Thanks for your message and invitation. I may try to watch the video,
but I am intrigued to know if it addresses these basic points of
evidence, discussed here, in this e-mail exchange:
Also, do you have any connection or have you
communicated at all with Ed Ward MD.
In relation to the WTC destruction, 40+ points of explanation need to be
Finally, what legal or similar challenges
will you or your associates be making or initiating based on what you
911 - The Key Evidence - 1/2
[There is 1 mistake in one of the captions in this video - it is stated
that Erin was a Category 5 Hurricane - this is incorrect. It was a
category 3, but by some measures, Erin was as big as Hurricane Katrina.]
To answer your questions.
Yes, I read attentively your mail exchange
and yes, I could assure you that you will not feel sorry for spending
your precious time to watch the discussed movie.
Don't forget that those whom you call 'nukers'
are merely conspiracy theorists that are not much different from 'thermitters'
or 'nano-thermitters'. They simply guess without actually knowing
anything. Here you have totally different approach.
You deal with a former officer of the Soviet
nuclear intelligence who is,
firstly a specialist (at least to a
certain extent) in actual underground nuclear explosions, who could
easily explain to you all their properties
secondly - who is an eye-witness who can
confirm (even could confirm under oath in front of a court of law)
that in-built nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC and that of the
Sears Tower existed long before it was implemented on 9/11
thirdly - who could satisfactorily
explain mechanics of the Tower's collapses (including that of the
WTC-7 and Marriott Hotel and even that of the Fiterman Hall), and
who could satisfactorily explain mechanics of WTC steel beams
pulverization (so far no mortal in This World could do so
satisfactorily, in my humble opinion)
See the difference?
Regarding the next part of your suggestion - about following guidelines
described in 'AA2.'
Some of the principal data that must be explained:'. I agree with some
points of that 'must' and I do explain it in the proposed movie in the
most satisfactorily manner.
However, being a specialist (really a
specialist) I can't agree with all points that are listed in the above
'must' list, so, instead of confirming them, I preferred to disprove
them - by not leaving a stone standing of some of those points. But in
no case they are ignored. They are either confirmed, or disproved. I am
a 'black-and-white' kind of man, I don't like to leave any 'grey' areas
Regarding the last part of your question, what legal challenges could
I bring?, it is difficult to answer. Being a non-American (I am a
Russian) I do not have any legal right to demand any justice on behalf
of others, perhaps only on behalf of myself.
And when it come to me personally, yes, I am
planning to sue the US Government one day for their attempt to link me
to the 9/11 perpetrators and to the 2002 Bali bombers (since they
accused me personally in 2003 of supplying fake passports to
non-existent 9/11 hijackers and to several top figures of Al Qaeda and
Jamaya Islamiya terrorist organizations, which were absolutely
groundless accusations, though registered in some courts of law and
However, since I knew from my former service
(the Soviet nuclear intelligence) of the existence of the in-built
nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC (which existed from the
beginning of the 70s, being designed by the 'Controlled
Demolition Inc.'), I could testify that before the court of
law, if anyone asks me to do so.
Besides I could testify to some other
sensitive details of the 9/11 perpetration, because I personally knew
some of its top planners from the Mossad (I mean personally, not by
hearing some rumors about them). I could provide also some legal
documents regarding some top Mossad figures' participation in the 9/11
and regarding how some US officials and French secret services managed
to cover them up.
In case it helps, I could do it.
Finally - just
watch the movie. It is all there. I
realize that you are a busy person, but this movie worth seeing, by no
means you will feel sorry for spending your time watching it. But there
is one warning - you have to watch it very attentively and all the 26
Thank you for your kind attention.
(mark as spam)
Mar 28, 2010
Thanks for your detailed response. I will try to get through some of
I wonder at what point you will explain the upturned cars, presence of
hurricane Erin and how cold, silent
nukes - giving of no light turned WTC steel to dust.
I wonder where you explain the earth's magnetic field anticipating the
first "plane crash" by about 20 minutes.
I wonder where you explain how the holes were made...
I guess I'll have to watch and note the time codes where you explain
To deny or ignore evidence is to deny truth:
"Any conclusion about anything can be
reached - but the value of such a conclusion is inversely
proportional to the amount of evidence ignored."
I hope your conclusion is "high in value"!!
UFO" - 11 April 2008 - Part 1
From Jaime Maussan's 2009 Presentation - this is an incredible
close range film, with an interview with the person who filmed it.
Part 2 gives the analysis.
Mar 29, 2010
Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
Looking forward for your comments.
As I noticed from you movies, you are close
to Judy Wood? Actually, I have sent her an invitation to watch my
movies too, but she did not reply. Hope it you find it interesting and
worth attention you can invite her? Regarding cars, I did not talk about
them in the interview, but I explained it in my book.
The problem is that the 3 WTC buildings was
demolished by 150
kiloton (3ps) underground nuclear
explosions with hypocenters located 77 meters below the ground surface.
In this situation no thermal radiation would be available to half-burn
cars in typically 'atomic' manner (typical for atmospheric nuclear
However, some cars in the immediate vicinity
to the demolition site came into zone of high temperatures and were
somehow either burned or even melted.
But this by no means would be a kind of
'half-burns' - typical to atmospheric nuclear explosions. Hope you
understand what I mean.
So, after they demolished the WTC with their
own 150 kiloton nukes, the U.S. officials did not know how to explain it
to public - so they attempted to blame it to alleged 3 mini-nukes Soviet
made - that Osama allegedly bought from some bad guys from Ukraine and
planted in the Towers' basements.
So, in order to support further this
version, the FBI operatives were quickly dispatched around the WTC with
torch-lamps and hammers to smash and 'half-burn' some cars in typically
I guess some of them also overturned some
cars to imitate effects of alleged 'air-blast wave'. This is planted
evidence - not different that 'landing gear' of 'planes' or a
'passport' of alleged hijackers. Simply don't pay attention to it.
If you need more details on this particular,
let me know, and I will send you more detailed explanation. But hope
you see the movie first.
Ha. Just tonight one of my visitors sent me link to some extremely
interesting photo - it makes sense if combined with my movie. Here is
(mark as spam)
Mar 29, 2010
Re:Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
Interesting - cars are planted evidence? What an achievement! 1400 cars
Also, the people levitated by nuclear explosion effects without being
burned! Amazing stuff!
These nukes you speak of must've been amazing tech - wonder how they
were planted 77 meters down - maybe they tunneled out through the subway
system to plant them? Who planted them? And documentation or
non-anonymous whistleblower testimony??
Amazing that no seismic signatures were recorded from these explosions!
I'll have to look at your explanation for these things!
Yes, I am associated with Dr Judy Wood - she is very busy with
her own projects etc. so you are unlikely to get a response on these
matters - because most if not all the points you raise have already been
explained and pretty much pinned down - and there is also a tie in
"field effects" with Hurricane Erin too - which nukes bear no relation
to - however deep they were planted...
But if I pick up anything interesting from your presentation, I'll let
Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
You know, the problem is that I am in Thailand, not in America and,
unlike you, I don't have much access to information (could you imagine
that not too many piece of info are accessible from Bangkok, except only
the Internet - they don't even have any archive of American newspapers
in National Library here...)
So, I couldn't afford much.
However, 3 basic points that I based my
explanation upon are:
I was indeed an officer of the
Soviet nuclear intelligence and I indeed know from my former
service about existence of emergency nuclear demolition scheme
of the WTC. This is a matter of fact.
Due to my understanding of typical
properties of underground nuclear explosions, I think I could
explain phenomena of steel pulverization from purely mechanical
point of view.
I knew from reliable source (from
one of the 9/11 planners personally) what was the name of the
missile that struck the Pentagon and how they managed to obtain
The rest is simply a product of my
observations/contemplations/conclusions and nothing more than that - so
I could easily be mistaken in the rest, but not in any of the 3 points
What about the bathtub - it also surprises me that it was not damaged,
but I guess it was because of well-calculated positioning of the nukes,
though, to be honest, in my humble opinion, position of a nuke under the
North Tower/Marriott Hotel was dangerously close to the nearest slurry
wall - I do admit it and it remains a puzzle to me which I could only
explain by a very careful calculation of the positioning of the nuke.
In any case, I don't think the nuke's
explosion would produce huge zones of horizontal destruction, due to
major parts of its 'crushing' ability was directed upwards, as you can
see from my explanations - due to the fact that everything always goes
by the way of least resistance and the way of least resistance in this
case was the way upwards.
This, perhaps, is the very 'directed energy
weapons' you and Judy Wood suspected in your research. That is
what I think about it.
But in any case, don't forget that I am a
simply human with quite limited abilities and I can't do absolutely ALL
- I did my best in explaining at lease what I could explain. For
example, I believe I successfully explained true causes of the
Fiterman Hall damages (you will see it later in series 16).
I think I successfully explained strange
the USG which made decision to knock
down the WTC for otherwise unexplainable reason - based on the info
kindly given to my by the FBI agent.
About naming the guy with whom I had that
informal discussion - sorry, I can't name him, it would be against my
Could you imagine what his superiors would
do with him? But I am thankful to him for giving me an idea that the USG
believed there were 2 nuclear warheads on top of the Tower that were
about to explode and the nuke in the Pentagon was just a tool to
convince them to this effect. If not that FBI person I would not get
this idea even if I consumed all hashish and all LSD available in
However, as you see, this idea, despite
being bizarre, explains otherwise unexplainable behavior of the USG....
That is what I could say in reply to your letter.
(mark as spam)
Mar 31, 2010
20th May 2010 - Dimitri wrote a longish letter to
here for PDF file)
From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto:
firstname.lastname@example.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam
Sent: 20 May 2010 14:32
To: email@example.com This e-mail address is being protected from
Subject: from Dimitri see attached
I sent you some letter in a form of attached Word file.
Dimitri mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org
This e-mail address is being protected from
This is ‘The Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov’ who would like to disturb you
once more regarding a web page on
recently published by you (or by someone who pretends to be you).
I would like to thank you for being so polite towards my mysterious
humble person and for your abstaining from outright insults (which are
not uncommon in a society of the US Government-appointed shills and
full-time Internet forum-trolls earmarked to fight all dangerous
conspiracy theories on various forums). I found you article indeed
unusually polite which betrays in you an intellectual person.
Nonetheless, despite of your article being written in a seemingly polite
manner and despite of the fact that it does not contain any outright
insults, it is still insulting due to some reasons which are described
The point is that there are three distinctly different groups of people
who could claim things in regard to the 9/11 (as well as in regard to
other similar high-profile events):
eye-witnesses who are not experts
(or who are not necessarily experts)
experts who are not necessarily
conspiracy theorists who are not
necessarily experts and who are definitely not eye-witnesses.
Judging from the point of elementary logic
(I guess you are a logical person, after all), you can argue against
claims of the third group by implying that they are wrong in their
presumptions (which could still be polite - depending on how you would
construct and word your actual criticism).
You could also argue against claims of the
second group by challenging their technical/scientific conclusions and
still you could do that without actually insulting them personally
(because to argue in such a manner is the way of life in scientific
circles and no scientist could feel offended for being criticized on
account of his claims). I hope you understand what I mean.
However, when it comes to arguing against the first group, it is not so
easy to argue with them without actually insulting them (as you try to
do in your article). Unlikely you could challenge a testimony of an
eye-witness without insulting such an eye-witness personally.
Because, unlike an expert or a conspiracy
theorist (or a scientific theorist) an eye-witness technically can
not be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in his testimony.
There are only 2 states of affairs when it
comes to an eye-witness:
In the first case he honestly performs his
duty. In the second case he commits nothing less than a crime which is
punishable by imprisonment.
By challenging my testimony (not my
technical explanation of the WTC pulverization or burned cars or
undamaged bathtub wall I mean but my claims that I knew back in the 80s
about the WTC emergency nuclear demolition scheme) you call me nothing
less than a criminal. Let’s call a spade a spade.
All your sweet words you used in the article
and your seeming ‘politeness’ towards my mysterious person can not hide
the main point behind your challenge:
you claim that I am a false eye-witness,
i.e. you blatantly accuse me of being a criminal.
Then it is very unfair to use such a
‘polite’ manner of describing alleged ‘merits’ of my video presentation
and alleged ‘polite’ nature of my humble mysterious person as you did.
Because a false witness is a criminal first
of all and, in fact, it is quite a disgusting kind of a criminal. It
does not matter in this light if he is personally ‘polite’ or not and it
does not matter in this case if his presentation is plausible to any
extent or not. It is just part of the crime and nothing less than that.
So, I suggest you re-write your article and
to change the priorities. You have to go to the main point: call me an
impostor, not a ‘new conspiracy theorist’. Challenge not the point that
I can’t satisfactorily explain why the bathtub wall was not collapsed
(which I have no obligation to explain in any case).
You have to challenged, instead, my claims
that I used to serve as a commissioned officer in the Soviet nuclear
intelligence and I learned still back in the 80s about existence of the
WTC emergency demolition scheme.
You have to say plainly:
“This mysterious person claims
that he allegedly knew in the 80s about the alleged WTC emergency
nuclear demolition scheme while allegedly being a commission officer
in the alleged Soviet nuclear intelligence. But I don’t believe this
impostor. I state he is a liar.”
This will be an honest conduct from you.
You see, Andrew, I acted in this case in a minimum of 4 capacities in
the same time:
I was indeed a former officer in the
Soviet nuclear intelligence for 5 years. I knew back in the 80s
about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. I could go
to any court of law, lay my palm on the Holy Bible and testify
that before the judge, adding, if necessary, that “may The Most
High punish me right on the spot if I lie”.
I indeed personally knew chief 9/11
organizer. To the extent that I even drank wine with him in the
early breakfast of September 12, 2001 while discussing some
sensitive details of the 9/11. (Which is also well known fact to
the American FBI, by the way, therefore they even attempted to
obtained extraditions of both of us to America in 2003).
I could also testify about this
before any court of law revealing A LOT of details (for example
details of stealing of nuclear-tipped missiles from “Kursk”
The abovementioned are two of my capacities as an eye-witness.
You can’t challenge them by mildly calling me ‘wrong’ or
‘incompetent’ because it is not the way to deal with
eye-witnesses. An eye-witness can not be ‘wrong’ or
‘incompetent’. He could only be an honest eye-witness, or a
liar, a criminal.
Moreover, to be honest with you, you
can not even challenge me from merely technical point of view to
the two abovementioned points because I have a lot of
documentary proof to confirm either point. So, even if you want
to call me liar, you still have no chance. If this case comes to
the court I will prove what I claim.
Then, I attempted to add here two additional capacities as an
Because unlike many others I knew
very well physical properties of underground nuclear explosions,
I presumed that I could provide more than satisfactory
explanation why the WTC buildings were ‘dustified’ before their
collapses. Which I did. In this case I assumed an additional
role of a technical expert (again ADDITIONAL role, not a primary
role of a technical expert).
You might not like my explanation,
but I do not care, to be honest. Firstly, because I have no
obligation to explain it neither to you, nor to others. It was
just my gesture of good will. If you don’t like it - then don’t
take it. It was optional in any case. Primary was not this
explanation, but my statement that I knew about the WTC nuclear
demolition scheme back in the 80s.
So, if you don’t like my technical
explanation on nuclear demolition effects - don’t hesitate to
challenge it and to offer your own explanation on nuclear
demolition effects. I am very easy person and I might agree with
you if I find your explanation on nuclear demolition effects
more plausible than my own.
Because I spent a lot of time
studying various details of the 9/11 (not less than 5 years I
think) I could also feel like I possess not only some expert
knowledge of physical properties of underground nuclear
explosions, but also some expert knowledge in the 9/11 details
(such as some important facts in the 9/11 timeline, the media
coverage, slips of tongues of various officials, various
discrepancies in official documents, and various other
Therefore I assumed an additional
role of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (again ADDITIONAL role).
Because sometimes ago I learned from the FBI that the real
reason to demolish the WTC was (you know what, I will not repeat
it), I also attempted to construct a harmonious whole theory
which I called in scientific manner ‘9/11thology’ that attempted
to explain the 9/11 in its entirety, not each aspect of the 9/11
in isolation from the rest of its important aspects.
Which I guess was successful
In any case you can challenge me in a common
way (as you would challenge any other conspiracy theorist) only those
aspects of my presentation which are covered in the above clause 4)
(i.e. my capacity as a ‘conspiracy theorist’).
To a certain extent (within frames of undeniable fact of the ‘WTC
nuclear demolition’ only) you may try to challenge also my technical
explanations in regard to the WTC ‘dustification’ - i.e. you can
challenge me in my capacity of an ‘expert’ as covered in the above
clause 3). Which means that you could offer your own explanations of the
nuclear demolition technical details, instead, but without denying the
actual fact that the WTC nuclear demolition has indeed taken place.
In both of these cases you could still exercise you trade-mark
politeness and ‘objectivity’. Moreover, you are even welcome to
challenge these, because you might offer some better points than mine
and it will bring us all closer to the truth.
However, you have absolutely no chance to encroach upon my mysterious
humble person in my capacity of an eye-witness - as covered by above
clauses 1) and 2) without actually insulting me by implying that I am an
impostor, a false-witness and therefore a criminal.
Hope you have gotten my point now and will re-write your abovementioned
Copy of this my letter to you will be sent to some of my followers and
friends and also to some followers of Judy Wood - just to inform you in
Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov.
I would like also to remind you that despite of all your seeming
‘objectivity’ you always try your best to avoid discussing one of the
main points and ‘smoking guns’ of the WTC demolition - the pre-9/11
definition of the ‘ground zero’ term in old English dictionaries, along
with the desperate attempt of the US Government to re-define this term
and/or to ‘broaden’ its definition in all post-9/11 English
I think it would be truly objective
of yours, if you stop avoiding it and pay some serious attention to this
beginning of a ‘raw’ version of my book
that also deals with the ‘ground zero’ term’s manipulations by the US
authorities is enclosed below for you reference (it starts from the next
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto: email@example.comThis e-mail
to view it ]
Sent: 20 May 2010 17:56
To: 'Dimitri A. Khalezov'
Subject: RE: from Dimitri see attached
Hi there Dimitri,
Thank you for your letter. I am sorry you were insulted by my pointing
out where you could not explain the evidence - but hey, that's what my
website does in various places - about various topics.
I skimmed through your letter to the end. I found your focus on the term
"ground zero" very interesting, so I will attempt to address that here.
(I will post your letter under my article - as I often do - along with
The use of the term "ground zero" is not really 9/11 related evidence in
of itself. It is merely a "label" which was attached to the zone where
the destruction took place.
Indeed, I believe the term may even have come from the "air burst" nuke
where, as I understand, in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, some parts of
buildings actually *remained standing* because the explosive force was
*downwards* on top of them rather than lateral. So I have indeed thought
Giving something a particular name such as "ground zero" or "the 911
truth movement" can be a useful ploy in creating misconceptions and
starting people thinking in a certain way. Find out, for example who
coined the term "cold
Also, I spoken on 2 or 3 podcasts etc. about the NUCLEAR EFFECTS - as
the Hutchison Effect seems to affect
things at both a molecular and a nuclear level, so there is indeed
evidence in this area to be explained.
The fact remains, the use of nuclear explosives does NOT explain the
available evidence - and the use of field effect based (some call it
"scalar weaponry") explains ALL of the evidence that I am aware of.
However, as I have no official standing and what we discuss is "way off
the radar screen" for most people (whereas nukes are not), it doesn't
take a genius to work out which story most people will believe.
A 1983 photograph from Beirut
showing a mushroom cloud has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 at
the WTC - indeed, a mushroom cloud was not even seen in NYC anyway...
From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.orgThis e-mail
to view it]
Sent: 20 May 2010 20:47
To: Andrew Johnson
Subject: Re: from Dimitri 2
I am not personally offended - considering that I am a hardened criminal
with at least 4 times behind bars it will not change anything if one
more person would call me a 'criminal'. It is more a matter of
principle, not of being personally offended. As you can see I am quite a
funny person and I take things very easy.
However, myself is myself, but the truth is
the truth. When someone tries to encroach upon the truth in disguise of
encroaching upon my person, I have no chance than to put up some
appropriate defense. The truth must be defended in any case.
I agree with you that I can't 100% satisfactorily explain any and every
small technical detail of the 9/11 perpetration, but look - I am just a
private person with limited physical abilities, moreover, I was in
Bangkok, not in New York all this time. What do you expect from me?
Am I a Lord God to know everything? All I know is that the WTC
nuclear demolition scheme indeed existed and I stuck to this testimony
- I could confirm it in any legal proceedings if necessary. But it does
not mean that I have an obligation to provide technical explanation to
its effects whether real, alleged or planted. It would be just simply
too much to demand it from my humble person.
Regarding 'ground zero' term. I am of very different opinion. This term
has no other meaning before the 9/11 than 'a place of a nuclear or a
thermo-nuclear explosion'. It has never been a kind of 'label' to label
anything before the 9/11.
It was only a 'label' to label some
particular places: places of nuclear explosions. Whether you like it or
And if the WTC demolition place was
accidentally called 'ground zero' without any sinister allusion,
then how would you explain the US Government's attempts to
re-define this term in all post 9/11 dictionaries with a view to
'broaden' its meaning at least a little bit?
When you see a person who secretly tries to
hide traces of crime it does not mean, of course, that this is the very
person who committed the crime, it could be just a relative or an
accomplice of the actual culprit, but the mere fact that he is hiding
evidence of a crime at least points to the fact that the crime too
place. Isn't it?
Regarding the mushroom cloud from the 1983 Beirut Barracks
bombing (below image from page 4 of "Some
Khalezov-Johnson Correspondence About 9/11 Nuclear Demolition of The WTC
Theory"), I have never
said that it and the WTC demolition in 2001 have anything in common
(except only the 'ground zero' name).
Therefore it is unnecessary to point it out
to me that in the 9/11 case there were no mushroom cloud. I know it very
Because the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing was
an atmospheric nuclear explosion with all typical properties of an
atmospheric nuclear explosion (the mushroom cloud inclusive). While the
WTC demolition was a DEEP underground nuclear explosion which should not
have any mushroom cloud by definition.
So, I don't see any contradiction at all.