Former Rooski Nucular Intelligence Officer To Blow the Reveal Entire 911 Plot

I just PMed 911thology with the link to this thread, so the poor guy has a chance to respond. :)
 
Well, contrary to his original posts in the Welcome Thread, he isn't quite so available to explain. He's got the same five posts he notched a week ago. I think that he's hitting as many sites as he can to try to drum up hits for his videos and/or sales for his book.
 
You invitation is accepted. Providing that...

orphia nay said:
I just PMed 911thology with the link to this thread, so the poor guy has a chance to respond. :)
Click to expand...
Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
 
911thology said:
Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
Click to expand...

You want us to ask questions about nuclear devices but wont permit questions that raise issues with regards to the effects of said nuclear devices? I think this will be short a sweet then. lol.

No blast, no heat wave and no fallout. Kinda dispels any nuclear device whatsoever. No first responders or NY locals reporting any illnesses related to a nuclear device. None that I am aware of anyway. Full heads of hair, no increase in still borns, no increase in deformaties etc etc etc. China hasnt reported anything either. Not looking good.

What is the weather like in Bangkok? I hear it is quite barmy this time of year.
 
Gotta love it when the man with a story to sell won't take questions he doesn't like.

Methinks he hasn't thought this through properly.
 
uk_dave said:
Gotta love it when the man with a story to sell won't take questions he doesn't like.

Methinks he hasn't thought this through properly.
Click to expand...

Ironically I think he has..........he has identified his audience very accurately as since when did truthers ask tech questions and listen to the answers. They like to to be told "facts" that match their story and will simply not even see those that don't.:(
 
All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.
Click to expand...

Which of the 26 parts contains the reference to the source data to the radiation levels on and shortly after 9-11.?
 
Methinks a more correct venue for "blowing the lid off the conspiracy" would be in the offices of a major respected news organization or some law enforcement agency, evidence in tow, instead of YouTube videos and posts on relatively obscure internet forums detailing what questions can and can't be asked.

But that's just me.

911thology, I claim BS.
 
So, I don't see any question. Only silly talking about nothing. Is that I was called here for?
 
surprised

twinstead said:
Methinks a more correct venue for "blowing the lid off the conspiracy" would be in the offices of a major respected news organization or some law enforcement agency, evidence in tow, instead of YouTube videos and posts on relatively obscure internet forums detailing what questions can and can't be asked.

But that's just me.

911thology, I claim BS.
Click to expand...
Hi, Twinstead. You also have no questions? Even in regard to why the video is published only on YouTube and nowhere else? Are you shy to ask this question directly from me and prefer to ask it from 'virtual nobody'?
 
1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube...
Click to expand...

If you will not explain your stance, then there is nothing to discuss. I for one am not about to visit some YouTube video just to improve someone's hit count. You either deign to bring your argument here and allow questions on it, or there simply will be no debate, and you will lose by default.

Your condition is not acceptible.
 
911thology said:
5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day.
Click to expand...

How many people have been treated for radiation sickness arising from exposure to this radiation on 9-11-01?

To what degree were the most serious cases affected?

How large was the nuclear device used and what was the delivery method?
 
911thology said:
Hello to every one. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov and I was invited here to answer questions (if any) by an invitation quoted above. I am sorry, I was very busy yesterday and can't be here earlier. If anyone has questions that he wants me to answer for public, you can leave these questions here and I will answer them. However, I would like to warn in advance that:

1) I will NOT answer any question of technical nature that has been answered in any of the 26 parts of the movie published on YouTube (the one discussed in this thread). Which means that if someone can't afford spending his or her precious time on watching the movie he or she must not force me to spend my precious time on answering his or her questions. Hope I made it clear enough. If some one asks such a question that is answered in the movie without any malicious intent, then the answer will sound like this: 'This question is answered in the movie'. I think I have to warn it in advance in order to avoid as much as possible creating lots of garbage on your respectable Forum.

2) Please, bear in mind that I agree to participate in this discussion with only reason in mind to educate as many people as possible in regard to my views on the 9/11 affair. By no means I am interested in spending my precious time on arguing with various zombies over questions whether aluminum tubes could penetrate thick steel bars or not. I am also not interested at all into indulging into long discussions with those who are convinced that I am wrong (or intentionally cheating) and who will not change their embedded opinions anyway. So all questions that do not show any genuine interest of the asker in the subject and that are merely designed to 'disprove my theory' at any cost will be either answered 'yes' or 'no' (in good case) or ignored whatsoever. To further save precious time I will designate in advance a special abbreviation that will be used for quick 'answer' to questions that show no genuine interest in getting the actual answer, but merely intended as an assault on my 'theory'. The abbreviation will sound like this: 'IRSMPTATQBINSAGIA' which will mean 'I Refuse Spending My Precious Time Answering This Question Because It does Not Show Any Genuine Interest of Asker'.

3) My book is not yet published and I am not quite sure when it will be published, so all those who left (or plan to leave) any gloating comments that sound sth like '... he is only selling his book..' can shut up and get lost at once.

4) To answer all questions in regard to thermite and so-called 'nano-thermite'. The answer is like this:
4.1) Ordinary thermite (used in electric welding) is indeed capable to slowly melting steel, but it is not capable of instantly reducing enormous amounts of steel into fluffy microscopic dust.
4.2) The so-called 'nano-thermite' does not exist in nature. It exists only in sick imaginations of completely brainless 9/11 conspiracy theorists, so-called '9/11truthers' and other kind of zombies.
4.3) Neither thermite, nor any so-called 'nano-thermite' causes any place of its usage to be called 'ground zero'.
4.4) If it were really true that alleged 'traces of thermite' were found among the WTC dust/debris, then this 'shocking revelation' should become public in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009.

I hope I made it clear and no one will bother me with any questions in regard to 'thermite' or so-called 'nano-thermite'. Thank you for your kind understanding.

5) To answer all questions in regard to radiation. I state that radiation levels on the ground zero in Manhattan that were about several hundreds Roentgens per hour during the first hour. Then they dropped to a couple of hundreds of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for the next few hours, then they dropped to several tens of Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a couple of days, then they dropped to several hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few days, then they dropped to several tens of milli-Roentgens per hour and persisted as such for a few weeks. Now the levels further dropped but remain noticeably above the normal radiation background even up to this day. Don’t believe – take your Geiger counter and go to ground zero. And you will see what will happen. Make sure that guards who guard the ground zero will notice you carry a Geiger counter before you enter the site. Then, please, report back to this Forum what happened with you and with your Geiger counter and what kind of discussions you had with the guards.

All statements claiming there was ‘no radiation’ on ground zero would be ignored from now on simply because I know that it was and I know it for sure, but those who make this kind of statements simply googled for such a ‘verifiable’ info or refer to other ‘reliable’ sources akin to the ‘NIST report’ or even the most respectable ‘Report of the 9/11 Commission’. I strongly suggest you don’t ask me about radiation anymore, but simply satisfy yourself with what is mentioned above in this regard.


All other questions are welcome providing the guidelines set above are duly observed.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
Click to expand...

If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?
 
911thology said:
Hi, Twinstead. You also have no questions? Even in regard to why the video is published only on YouTube and nowhere else? Are you shy to ask this question directly from me and prefer to ask it from 'virtual nobody'?
Click to expand...
To which major media, police, insurance fraud investigators, lawyers, DA's, official investigative organizations, domestic or foreign, have you presented your evidence?
 
I am very sorry for that.

ElMondoHummus said:
If you will not explain your stance, then there is nothing to discuss. I for one am not about to visit some YouTube video just to improve someone's hit count. You either deign to bring your argument here and allow questions on it, or there simply will be no debate, and you will lose by default.

Your condition is not acceptible.
Click to expand...

I am very sorry that my condition is not acceptable, but this is the condition. I have already over 75.000 views on YouTube and I will not become any richer in this sense if you watch these 26 series and I will get just extra 26 views. And even if 10 of you will watch all these 26 series and make it 260 additional views it will not add much either. Don't make me laugh. But I can't afford spending my precious time answering silly questions of 'busy bodies' while these questions are perfectly answered in the movie in the most illustrative way. What I see here is a complete lack of interest and nothing else than this. If you have lack of interest in the subject whatsoever I have to presume that all your potential questions will not be inspired by curiosity, but by malicious desire to argue at any cost. I do not participate in this kind of argumentation, simply because those who usually indulge in such things do not observe general rules of argument and lack common politeness. They resort to personal insults and illogical and unfair argumentation practices. I have a lot of experience in this field. Hence the conditions mentioned above – in order to anticipate all of these negative things mentioned above. So, if you have any questions – ask them. Go ahead. If not - there is no problem for me at all.
 
911thology said:
I am very sorry that my condition is not acceptable, but this is the condition. I have already over 75.000 views on YouTube and I will not become any richer in this sense if you watch these 26 series and I will get just extra 26 views. And even if 10 of you will watch all these 26 series and make it 260 additional views it will not add much either. Don't make me laugh. But I can't afford spending my precious time answering silly questions of 'busy bodies' while these questions are perfectly answered in the movie in the most illustrative way. What I see here is a complete lack of interest and nothing else than this. If you have lack of interest in the subject whatsoever I have to presume that all your potential questions will not be inspired by curiosity, but by malicious desire to argue at any cost. I do not participate in this kind of argumentation, simply because those who usually indulge in such things do not observe general rules of argument and lack common politeness. They resort to personal insults and illogical and unfair argumentation practices. I have a lot of experience in this field. Hence the conditions mentioned above – in order to anticipate all of these negative things mentioned above. So, if you have any questions – ask them. Go ahead. If not - there is no problem for me at all.
Click to expand...

A question has been asked above:
tj15 said:
If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?
Click to expand...

You should answer it.
 
answer

garethdjb said:
How many people have been treated for radiation sickness arising from exposure to this radiation on 9-11-01?

To what degree were the most serious cases affected?

How large was the nuclear device used and what was the delivery method?
Click to expand...

Not too many people were treated for acute radiation sickness - there numbers were about 400 to 500 hundred. However, several thousands were treated for chronic radiation sickness that become apparent after 1 to 3 years after working on ground zero due to slow cumulative effect.

The most serious cases were acute radiation sickness with exposure exceeding 300 Roentgens. Outcome - imminent death within first 10 days.

Devices were 150 kiloton. Delivery method - mini railway leading from underneath the WTC-7 underneath of the targeted Twin Tower in special tunnels. All explained in the movie.
 
answer

tj15 said:
If a missile hit the Pentagon, how do you explain all the eyewitnesses that saw an airplane and not a missile?
Click to expand...

No witness actually saw any plane, because the missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach and could hardly be seen at such a speed. Real witnesses (not liars who 'saw everyting' and not liars hired by the FBI to lie to the same effect) saw nothing at all. They believed that generator malfunctioned and exploded. I still have that footage in my personal collection of the 9/11 movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom