by Andrew Johnson
May 19, 2010


from CheckTheEvidence Website


Recently, much exposure has been given to Dimitri Khalezov and his detailed presentation about the supposed “nuclear demolition” of the WTC buildings on 9/11.


A number of websites seem to be linked to this:

Dmitri also has a YouTube channel: This was how Dmitri contacted me - through YouTube - inviting me to watch his video series.


(Why did he contact me specifically? Though I have an interest in the destruction of the WTC, I am not connected to the military, nor do I have any official standing. Myself I rarely spend much time searching for other YouTube users who have similar interests or videos on their channel - I simply don’t have the time!)

Dmitri has also contacted a couple of other people I know who are studying 9/11 and he also been posting on the GLP forum. He seems to keep himself quite busy and has achieved significant exposure for his flawed conclusions which cannot explain the evidence.

In the videos (apparently now made private on his channel), Dimitri comes across very well and seems very sincere and polite.


Sadly, he cannot explain the available evidence concerning what actually happened at the WTC on 9/11. I have written about this quite some time ago, though Dimitri claims (see below) that the nuclear device was positioned 77 meters below ground and spends quite some time explaining why the normal nuclear effects, which I and others have pointed out, were not seen or not obvious.


One problem is that, Dimitri does not explain how or when the nuke was planted and he cannot explain why the WTC bathtub was undamaged (except with very precise positioning of the nuke (how, exactly?)

Once again, people I know seem to have “fallen” for this new posting as if it is some kind of super-duper new explanation – when in reality it is not. Please see below for:

  1. My notes on his YouTube video sequence (which now seems to have been deleted)

  2. My correspondence, via YouTube messaging, which took place in 2010.

Please note where he says he cannot explain the evidence.




Rough Notes on YouTube presentation

I haven’t had the time to type all this up and I only got to Part 11 out of 26. However, here are my rough notes…

He states he has some kind of link with Al Qaida terrorists – so presumably he is in hiding?


Part 3


Edna Cintron

Doesn’t explain what caused the fire and why Edna citron was there and not burned



Granite Missile for pentagon 7 ton missile 2.5 mach – thermonuclear warhead! The US didn’t detect a nuclear missile??

Part 4


Demolition feature – built in nukes??? (1984) AN IDEA or an implementation


3:30 ish

Controlled Demolition Inc thought up the idea in the 60’s?


4:30 ish

“In the 60’s nuclear bombs weren’t as bad” – umm Cuban Missile Crisis??



Plan accepted – built in feature “from the beginning”



Nuclear demolition treaty not secret early on

Part 6


According to someone at the FBI, the reason was: someone claimed there were 3 nuclear warheads sent to America that morning. One of them hit the pentagon and it was found to be nuclear – that means it was - it was really hard proof and a very convincing thing. They claimed that the other two were inside planes which hit the world trade centre. So they say that the American officials were in fear that these 2 things up on top of the tower will produce the real nuclear explosions. So they decided to collapse the tower just to minimise the damage(s) because at ground level the damage will be very (much) less than at 3 or 400 metres above the ground.



Interviewer: If they exploded at level or floors 78 and 99…



Oh it will destroy the entire New York probably because it’s a half megaton…



News broadcast used to suggest secondary device on the plane – yet previously he  discussed video fakery saying the plane crash was impossible. This is confusing.

Part 7


Wikipedia discussion and deleted article.

90% x-rays -


Part 8


Assumes solid rock. 100m radius, 150 KT nuke

What about the hole or plug from where the device was put in?

When was it put in?

Zones of damage – greater than 100m wide presumably.

Part 9


Pulverised dust is underground – pressure of gases – but no gas – you mean vaporised rock?

No thermal radiation because underground – so no heat…

Stays hot for 1 year…. No evidence of this was brought forward



77m below ground. Tower starts to melt into the explosion (but then the cavity is exposed to the air!! Out comes the heat! This did not happen!

Bathub would’ve been breached (it wasn’t) and flooded the whole area – steam explosions, boiling water etc

Part 10


You claim the tower fell into the hot zone and melted, yet the video clip shown shows the top of the WTC tipping over slightly and turning to dust! What you described in your diagram IS NOT WHAT IS SEEN!

Dmitri cannot explain Hurricane Erin's presence, nor the silent disappearance of the WTC. Look at his diagram of a "nuclear furnace" created beneath the WTC which it "melted down into"!


This is pure nonsense! We saw the steel turning to dust!!


Anyway, here is some of the exchange I had with him.



Correspondence with Dmitri Khalezov/911Thology


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 addressed:


Finally, what legal or similar challenges will you or your associates be making or initiating based on what you know?


911 - The Key Evidence - 1/2
[There is 1 mistake in one of the captions in this video - it is stated that Erin was a Category 5 Hurricane - this is incorrect. It was a category 3, but by some measures, Erin was as big as Hurricane Katrina.]



Re: Re:invitation
Re: Re:invitation

Dear Andrew.
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 unaddressed.

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 easily verifiable).


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 parts.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerely yours,

(block user)
(mark as spam)
Reply Delete
Mar 28, 2010

Re:Re: Re:invitation

Thanks for your detailed response. I will try to get through some of your video.

I wonder at what point you will explain the upturned cars, presence of hurricane Erin and how cold, silent nukes - giving of no light turned WTC steel to dust.

I wonder where you explain the earth's magnetic field anticipating the first "plane crash" by about 20 minutes.

I wonder where you explain how the holes were made...

I guess I'll have to watch and note the time codes where you explain this evidence.

To deny or ignore evidence is to deny truth:

"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"!!

Andrew Johnson

"Magnetic 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

Thanks, Andrew.
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 explosions).


However, some cars in the immediate vicinity to the demolition site came into zone of high temperatures and were somehow either burned or even melted.


But this by no means would be a kind of 'half-burns' - typical to atmospheric nuclear explosions. Hope you understand what I mean.


So, after they demolished the WTC with their own 150 kiloton nukes, the U.S. officials did not know how to explain it to public - so they attempted to blame it to alleged 3 mini-nukes Soviet made - that Osama allegedly bought from some bad guys from Ukraine and planted in the Towers' basements.


So, in order to support further this version, the FBI operatives were quickly dispatched around the WTC with torch-lamps and hammers to smash and 'half-burn' some cars in typically 'atomic' manner.


I guess some of them also overturned some cars to imitate effects of 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 the link: (below image)

Have fun.

Sincerely yours,

(block user)
(mark as spam)
Reply Delete
Mar 29, 2010

Re:Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation

HI there,
Interesting - cars are planted evidence? What an achievement! 1400 cars planted!

Also, the people levitated by nuclear explosion effects without being burned! Amazing stuff!

These nukes you speak of must've been amazing tech - wonder how they were planted 77 meters down - maybe they 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 you know!


Mar 30

Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation
Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: Re:invitation

Hi, Andrew.
You know, the problem is that I am in Thailand, not in America and, unlike you, I don't have much access to information (could you imagine that not too many piece of info are accessible from Bangkok, except only the Internet - they don't even have any archive of American newspapers in National Library here...)


So, I couldn't afford much.


However, 3 basic points that I based my explanation upon are:

  1. I was indeed an officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence and I indeed know from my former service about existence of emergency nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC. This is a matter of fact.

  2. Due to my understanding of typical properties of underground nuclear explosions, I think I could explain phenomena of steel pulverization from purely mechanical point of view.

  3. 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 missile.

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 mentioned above.

What about the bathtub - it also surprises me that it was not damaged, but I guess it was because of well-calculated positioning of the nukes, though, to be honest, in my humble opinion, position of a nuke under the North Tower/Marriott Hotel was dangerously close to the 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 behavior of the USG which made decision to knock down the WTC for otherwise unexplainable reason - based on the info kindly given to my by the FBI agent.


About naming the guy with whom I had that informal discussion - sorry, I can't name him, it would be against my rules.


Could you imagine what his superiors would do with him? But I am thankful to him for giving me an idea that the USG believed there were 2 nuclear warheads on top of the Tower that were about to explode and the nuke in the Pentagon was just a tool to convince them to this effect. If not that FBI person I would not get this idea even if I consumed all hashish and all LSD available in Thailand.


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.

Sincerely yours,

(block user)
(mark as spam)
Reply Delete
Mar 31, 2010




20th May 2010 - Dimitri wrote a longish letter to me

(click here for PDF file)

-----Original Message-----

From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it]
Sent: 20 May 2010 14:32
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject: from Dimitri see attached

Dear Andrew.
I sent you some letter in a form of attached Word file.

Please, receive.

Dimitri Khalezov.

Best regards,
Dimitri mailto:

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dear Andrew.
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 below.

The point is that there are three distinctly different groups of people who could claim things in regard to the 9/11 (as well as in regard to other similar high-profile events):

  1. eye-witnesses who are not experts (or who are not necessarily experts)

  2. experts who are not necessarily eye-witnesses

  3. conspiracy theorists who are not necessarily experts and who are definitely not eye-witnesses.

Judging from the point of elementary logic (I guess you are a logical person, after all), you can argue against claims of the third group by implying that they are wrong in their presumptions (which could still be polite - depending on how you would construct and word your actual criticism).


You could also argue against claims of the second group by challenging their technical/scientific conclusions and still you could do that without actually insulting them personally (because to argue in such a manner is the way of life in scientific circles and no scientist could feel offended for being criticized on account of his claims). I hope you understand what I mean.

However, when it comes to arguing against the first group, it is not so easy to argue with them without actually insulting them (as you try to do in your article). Unlikely you could challenge a testimony of an eye-witness without insulting such an eye-witness personally.


Because, unlike an expert or a conspiracy theorist (or a scientific theorist) an eye-witness technically can not be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in his testimony.


There are only 2 states of affairs when it comes to an eye-witness:

  • he could only be a genuine witness who says the very truth

  • or a fake witness who intentionally lies to the court

In the first case he honestly performs his duty. In the second case he commits nothing less than a crime which is punishable by imprisonment.


By challenging my testimony (not my technical explanation of the WTC pulverization or burned cars or undamaged bathtub wall I mean but my claims that I knew back in the 80s about the WTC emergency nuclear demolition scheme) you call me nothing less than a criminal. Let’s call a spade a spade.


All your sweet words you used in the article and your seeming ‘politeness’ towards my mysterious person can not hide the main point behind your challenge:

you claim that I am a false eye-witness, i.e. you blatantly accuse me of being a criminal.

Then it is very unfair to use such a ‘polite’ manner of describing alleged ‘merits’ of my video presentation and alleged ‘polite’ nature of my humble mysterious person as you did.


Because a false witness is a criminal first of all and, in fact, it is quite a disgusting kind of a criminal. It does not matter in this light if he is personally ‘polite’ or not and it does not matter in this case if his presentation is plausible to any extent or not. It is just part of the crime and nothing less than that.


So, I suggest you re-write your article and to change the priorities. You have to go to the main point: call me an impostor, not a ‘new conspiracy theorist’. Challenge not the point that I can’t satisfactorily explain why the bathtub wall was not collapsed (which I have no obligation to explain in any case).


You have to challenged, instead, my claims that I used to serve as a commissioned officer in the Soviet nuclear intelligence and I learned still back in the 80s about existence of the WTC emergency demolition scheme.

You have to say plainly:

“This mysterious person claims that he allegedly knew in the 80s about the alleged WTC emergency nuclear demolition scheme while allegedly being a commission officer in the alleged Soviet nuclear intelligence. But I don’t believe this impostor. I state he is a liar.”

This will be an honest conduct from you.

You see, Andrew, I acted in this case in a minimum of 4 capacities in the same time:

  1. I was indeed a former officer in the Soviet nuclear intelligence for 5 years. I knew back in the 80s about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme. I could go to any court of law, lay my palm on the Holy Bible and testify that before the judge, adding, if necessary, that “may The Most High punish me right on the spot if I lie”.

  2. I indeed personally knew chief 9/11 organizer. To the extent that I even drank wine with him in the early breakfast of September 12, 2001 while discussing some sensitive details of the 9/11. (Which is also well known fact to the American FBI, by the way, therefore they even attempted to obtained extraditions of both of us to America in 2003).


    I could also testify about this before any court of law revealing A LOT of details (for example details of stealing of nuclear-tipped missiles from “Kursk” submarine, etc.).

    The abovementioned are two of my capacities as an eye-witness. You can’t challenge them by mildly calling me ‘wrong’ or ‘incompetent’ because it is not the way to deal with eye-witnesses. An eye-witness can not be ‘wrong’ or ‘incompetent’. He could only be an honest eye-witness, or a liar, a criminal.


    Moreover, to be honest with you, you can not even challenge me from merely technical point of view to the two abovementioned points because I have a lot of documentary proof to confirm either point. So, even if you want to call me liar, you still have no chance. If this case comes to the court I will prove what I claim.

    Then, I attempted to add here two additional capacities as an expert/conspiracy theorist:

  3. Because unlike many others I knew very well physical properties of underground nuclear explosions, I presumed that I could provide more than satisfactory explanation why the WTC buildings were ‘dustified’ before their collapses. Which I did. In this case I assumed an additional role of a technical expert (again ADDITIONAL role, not a primary role of a technical expert).


    You might not like my explanation, but I do not care, to be honest. Firstly, because I have no obligation to explain it neither to you, nor to others. It was just my gesture of good will. If you don’t like it - then don’t take it. It was optional in any case. Primary was not this explanation, but my statement that I knew about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme back in the 80s.


    So, if you don’t like my technical explanation on nuclear demolition effects - don’t hesitate to challenge it and to offer your own explanation on nuclear demolition effects. I am very easy person and I might agree with you if I find your explanation on nuclear demolition effects more plausible than my own.

  4. Because I spent a lot of time studying various details of the 9/11 (not less than 5 years I think) I could also feel like I possess not only some expert knowledge of physical properties of underground nuclear explosions, but also some expert knowledge in the 9/11 details (such as some important facts in the 9/11 timeline, the media coverage, slips of tongues of various officials, various discrepancies in official documents, and various other irregularities).


    Therefore I assumed an additional role of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (again ADDITIONAL role). Because sometimes ago I learned from the FBI that the real reason to demolish the WTC was (you know what, I will not repeat it), I also attempted to construct a harmonious whole theory which I called in scientific manner ‘9/11thology’ that attempted to explain the 9/11 in its entirety, not each aspect of the 9/11 in isolation from the rest of its important aspects.


    Which I guess was successful explanation.

In any case you can challenge me in a common way (as you would challenge any other conspiracy theorist) only those aspects of my presentation which are covered in the above clause 4) (i.e. my capacity as a ‘conspiracy theorist’).

To a certain extent (within frames of undeniable fact of the ‘WTC nuclear demolition’ only) you may try to challenge also my technical explanations in regard to the WTC ‘dustification’ - i.e. you can challenge me in my capacity of an ‘expert’ as covered in the above clause 3). Which means that you could offer your own explanations of the nuclear demolition technical details, instead, but without denying the actual fact that the WTC nuclear demolition has indeed taken place.

In both of these cases you could still exercise you trade-mark politeness and ‘objectivity’. Moreover, you are even welcome to challenge these, because you might offer some better points than mine and it will bring us all closer to the truth.

However, you have absolutely no chance to encroach upon my mysterious humble person in my capacity of an eye-witness - as covered by above clauses 1) and 2) without actually insulting me by implying that I am an impostor, a false-witness and therefore a criminal.

Hope you have gotten my point now and will re-write your abovementioned article accordingly.

Copy of this my letter to you will be sent to some of my followers and friends and also to some followers of Judy Wood - just to inform you in advance.

Sincerely yours,
Mysterious Dimitri Khalezov.

I would like also to remind you that despite of all your seeming ‘objectivity’ you always try your best to avoid discussing one of the main points and ‘smoking guns’ of the WTC demolition - the pre-9/11 definition of the ‘ground zero’ term in old English dictionaries, along with the desperate attempt of the US Government to re-define this term and/or to ‘broaden’ its definition in all post-9/11 English dictionaries.


I think it would be truly objective of yours, if you stop avoiding it and pay some serious attention to this particular point.

Some beginning of a ‘raw’ version of my book that also deals with the ‘ground zero’ term’s manipulations by the US authorities is enclosed below for you reference (it starts from the next page below).


My response:

-----Original Message-----

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto: e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled 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 this response.)

The use of the term "ground zero" is not really 9/11 related evidence in of itself. It is merely a "label" which was attached to the zone where the destruction took place.

Indeed, I believe the term may even have come from the "air burst" nuke where, as I understand, in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, some parts of buildings actually *remained standing* because the explosive force was *downwards* on top of them rather than lateral. So I have indeed thought about this.

Giving something a particular name such as "ground zero" or "the 911 truth movement" can be a useful ploy in creating misconceptions and starting people thinking in a certain way. Find out, for example who coined the term "cold fusion".

Also, I spoken on 2 or 3 podcasts etc. about the NUCLEAR EFFECTS - as the Hutchison Effect seems to affect things at both a molecular and a nuclear level, so there is indeed evidence in this area to be explained.

The fact remains, the use of nuclear explosives does NOT explain the available evidence - and the use of field effect based (some call it "scalar weaponry") explains ALL of the evidence that I am aware of.

However, as I have no official standing and what we discuss is "way off the radar screen" for most people (whereas nukes are not), it doesn't take a genius to work out which story most people will believe.

Andrew Johnson


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...

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri A. Khalezov [mailto: dkhalezov@gmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it]
Sent: 20 May 2010 20:47
To: Andrew Johnson
Subject: Re: from Dimitri 2

Hi Andrew,
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 of mine
- 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 not.


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 well.


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.

Best wishes.

Return to The 9-11 Events

Return to Atomic Power and The Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons