOLUTIONS INCLUDING EGYPTIAN ARMY COUP WERE PRE-PLANNED OPERA-STAGED BY MOSSAD-CIA TO SHUT OUT RUSSIA/CHINA FROM SUEZ CANAL+PETROL BEFORE IRAN/PAKISTAN NARCOPETROL GENOCIDE ATTACKS

    GO TO: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/
    http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/

    AND:
    http://tarpley.net/2011/02/18/mubarak-toppled-by-cia-because-he-opposed-us-plans-for-war-with-iran/

    Mubarak Toppled by CIA Because He Opposed US Plans for War with Iran; US Eyes Seizure of Suez Canal; Was this the Threat that Forced Mubarak to Quit?

  27. The passport photo is amazing. Why this kind of news do not make it out?

  28. even if the WTC demolition blueprints have been removed from NYC city hall archives, what about Sears Tower demolition blueprints?

  29. http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Featured_Authors/may,_captain_eric/May_works/May_2007_01-06/Capt._Eric_H._May_20070402-LStar_Battle_of_Baghdad_Cover-up_Four_Years_Later.html

    CAPTAIN MAY: From a strictly tactical point of view, using a neutron warhead killed the Iraqis who were in the open, while giving U.S. forces, who were inside armor, a chance at survival. Had I been one of the commanders on the battlefield at Baghdad Airport, I would have preferred the neutron option to being overrun and destroyed by the Iraqi forces. But war is never simply tactical. As Clausewitz, the Prussian military philosopher, puts it, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” It’s on the political level that the nuking of Baghdad Airport was a disastrous decision.
    Unlike the nuking of Japan, which was admitted to the American people, the nuking of Baghdad was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about the conduct of the war. Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in Baghdad, and that only added to their hatred for the United States, so the big picture of the Baghdad Airport neutron bomb is that we saved ourselves from limited military failure, but thereby caused ourselves unlimited domestic and foreign disaster.
    It’s one of history’s great ironies that the Bush Administration was screaming that WMDs would be used on us in the Iraq war, and then when all is said and done, WMDs were used — not on us, but by us.
    The Battle of Baghdad is one of the many events of this war that simply show that our government has lied to us and that the media has been embedded by that government in the very worst connotations of that word. In fact, the word embedded should have never been admitted into the lexicon of the American media were it not for the fact that they were in bed with the government.

  30. I have been reading all the articles Gordon has posted about Dimitri Khalezov. I am not sold on this yet.

    This is extracted from this website:
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Nuclear_Demolition

    =========================================================================

    In practical terms a physical structure within a nuclear “Crushed Zone” appears to remain “intact”, retaining its former shape and color. But in reality its internal structure has been transformed to a sort of petrified and extremely fragile state such that the slightest further mechanical jarring can cause it to disintegrate to a microscopic dust. This metamorphosis occurs to any solid material within such a nuclear “crushed zone” – steel, stone, wood, glass, organic materials of any kind, – all will be similarly petrified and transformed. They will retain their shape and color for a while, but reduce to microscopic dust under the slightest mechanical pressure. Typically, the size of such particles is in the order of 100 microns – corresponding approximately to the thickness of an average human hair.

    The zone beyond the “crushed zone” is called the “damaged zone”. Material in the “Damaged zone” is also pulverized, but to a lesser and decreasing extent with distance from the hypocentre. Debris will range in size from millimeters to centimeters and much larger pieces and fragments in its outer areas.

    =========================================================================

    So if everything gets pulverize in the crushed zone….

    What about the survivors? For example Josephine Harris and the Firefighters that were with her at the precise moment the tower fell. They were in the Fourth floor and survived when a pocket was created in between the rubble.

    How come they did not turn into dust as they were clearly in the Crushed Zone?

    I also watch his entire interview found on the web (All 26 videos!)
    I don’t like the fact He states there were no planes, the footage was edited then broadcasted to the world showing the planes hitting the towers.

    Like I said I am not sold on this 100% and Dimitri needs to provide more evidence, like clear proof there was a Nuclear device planted when the towers were built.

    Dimitri,
    We are waiting.

    Peace!
    .

    • What would constitute “clear proof” in your opinion? Also, why does it need to be planted, as opposed to merely having all the preparations so that it could be placed when needed?

      • For Example He states there was a treaty with the USSR, that call for disclosing the use of, or intentions to use, nuclear weapons. He said the US told USSR officials about the WTC and how the bombs were planted as part of a Demolition plan if ever need one.

        Can He provide some Documentation? He must have seen some kind of classified Document or something. I know our government will deny this and that will be the end of it.

        They cannot be planted at least not on the fly. Dimitri said US officials, once they learned about the nuclear missile that struck the pentagon, ordered the destruction of the WTC. This means the nuclear device was already planted. I doubt they rush to the towers and roll out the Bombs through tunnels to be set off. Not enough time. Besides I am going but what He is saying.

        Dimitri,
        Give us the goods.

        Peace!

        • That rollout is at the very least a very curious and troubling point, one that gnaws at the mind of the listener. But, on the other hand, it has the ring of much of the insider expertise Dimitri speaks in out of habit.

    • keep working on it
      dimitri goes much further than others….
      the scarry thing is that some of his wilder theories….and i am listing nuclear demolition as conservative….are rationally based
      i get tired of having to reassess beliefs
      but
      now that i am getting more information from the french….
      what i told dimitri is that, let’s say…concerning free masons…if americans are not inclined to think that direction, wait until they are
      we are getting signs of…ok..freemasons, russian intelligence, france….israel…and what is left of america…
      9/11 is very international
      in the process…we have to remember the basics…
      the destruction itself…too much energy expended…too much damage for any old theories..planes..thermite…etc
      norad..norad…norad…
      planes can’t fly that way
      aluminum doesn’t cut steel
      who profited from the war?
      mike harari…(confirmed from others)
      also confirmed..use of nuclear demolition under public buildings…from other sources
      g

      • Gordon,

        Keep digging and posting…We ARE listening.
        I am just being cautious about Dimitri.
        This is just heavy, heavy stuff man.

        One day the truth will finally come out.
        Hopefully all those sons of bitches are still alive to face justice.

        Regards,

        .

      • Tell us what you can about info from “the french” that you are getting — France was the source of Israel’s first nuclear expertise, according to Sy Hersh.

      • My opinion is planes don´t fly into though steel and that no amount of explosive could creat the extensive damage observed. So his theory is credible on both those counts.
        However, the scenario he lays out about why the US gov´t took the towers down – ie, they thought Nukes were in the towers – oops – if there were no planes how were nukes flown into the towers ? More generally, the idea that the US was a “victim” of the attacks – as he states clearly in his youtube interview, is not credible ! We are expected to believe the Powers That Be had all the fake TV video etc ready to go and immediately swung into action with the coverup – and yet are mearly REACTING to an attack !?!

        • Good catch. I mentioned the exoneration to Bruce Campbell, and he agreed that Dimitri was perhaps inventing an “out” for the US participants — conceivably to convince them to lighten up on him.

        • What you see as the Powers That Be, he sees as the various Freemasonic networks. In other words, he is of the Tarpley school of “rogue network within the system” being behind the horrible stuff.

          But, I, too, think someone like the head of NYC’s FEMA wouldn’t have to be pushed hard to do something evil.

      • Another excellent video by Jonathan Cole, everybody watch this

        9/11: The Top Scientific Arguments
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXqkZO3Y1g

    • Dimitri gives us an enormous amount of information to grasp but I seem to recall from the 3 hour long interview that the nuclear demolition devices were not placed dead center in the towers. There was a diagram showing that the decompression wave (right term?) would move in such a way as to leave a lower corner of each tower out of the deadly “crushed zone”. That may explain how Josephine Harris and the firefighters survived.

      As for the planes, it’s hard for me to give up on that one too. Couldn’t the “Road Runner” holes have been blasted away split seconds before the planes entered the building?

  31. Hi to everyone.

    I thought for a long time what is “nano-thermite” invented and allegedly “discovered” by Prof. Steven Jones in the WTC dust. I was always under impression that the so-called “nano-thermite” was merely a type of well-ground, very fine common thermite – like the one used in electric welding. Because the either part of its name “nano-” and ” -thermite” implied so.

    However now I got the point, at last, after heaving a couple of beers.

    The problem is that the “thermite” is no only a name of a chemical mixture used in electric welding, but also a name of a type of insect – that looks like a large ant, that eats virtually everything, even relatively hard substances.

    Now I understood what Prof. Jones meant in reality when he talked about the mysterious and hitherto unheard of “military-grade” “nano-thermite”. He probably meant not a “fine chemical substance” as understood by many simpletons, but merely genetically-modified microscopic insects – live creatures, that are able to instantly consume (in a sense of “eating” – i.e. in a sense of biting-swallowing-digesting) all structural steel of the WTC.

    May be is that what he really meant? In this light the presence of the deep underground cavities under the WTC is quite explainable. Because these microscopic military-grade insects, called “nano-thermites” (a kind of bio-weapons from the logical point of view) have simply eaten all that granite rock, and then, after the good lunch (or, sorry it was their breakfast), these creatures peeed of the remaining granite rock, so that produced an effect of its smoothing that some primitive people took for the “molten rock” or even an effect of an “ancient glacier”. May be that is the real case?

    • Come now, Dimitri — enough comedy. It is unseemly to trivialize the amount of these high tech products found in all samples of the dust. There is no possibility of inadvertent presence of these materials there.

      As I have written above, it is obvious to me that the granite was indeed molten, indeed vaporized and gone. But even in your first videos you mentioned thermite as I recall, playing some part in the deception if nothing else, if I remember correctly.

      For reference, everyone should be familiar with this video of Jones and this paper at Bentham

      • I doubt this is Dimitri but if He is, He loses credibility by the minute. Making fun of Scientists with proven credentials is not good for his cause, even if they are wrong. At one point in time Scientists thought the Earth was flat….

        Just saying….

        BTW, your second link does not work.

        .

        • I should have thought of the possibility of troll fraud. Silly me. You’re right, it’s so unlike him to do that. Dimitri, I do apologize for mistaking them for you. It’s so far from my mind to post under another name, I am slow to think of it as a strategy.

          As to the link, I was late to work as I typed, or I would have fixed it. As it happens, the link I posted was good several weeks ago, and it is the original link pointed to by all the search engines and other blogs.

          I have decided to post my own copy of the PDF here on my website. I hope I don’t encounter any displeasure of the former publishers.

        • “Because these microscopic military-grade insects, called “nano-thermites” (a kind of bio-weapons from the logical point of view) have simply eaten all that granite rock, and then, after the good lunch…”

          Hey, even Mike was commenting on “The termite used in 9/11…”

          Makes me picture a badass military-grade insect…kinda like the 6′ tall cockroach in the Orkin commercials…

        • kraqus —

          I am retracting my previous agreement about the troll using Dimitri’s name. I’m sure it was he, now that I have belatedly begun reading his book, which is free as PDF online, from among other places at http://www.filestube.com/7CaCMPj9q4KM0C0fEN3MoA/Dimitri-Khalezov-Book-Third-Truth-911-free-11chapters-v2.html.

          In it, Dimitri makes a very pointed assault on Steven Jones, for, among other things, the rather timid treatment of the no-planes theory, even to the extent of banishing the venerable Jim Fetzer from the club, as we all remember. Dimitri says the following:

          Conspiracy theory No.3 (the most famous proponent – Prof. Steven Jones): a so-called “nano-thermite” theory. This theory is probably the most dangerous lie – not because it sounds plausible to any extent; it is actually as stupid and as ridiculous as either of the two theories discussed above. It is dangerous because nowadays it is being favored by the absolute majority of main-stream 9/11 “truthers” tricked into believing this nonsense by their shifty FBI-appointed leaders.
          This is a relatively new theory. It surfaced not later than in 2007, but most probably in 2008. It is based on an alleged “fact” that “some traces” of so-called “nano-thermite” were allegedly “found” in the WTC dust. Strangely enough, these alleged “traces” were not found back in 2002, not even in 2003 when it would be logical to expect them to be found in the WTC dust. They were “found” only around 2007-2008. Which says a lot of this theory’s and its main proponent’s credibility, by the way. The “discovery” of the so-called “nano-thermite” traces strangely coincided with the first attempt by the humble author’s of these lines to publish his book on theWTC nuclear demolition.
          According to this so-called “nano-thermite” theory the malicious US Government allegedly “sprayed” (or “painted”) the entire steel columns of the WTC Towers with so-called “nano-thermite” and this alleged coating was allegedly the very factor that destroyed the steel bearing structures of the Twin Towers. However, this theory does not provide any plausible physical (or chemical) explanation in regard to how this so-called “nano-thermite” actually works. Supporters of this theory can’t even audibly explain what the so-called “nano-thermite” actually is – whether it is a kind of incendiary (like commonly known themite or napalm), or it is a kind of explosive (like dynamite, TNT, RDX or C4). Nonetheless, despite this theory being unexplained, unfeasible from the logical point of view, and, moreover, born in highly suspicious circumstances, it managed to win a lot of popularity among so-called “main-stream 9/11 truthers” led by Prof. Steven Jones. It so happened that the “9/11 Truth” society almost unanimously supported this most bizarre notion and even attempted to prepare some legal charges based on this so-called “nano-thermite” theory against the US Government. Leaving aside our prediction what would happen in the court-room when this straw-man argument would be legally submitted to the court of law, we will try to disprove on our own this most ridiculous notion which, nonetheless, stands on our own way to the ultimate 9/11 truth.
          Could it be true that so-called “nano-thermite” was indeed responsible for the WTC demolition as claimed by Prof. Steven Jones and his flock? There are primary points and secondary points which will help us to debunk this dangerous nonsense.

          The primary points are these:

          If so-called “nano-thermite” exists not only in sick imaginations of 9/11 “truthers” but also in reality, then logically it should belong to either of the two groups:
          a) explosives;
          b) incendiaries.

          If so-called “nano-thermite” indeed exists in reality and it is “explosive”, then the WTC Twin Towers could not have been demolished by “nano-thermite” due to considerations discussed during debunking of the abovementioned conspiracy theory No.1.

          If so-called “nano-thermite” indeed exists in reality and it is “incendiary”, then theWTC Twin Towers could not have been demolished by “nano-thermite” due to considerations discussed during debunking of the abovementioned conspiracy theory No.2.

          The secondary points are these:

          Prof. Steven Jones who is the author of this notion is also an author of another infamous notion – that empty aluminum projectiles could allegedly penetrate thick steel targets. Unlikely it would be reasonable to believe a person who claims that hitherto unknown mysterious substance could allegedly “melt” steel into fluffy microscopic dust, considering that this very same person also claims that steel was allegedly susceptible to being cut using aluminum cutting tools. If you add here that Prof. Steven Jones is actually a physicist, it aggravates the whole thing. If he were a former priest or a former senator, it, perhaps, would be forgivable. But unlikely it could be forgivable to a physicist. In addition to all of it, it shall be taken into a serious consideration that being a nuclear scientist, Prof. Steven Jones must have known what “ground zero” really meant in the then specific nuclear jargon. It did not mean “a place where a building has been melted by so-called “nano-thermite” into fluffy microscopic dust”. It meant “a place of a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion”. And it is highly unlikely that a person holding a Doctorate in nuclear physics might not notice this more than transparent hint.

          I believe that from now on the reader of this book would not bother trying to adjust reality to the bogus claims of the so-called “nano-thermite” theory, and realized, at last, that this senseless theory is intended only to dupe him and to lead him away from the truth.

          • I had no idea of Jones background. Jones isn’t worth discussing. Forget him.
            g

          • Where Dimitri says in the above quote from his book, “Supporters of this theory can’t even audibly explain what the so-called “nano-thermite” actually is – whether it is a kind of incendiary (like commonly known themite or napalm), or it is a kind of explosive (like dynamite, TNT, RDX or C4).” Niels Harrit does audibly sort out some of these issues in his interview with Kevin Barrett last week,

            Harrit: [14:47] “All that I’m talking about here is the rather old-fashioned way of making chemical explosive process. In nanotechnology, you follow a different procedure. Nanotechnology is not old wine in new bottles. It’s a fundamentally new approach to making materials. That is, you’re building the materials from the atomic scale and upwards, eventually tricking — uh, yeah — fooling the molecules to get them to do what you want them to do, applying a principle called “self-assembly”. But if you build the materials from the bottom up, there are two consequences — uh, two advantages of this procedure: first, everything is much smaller, which means that the reaction partners, in this case aluminum and iron oxide, the particles are smaller, much more intimately mixed, meaning that they react faster, and the temperature automatically gets higher. Second, everything is embedded in what we call a polymer matrix, a kind of plastic where [things are lying(?-inaudible-?)] And you have the option then during production to mix in other chemicals. So you actually can, I would say, turn the internal — the energy of the chemical reaction into an explosive effect. We have to distinguish here between an incendiary and an explosive. The old-fashioned thermite is an incendiary. It destroys steel by means of heat, while an explosive knocks things over.
            Harrit does go on to say shortly later that all of the options available to the manufacturers of the nanothermite are not known to the investigators, as to what explosive enhancements may have been added to the binder.

          • “I had no idea of Jones background. Jones isn’t worth discussing. Forget him.”

            Sir! Yes, sir!

    • Mike, All very well said. Khalezov is the most egregious fraud to come down the pike in quite awhile, &c.

      • Are you comfortable with an aluminum fusilage, not much more than a glorified soda can, cutting smoothly through the perimeter box columns, even the wing tips cutting their silhouette in the face of the building? The columns were admittedly tapered, from 2.5″ thick plate at the base to .25″ at the top. That would mean about .63″ at the 91st floor, where the impact was. Still, as one can see in this famous photo of the woman in the gash, the silhouette of the plane, even to the wingtips is scissored out of the perimeter columns, almost like where a kid runs through a screen door in a cartoon, and even his ears and splayed fingers are cleanly drawn in the screen with the cartoonist’s pencil. I agree with Dimitri on this — we the Truthers were played for fools on this aluminum-steel penetration issue.

  32. Gordon —

    you said it was some British Defense publication other than Janes that told about the Granit on 9/10/01, but here it is on the WayBackMachine, and it was Janes (and perhaps others, but the date is that.

    http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2011/02/janes-september-10th-2001-granit.html

  33. FOR THE BEHIND THE SCENE RAT-CAT-MOSSAD-CIA BLACK OPS IN MIDEAST LIBYA RIGHY NOW ETC: http://WWW.AANGIRFAN.BLOGSPOT.COM

    • Dr. Nur —

      many thanks for your leading me to the work of the late Joe Vialls, whose work on the clear mini-nuke evidence in the Bali bombing, as well as the Beirut barracks. This is surely the same quality as what we are hearing in this current interview.

  34. I am beside myself with this page today.

    Kevin Barrett has for years been the first source of podcasts that I seek with the avidity of an addict. The second source of the Jones that’s follerin me is Peter B. Collins/Sibel Edmonds (Sibel of course is an associate of this site).

    It was through Peter B. that I discovered Gordon Duff. This site, Veterans Today has become in a few weeks, the hands-down best favorite, first recourse for my diet every day. Second choice is, not the equal in immediacy, but almost — still a very great source, Centre for Research in Globalization, many pieces from which appear in these pages.

    It was through Gordon that I discovered Bruce Campbell. It was so recently that, through an offhand comment of Bruce’s that I started chasing links to Dimitri.

    So here we have the best podcaster interviewing the principal editor of the most amazing, and we learn, now eighth biggest publication in the nation (world?) — to say it’s the eighth is like “don’t blink! It’ll be 7th or 6th or 5th.” Like the barrels in Poe’s Descent Into The Maelström, which floated up the sides of the whirlpool while all the other objects were being sucked down, this website seems to be the first in a century that has found escape velocity.

    As if that were not enough, add the biggest blockbuster whistleblower since — when? Ever? Then prima facie evidence of his claims, molten granite, Dancing Israeli passports (which already have recent traction — sc. in the Dubai hit), with expertise some distance beyond the wildest imaginations of the most assiduous Truth investigators.

    Suffice to say, I am in a cloud bank unfamiliar to my experience up here. The view is staggering.

  35. THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR EFFORT ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC. WE NEED TO GO DEEPER AND DEEPER ON THIS AND THINGS MAY BECOME CLEAR TO ALL AND LIGHT OF HOPE START TO SHINE..
    PLEASE READ CAPTAIN ERIC MAY’S POST HERE AT VT TODAY http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/21/eric-may-has-obama-ordered-violence-on-veterans/comment-page-1/#comment-176687
    I reproduce my comment here hoping to create synergy and crisscrossing of info:

    DEAR CAPTAIN ERIC MAY: thank you for your reminder here that there is something perhaps less “depleted” but rather “enriched” behind the claimed “DU” radiation illness in veterans from Iraq. Thank you for your research and the valuable links and testimonies concerning the use of nuclear weapon(s)by the US army for expediency at the battle of Baghdad airport. Some of your sources claim it was a neutron bomb but others say the high yield indicates it/they were bigger tactical nukes (google: khalezov baghdad nuke). But neutron bombs may have been used too as they were used to genocide the civilians of Fallujah (the “militants” or patriots had already fled). i keep coming across reports that micronukes equal to 10 to 100 tons of TNT were used against the iraqi bunkers at the Kuwait border to roast thousands of iraqi conscripts in Gulf war one were the mushroom clouds were described to the press as fuel-TNT “moabs”(mother of all bombs) or “daisy cutters”.

    Not only that but testimonies seem to verify the fact that Israel used gulf war one to experiment its own mininukes all over Irak as mustaravim (false arabs mossad units like those who were the patsies of 9/11..);

    Yes,Irak is/was highly irradiated…

    I recommend your website http://www.GHOSTROOP.NET about the numerous unreported US casualties and the very numerous links and data you posted here and there. I agree with you that world war 3 or 4 really started at WTC 9/11 and/or at BAGHDAD when the US and ISRAEL decided to fool the world and break beyond all civility by going nuclear all over the place against invented enemies and by starting THE NARCOPETROL WAR OF “TERROR” on mankind for the benefit of the talmudic “master-race”rothschildian messianic “iron-rod”doomsday rule;.. Veterans! honor yourselves: tell the young soldiers. Refuse this SHAMEFUL mafia,turn your guns back on them…

  36. A good one….But now we need some solutions…A

  37. Upon signing the Declaration of Independence from the Rothschild’s home base, England, Benjamin Franklin said something like:

    “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.”

    And that’s what those seeking 9/11 truth need to do, hang together to root out this evil that has taken over our country.

    We can have our differences, but don’t let egos get in the way of finding and bringing to justice the REAL perps behind the 9/11 FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB.

    Don’t let those blood-soaked criminals and thieves get away with mass-murder and tyranny, hiding behind Zionist ‘stink tanks,’ and the Zionist owned MSM, which tells lies non-stop to keep all the other lies about 9/11 intact.

    Together, we can and MUST bring to justice those REAL ‘evildoers’ behind 9/11.

    • The evildoers are capable of anything, transponded extra telephone lines onto cell phones and implanted conversations the cell phone owners knew nothing about in order to incriminate Hezbollah in the assassination of Hariri..

  38. Is there any way that Dimitry could access the Second World War archives to reveal the truth about the so-called extermination camps and their supposed gas chambers that were taken over by the Soviets after 1945? The data from the Red Cross in the (then allied “West”) show that any figures given since were greatly exaggerated, but those from Soviet occupied Poland persist as presented by the controlled press. Are their data to refute these figures that are still hidden?

    • It seems to me I ran across this idea in my search for Joe Vialls’ work.

      • michael
        move from ‘internet person’ mode to ‘real person’ mode
        a witness is something quite different from a particpant in an internet insult match
        up your game

    • Re WW2, read the book “Gruesome Harvest” which documents the starvation deaths of 1 million German pow’s in Allied hands, along with about 3 million German civilians, mostly women, children, elderly, etc. during the post 1945 period.

      Also look up, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,” by Anthony C. Sutton.

      Almost everything we were taught about WW2 were lies. What else is new.

  39. Wonderful article. I think now almost every one has access to the real truth as compared to the version of it pushed by NWO architects. But I do not understand why nothing is happening. There is not even a protest.
    Anyways Gordon, here is a link for you to page 2 of this greatly great article listing the criminal institutes which are behind it all, Please help spread the truth: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/22/iran-the-next-domino/2/

    .

  40. Gordon,lava or melted granite does so at 1300-1600 deg F. Nano-thermite reaches temps of 4500 deg F.This is more than enough to melt rock.

    • All well and good, but if nanothermite had been the only energetic used, would they have spent it melting the granite? Or, if it had been invested in the superstructure alone, would it have retained sufficient temperature to melt that giant cavity below? To vaporize it and create it? That granite didn’t just melt — it’s gone! Where?

      • Gage,Jones and Harritt do not discount the use of other explosive devices.They have produced the unchallenged scientific paper.Dimitri must do likewise.

        • The Super Nano Thermite evidence is complete disinfo and here is why :

          do you know how much SNT is needed to sustain underground heat of 1500 degrees for 15 weeks?

          invisible super top secret super thermate’ would have to have been 2.14 Million miles long and would to have weighed approximately 1.176 Billion pounds.

          All calculated here
          http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=181765&postcount=4

          Case closed.
          Dimitri you are Hero
          and so are all who support him

        • right
          Israel and the DOD invented thermites…and some other government wants them gone..
          good thinking mike
          thermites…year after year of paralysis…while dancing angels amuse us all
          g

        • Thanks Gordon.
          We are now starting to get to the bottom of it all :

          “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – Vladimir Lenin

          Have you ever wondered WHY Steven Jones comes out with evidence for unknown material aka Super Nano Thermite only in 2007 ?
          5 years it took to test dust ???

          Have you wondered why hasn’t he taken his evidence to a court of law?

          Retrospectively – Has the Super Nano Thermite Theory actually stalled the truth movement goals?

          It sounds very down to earth explanation and gathers many supporters -
          supporters who just want something “peer reviewed” to latch onto and get them to destination (real action) – am I right ?
          Isn’t the NIST report “peer reviewed” too btw? we love authority figures don’t we…

          Hasn’t it been easily debunked by so called debunkers because other than Jones’s Samples it just doesn’t fit with the evidence ? (application reasonable? pulverization of WTC , molten metal, 9/11 cancers etc)

          This is also why Scholars for 9/11 truth split up
          http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

          Founder Jim Fetzer has a whole page exposing Nano Termite Theory as nonsense and questioning Steven Jones Integrity as well
          http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=70

          Specifically read Fetzer and Jones letter exchange
          http://twilightpines.com/images/proofofthermatequestioned.pdf

          Fetzer interviewed Khalezov this year too
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1To8mVUR-WQ

          NOW we can put 2007 timeline in context and perspective :

          Surely enough in 2007 here comes Dimitri Khalezov approaching the FBI with his book – wanting to tell the truth (see Dimitri Khalezov WTC nuclear demolition video)
          He is an Eye witness and knows personally the main player
          read his testimony here regarding “who did 9/11″:
          http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

          And guess what…
          Right after that – Super Nano Thermite Jones Evidence pops up in America.
          This was US government way of preventing Khalezov truth to be heard and spread.
          Khalezov exposes this on the Kevin Barrett’s radio show
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZf8X7MTlBg

          Has Steven Jones played the roll of a Government shill before?
          He certainly has – and its well documented in the case of cold fusion
          Steven Jones job was to sabotage this new finding and application
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GBksJFmjI

        • Did you hear the interview?
          Comment on that.
          g

        • Ron — thanks for the Fetzer videos. I am confessing here that I was carried away with the trashing of Fetzer back in that day. I even created a folder in my 911 folder called “Fetzer’s Folly”. Dimitri’s evidence of planes not penetrating the perimeter columns, including the video (which I had never seen before) of the pristine nose of the plane coming out the far side unscathed, the testimony of not less than three journalists on the ground saying “the side of the building blew out” then being told by the guy at the studio that “no a plane hit it” to which all three said, “I di’n see no plane, just the building exploded” — pretty strong evidence — made me rethink my abandonment of Fetzer, but until now I have not considered abandoning Jones, Harrit, and yes, Griffin, who has always been on the nano-thermite team. Barrett would be loath as am I to desert the white-haired eminence, especially as he cannot presently defend himself.

          But here’s another bright red herring for you guys. In the Fetzer videos, the second one, Jim shows the Judy Wood photos of those cars that were burned up clear over on the other side of Manhattan! Does Dimitri have a plan for this story too? I’ve long thought this is a story impossible to dismiss, and never properly addressed by the Truth movement.

        • to ProudPrimate

          Have you watched the comparison between the so called amateur videos ?

          Completely contradicting each other
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-X90gXF4rQ

          Are you aware that MOST witnesses saw 19 different things none of which are a big commercial plane ?
          http://septemberclues.info/faq_4.htm

          And the guys who planted the fabricated plane on the live shot fu**ed up big time
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

          And the effort of the MSM to somehow bury this damning evidence
          is caught red handed
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzCW197AqpM

          Those were fake planes – period.

        • Ron —

          I was pretty much convinced by Dimitri’s arguments and clips — albeit years later than I should have. I took the easy way when Fetzer and Jones split, not wanting to bring reproach &c. &c. They no doubt planned that strategy, under the rubric of the Big Lie for which the people always make excuses.

          But one question — what do you think of Judy Wood’s Toasted Cars, linked to in the previous post? I’ve always thought those pics were hard to explain. In those days, I was a dissenter in my own camp.

        • Ron —

          that first clip is a scream! What an amazing pile of hogwash! Excellent evidence, if in fact these were all broadcast material.

          One question came to my mind, though: how strange that no one (with the possible exception of the one clip in that group that was claimed to have “removed” the video of the plane from broadcast footage and left the audio in) — that no one has come forth with a video of the second tower bursting into flame without an image of a plane.

          Any thoughts on that? It’s not like the FBI could go and collect all of those like they did in DC with the security cameras. A thousand people would have been filming that moment.

        • ProudPrimate

          Is a good question.
          and I can only speculate.

          In the plane comparison link – you do see a very good recording of the hit (perfect vantage point) but for some reason the moment of impact is cut out (audio is not cut) – makes you think

          You could also ask why there are ONLY 49 amateur shots of the plane hitting – shouldn’t there have been hundreds of them ?

          I asked Dimitri on a forum your questions about the burned cars
          read his (quite long) answer here :
          http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1029915/pg70#22657739

          Cheers

        • ronIsrael – You write that “Scholars for 9/11 truth split up” due to Jone’s Thermite research. This is false, Jones rejected Fetzer’s backing of Judy Wood’s space beams bunk. That’s what caused the split.

        • Well, Ron and all —

          It’s very embarrassing for me to find out all this stuff ten years later. I was a big Alex Jones listener for about 4 years, then bailed, stuck with Barrett who had a tag-team show with Fetzer (The Dynamic Duo) so I heard smattering of the “no-planes” theory, but I confess I fell victim to the fear that gripped the community of falling into a cul-de-sac of absurdity comparable to Scientology or space aliens.

          Hitler’s “Große Lüge” was followed to a T, and sure enough, it was too big for me to get my head around.

          My apologies for being so late, but many thanks to you and to the guy with the video software (I wish I’d had some — I might have discovered this stuff myself!) for what is obviously some very long hard labor.

          Game, set & match to the no-planes team.

        • ProudPrimate

          Here is Khalezov analysis regarding the burned cars photos on JW link

          http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1029915/pg70#22657739

        • ProudPrimate

          Do believe me – I was fooled too, for a long time.
          Is a very cunning strategy to make us even avoid watching the damning evidence – and make you feel cuckoo just by association

          I Very much like this clip
          It takes one to actually see how the manipulation is done to accept the fact of no planes

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk

        • Ron —
          concerning the “good question”, I found the answer in one of the clips you gave me links to: a standard pentagon technique. All cell phones and other electronic devices were rendered inoperable by EMPs (electromagnetic pulses, just like in The Matrix). In fact this is discussed at a site called CluesForum.info
          , devoted entirely to discussing September Clues. In one of the segments of that marvelous film, they discuss the need for a Faraday Cage that must have been used to shield the professional equipment, while amateur equipment was disabled. Here’s a site that talks about building home-made Faraday cages in anticipation of the EMP raids on our connectivity.

        • Ron —

          I looked at Dimitri’s discussion of the Judy Wood images. Certainly as good an explanation as any other. We know how they behave in such circumstances (the CIA & like orgs.) “Falsification is their whole happiness” to paraphrase the old song, “Try a little tenderness”.

          I’m just going to have to read that whole book, and skip all this other stuff till I get it read. I don’t have any plausible excuses anymore.

        • Michael
          I have these talks with Dimitri…especially with Bob Nichols onboard who has forgotten more about nuke technology than Dimitri and I will ever know. I push Dimitri to sticking to his “witness” areas but, the more we get into what he knows, the more comes out.
          The French are now tied in thru Harari…they provided cover and support for him thru 9/11. We now have reliable info on that. This is “criminal case” stuff…thus priority.
          As for Jones…I sources in defense say he is a government shill.
          I have NO reason to doubt that one bit.
          Nanothermite is a total dead end….and will never lead anywhere but to endless circles of time wasting.
          …perhaps as it is supposed to.
          dont check the clock..check the calendar
          it is 2011 and counting
          g

  41. between fake harari childrens in his passport there is a gap of 6 months between the first two children….

    • were there several wives??

      • Don’t think so… Al Husseini is a noble family living in Al Quds, Jerusalem… very famous family known for her links with companion of the prophet Muhammad saws… most of the male in Al Quds are maried only once as upper class near elite, for those living in Al Quds… Mistake from the israeli services… They claim they know Islaam while we arabs we can spot any sefarad just by the arabic and vocable they are using… which make us very dangerous for them !

  42. Gordon, this Kevin Barrett interview with you and Dimitrius is the best one yet. If only the world would listen to this entire interview. The content here is stunning!

    • The interview touches on this. If I remember having heard it only once earlier today (I’m in my second listen now I’m home from work) Dimitri said the radiation would last only a few days, apparently not like uranium or plutonium which generates a cascade of “daughters”, ie., heavy but not as heavy, all of which are unstable, these are thermonuclear, ie., hydrogen, so the only daughters are very small atoms, and (I’m guessing, I haven’t checked this yet) having a very short half-life.

      The short period would have been enough to explain radiation damage to the first responders on the pile, but soon fade.

      • I should have said “many of which are unstable” — lead of course is one which is not.

        It would be great to have the lovely “Edit” button like they have at Raw Story.

        Has anybody checked to see if this Comment Engine has that capability?

        (I vote for the button, if anybody’s asking.)

  43. Gordon,

    You should develop and produce some type of documentary, to obtain funding and increase the production quality of your work. It’s a good suggestion.

    Produce the documentary.

    • The World According to Gordon Duff

      August 24, 2010

      Peter B Collins talks with Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today, who offers a sweeping view of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks saga, and the events of 9/11. Duff, a Marine veteran of Viet Nam, claims intelligence sources worldwide, especially in Pakistan. He asserts that most events called “terrorism” are false flag events, that Israel’s Mossad is in control of much of the disinformation in circulation today, that bin Laden has been dead for years, that all top officials of the Federal Reserve are dual citizens with “Israeli passports in their dresser drawers next to the marijuana”, that North Korea’s submarines and the nuke they tested came from Israel, and that the WikiLeaks leaks were orchestrated in Tel Aviv. He also has a very different view of Pakistan’s ISI and the insurgents lumped together as the “Taliban”. Duff is an amiable man whose rambling narrative is loaded with information that can’t be proved or disproved by those of us without security clearances, yet his worldview is fascinating and very different from corporate media reports and “conventional wisdom”. Your humble host encourages you to listen with an open mind and adequate skepticism, and decide for yourself.

      http://eddieleaks.org/2010/08/25/the-world-according-to-gordon-duff/

      • This is the seminal document I reference when I introduce people to Gordon Duff. I was looking through the telescope on Mt. Edmonds-Collins when I discovered a supernova, which I have named Duff-82510. It was larger than any I am aware of.

    • Time for DOCUMENTARY…

      A documentary doesn’t have to validate any possible scenario, but provide alternative views on the subject matter. Various possibilities can be discussed with video reference, subject matter experts, and conclusions, enough information so audience is better informed. It’s not whether one or other is absolute, it’s providing audience with investigative reporting so their better informed. He does not have to take any position, but introduce possibilities, and this accomplished by approaching each scenario with information and materials to support the information.

      The conclusion, remains with the audience. Do not take position, but inform possibilities as like briefings in the intelligence community.

      Maybe called “911 Briefings”, with Gordon Duff. You need to do it…..

    • “This lawyer” — are you referring to yourself?

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. Senate Passes Veterans Health Care Bill
  2. Palestinians Claim UN Protection and Prepare Lawsuits
  3. EU campaigners call for lasting Gaza ceasefire
  4. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Palestinian People and Jewish State
  5. NEO – Organized Crime’s Next Project- Renewable Energy
  6. The 161 Bankers Who Run the World
  7. NCHV Announces Webinar on Connecting to Benefits
  8. Anti-Israel protesters storm Rep. Crowley’s office in Queens
  9. Germans Say MH17 Shot Down by Ukie Migs
  10. Oklahoma City Bombing April 19 1995 Part1
  11. Moroccan Embassy in Paris, France on Black List
  12. What Israel regards as “unimaginable restraint” in Palestine
  13. MH17 Shootdown Continues
  14. NEO – Georgia Murder Game-Changer
  15. Mr. President, What Are You Waiting For?
  16. Combat Vets Last Hope is often Man’s Best Friend
  17. House Passes Bipartisan VA Conference Agreement
  18. US is politically exploiting recent plane crash over Ukraine
  19. The Intended Roles of the Israel-Lobby and of Israel in the US-Empire are Incompatible with Peace
  20. VetLikeMe July 24, 2014
  1. captain obvious: good luck Stew, I hope they can ALL be prosecuted for what they have really done to this nation!
  2. johnph: Now, that the VA gave Billions of dollars to the VA how much will go to the Benefits side of the VA (VBA). The claims are coming back to them ...
  3. Emma Yacht: In the top photo, the guy carrying the chemical cannister looks like he's part shape shifter. I wonder who his parents are?
  4. LC: some analysis of your last pic & film above; no food trucks In either one!!!. They're coming in later or already taken away??? With entry road blocked in film the three ...
  5. Raptor: Who is the mouthpiece out of DC saying these ridiculous things about releasing a soldier who is supposedly being held captive. Oh and the other two were killed ( you ...

Veterans Today Poll

For over 60 years, US Taxpayers have been funding Israel, Palestine and Middle East. Are you happy with return on investment or would you prefer those monies be invested at home instead?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives