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

911thology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your evidence, please?
 
answer

DavidJames said:
To which major media, police, insurance fraud investigators, lawyers, DA's, official investigative organizations, domestic or foreign, have you presented your evidence?
Click to expand...

I live in Bangkok, not in the US. I presented it to the following Embassies in Bangkok:
US Embassy (Justice Department and military intelligence).
French Embassy (intelligence and the Ambassador).
Italian Embassy (the Ambassador)
Australian Embassy (to whom it may concern)
CNN
BBC
ABC
NBC
ITV
Associated Press
AFP
Reuters
 
911thology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots of people saw an airplane. Over 100 people, I think.

So the eyewitnesses that saw the airplane are liars or paid government agents?
 
answer

ElMondoHummus said:
Your evidence, please?
Click to expand...

Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?
 
answer

tj15 said:
Lots of people saw an airplane. Over 100 people, I think.

So the eyewitnesses that saw the airplane are liars or paid government agents?
Click to expand...

Either 'innocent' liars from among those who typically 'saw everyting' or paid liars hired to lie by the government.
 
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...

I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?
 
Foolmewunz said:
(Some tagger may want to change the tags before I get another write up.)

Normally I don't share my toys real well, but you guys deserve a new treat now and then.

How's this? Fresh meat, guys, and it isn't from a lunatic conspiracy site site. Let's all give a resounding welcome to the uh, .... interesting.... yeah, interesting ideas of 911thology. He says he'll be happy to elaborate, so here's your chance to get all the answers you've been so sorely missing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5769849#post5769849
Click to expand...


Nukes did it! The most insane claim made about 911; pure stupidity.
 
answer

tj15 said:
I have another question:

How did the outer walls of the towers manage to survive the nuclear blasts and not show any damage (to the outer walls) while stuff inside the towers was turned to dust?
Click to expand...

Clearly explained in the movie. Can't explain here better.
 
911thology said:
Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?
Click to expand...

Hardly. We prefer evidence and sources that we ourselves are able to peruse and compare with what you are saying. Got any of those?
 
911thology said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. As Mark Roberts pointed out:

  • 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  • 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
  • 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
  • 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
  • 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
  • 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
  • 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
  • 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
  • 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
  • 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
  • 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
  • 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
  • 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.​
  • 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. ​
  • 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.​
  • 3 took photographs of the aftermath.​
  • Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."​
  • 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. ​
Furthermore, the object tracked by radar was most definitely not moving at supersonic speeds. On top of that, post-crash debris was that of a jet, not a missile. Furthermore, no missile carries humans; corpses of passengers known to have been on Flight 77 were found in the debris, still strapped to their seats.

On top of that, FL77 was indeed witness by another airplane, with the pilot testifying to what he saw.

911thology's claim is not only presented here with zero supporting evidence (in other words, he merely states the claiim, he provides no proof for his statement), but is contradicted by the weight of the evidence that has been recovered.

Flight path study:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Pentagon witness statements:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

Mark Roberts' collection of links to evidnece:
Summary of evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

This claim is demonstrably untrue.​
 
911thology said:
This one is just an example of what I meant. Hence my tough conditions.
Click to expand...
You can't provide on piece of evidence! Therefore your delusion is a delusion. You can't do anything about it but spew more lies.


911thology said:
No open source data on radiation is available. It is all classified.
Click to expand...
That is a lie. You can't provide proof. Oops, you have a delusion and can't save your failed conclusion.
 
911thology said:
Careful studying of 'half-truth' published in open sources, personal conversations with several intelligence officials from various countries (such as USA, India, Russia, France, Indonesia, Thailand, Denmark). Enough?
Click to expand...

No. That is not only insufficient, you provide no reason for us to think you have truly seen such "open source" publications. Provide real evidence; innuendo is insufficient, and no better than fiction.
 
answer

Sabrina said:
Hardly. We prefer evidence and sources that we ourselves are able to peruse and compare with what you are saying. Got any of those?
Click to expand...

If you prefer these then I could only wish you good lack. Satisfy yourselves with the most publicly available 'Report of the 9/11 Commission' and with memories of former presidents. I wish you all the best. Sincerely.
 
answer

ElMondoHummus said:
No. That is not only insufficient, you provide no reason for us to think you have truly seen such "open source" publications. Provide real evidence; innuendo is insufficient, and no better than fiction.
Click to expand...

As I said your book is the 'Report of the 9/11 commission'. Find all answers in it.
 
911thology said:
Clearly explained in the movie. Can't explain here better.
Click to expand...

Insufficient. If you cannot explain it, summarize the points. But once again, do not refer us to a video. We do not have the time nor inclination to wade through videos.

Compromise: Tell us at which point (i.e. "It's at the 4 minutes, 30 second mark") of the video contains your evidence, and possibly one of us will relent to view it. But simply steering us towards the video is not acceptible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom