Quote:

 

ATTENTION
We have received copyright complaint(s) regarding material you posted, as follows:

from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 08 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: jgnjAYtkmh0
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 04 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: NZ-xaFONw9U
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 05 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: vrhrrpfqrp8
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 03 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: -Lo7NO3B3do
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 02 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: TJ1XR1eldAs
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 06 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: SurlylApA_Q
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 07 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: 046V_-O7x34
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 01 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: 5r3L5XtguQM
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 10 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: GpWO7x353_8
from Owen Mark Le Winton about Nuclear911 09 of 26.MP4 - shure911
Video ID: NvhTJov6u44

Quote:

 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 8:46:15 AM, you wrote:


Hey Dimitri,

Thanks for the response. I posted it here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3314268/

That is the link where the videos and you are being discussed. Please feel free to respond to jmas!

Take care,
Jeff

Quote:

 

Hi, Jeff.

OK, I saw your page.

Regarding critics of my ‘theory’ (which in fact is not a ‘theory’, because I am not a theorist) I could say like this: there are a lot of US Government appointed trolls whose only job is to search the Internet, to register on various 9/11-related forums and try their best to ridicule all dangerous for the US Government versions (most importantly non-planes and nuclear aspects of the 9/11) and to derail all interesting discussions that might occur from time to time regarding such dangerous topics. Some of these trolls are quite professional, i.e. well-educated, not totally devoid of sense of logic, trained how to conduct argument on favorable (for themselves) terms and so on. Actually any lawyer who is trained to argue in the court of law and who, in addition, possesses some basic technical knowledge (or have good technical advisors at his disposal) could successfully (at least it so seems to himself) conduct arguments on the Internet forums acting as such a troll appointed by the US Government. In fact these kind of trolls were always successful in disproving various dangerous trends – primarily no-planes theories on the most of the forums. However, in my particular case it is not so easy to use the standard method of trolling as they got used to because of variety of reasons. First of all it is not so easy to argue with me because I am well trained and could successfully argue even against big numbers of very hostile opponents (providing however that generally accepted rules of discussion are observed by both parties and supervised by some neutral third party). But, luckily to my particular case the abovementioned ability of mine is not even needed. This is because unlike 9/11 conspiracy theorists who do not know anything but only guess, I present my version (what some call ‘theory’) from a totally different point. I claim nothing less than:

1) I was a commissioned officer who served 5 years in the Soviet nuclear intelligence. This is the matter of fact whether you like it or not. This is not at all a theory.

2) I knew about existence of a so-called “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” of the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York City, the United States of America. This was a knowledge obtained by me in the 80s (not even 90s, but 80s), which means that I knew about existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme well before the 9/11. This is the matter of fact and not a theory. I could swear to The Most High and I could testify before the judge in any court of law, including the American one, while laying my palm on the Holy Bible, that I knew in advance about existence of nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center in New York. Period.

Therefore it is entirely unnecessary to me to explain it to public why and how the WTC was actually pulverized and why the WTC collapse was initiated in the way we saw it in TV. I attempted to do it just to make things easier for lay people to understand what and how it happened from the technical point of view using my specific knowledge about physical properties of underground nuclear explosions. In this case I assumed an additional role of an expert which I see some trolls try to challenge. Never mind. Instead of arguing with them I retire as an expert and remain only as an ordinary eye-witness. I stick to the two points of my eye-witness testimony mentioned above. See above clause 1) and clause 2).

From now one it is unnecessary to criticize my ‘theory’ or my doubtful technical knowledge. I have already retired as an expert. Now I am nothing more than a humble eye witness who only knew that the existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme has came to his knowledge in the 80s while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service (an official name for the Soviet nuclear intelligence). That’s it. I do not know and I do not want to know why and how the Towers were pulverized I don’t know and I don’t want to know why the cars were eroded or melted I don’t know and I don’t want to know why paper was not pulverized. This is non of my business. I am no longer an expert. But only a humble eye-witness and nothing more than that. I am not even sure now (because I am not longer an expert, I retired in that capacity) that the WTC was actually demolished by the built-in nuclear demolition scheme. Perhaps, it was demolished by aliens or by so-called ‘nano-thermite’. I am not even sure if it was demolished at all. Perhaps it was an accidental collapse – caused by kerosene as reputable scientists from the NIST and from the 9/11 Commission explain it to us, lay people. But I only insist that I knew back in the 80s of the existence of the WTC emergency nuclear demolition scheme. And I stick to that testimony of mine. Period.

For all government-appointed trolls: read all my points above and try to argue with me now. But note: I am not going to answer your points in regard to cars, papers, dust, high temperature, or any thing technical. Because I am no longer an expert in that field.

So, what you could do now? The only way that remains for you is to accuse me of being an impostor. Because you at once lost all you points to argue with me in regard to technical details. The only remaining resort is to try to disprove my claims that I served in the Soviet nuclear intelligence. Go ahead. Try to disprove it. You are welcome, lol.

For the rest of honest visitors, not government-appointed trolls. I am really ready to go to the court and swear under oath to the two points of my testimony mentioned above. I will only testify to the existence of the WTC demolition scheme. If anyone wishes to arrange my testimony before any court of law or a governmental committee – I am always ready.

Let’s leave the rest of proof to appropriate scientists – let the scientists explain to us why the Towers were pulverized while the papers were not, and why the cars were eroded from top and not from down. Why should lay people like us argue about these difficult to explain technical things? Let us leave them to the real specialists.

For Jeff – I suggest you inserting here several pre-9/11 definitions of ‘ground zero’ term – which I would like to mention I have no relation to. I was not the one who defined the ‘ground zero’ term in pre-9/11 dictionaries, I was not the one who edited the dictionaries, I was not the one who published the dictionaries, and I was not the one who awarded the ‘ground zero’ name to the place of the WTC pancake collapses due to kerosene fires. I am a very humble man. I am not even sure if the ‘ground zero’ name has anything to do with my advance knowledge of the WTC emergency nuclear demolition scheme or not. Perhaps it was just mere coincidence.

Best wishes.

Dimitri.

Quote:

 

Hi, Jeff.

Just visited the 2nd page of your thread with my last letterpublished. Thanks. But why didn't you inserted photos fromdictionaries with old 'ground zero' definitions, as I requested you todo? If you don't have them yet, here is the download link for a ziparchive (less than 2Mb I think):

Pre-9/11 dictionaries 'ground zero' definition: http://depositfiles.com/files/2ibgf3g5q MD5: B245514A10D3E8E9AF04C6321E9138C7

Regarding your suggestion about 'coincidence' that after you sent me alink Owen Mark Le Winton complained for his alleged 'copyright' onyour YouTube channel, I don't think it has something to do with me (Ithink you implied that 'they' read your letter to me and therefore soreacted).

If it was the case, then the complaint would come againstall the videos on your channel. But as you can see, it was complainedonly about half of them, while the other half is still alive. I thinkthat it was just routine search on YouTube for my videos whichrevealed two pages (since 26 parts can't fit into one search-resultspage) of my videos.

They did not noticed the second page andcomplained only about the first page. At least so it looks to me fromthe point of logic. I don't think it has anything to do with yourletter to me. My videos are being routinely searched for andcomplained against. You are not the first of this kind - this Monday(yesterday I mean) at least 2 YouTube channels were blacklisted forpublishing my movies for the 2nd time and on another 4 YouTubechannels my movie was simply removed and owners were warned for the1st time. And last week more than 3 YouTube channels were forced toremove my videos as well.

So, nothing surprising at all. I still request you to add the dictionaries pictures (at least themost revealing once up to your choice) to my latest letter posted. Thanks in advance. Sincerely

yours,
Dimitri.

Quote:

 

Regarding critics of my ‘theory’ (which in fact is not a ‘theory’, because I am not a theorist)

• 
  
• we have to trust Dimitri because he worked in Soviet nuclear intelligence. Imagine that after Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, he asked everyone to accept it because he was a Physicist. It was only accepted after it successfully accounted for several *observed* phenomena
  
• The definition of Ground Zero was revised in some dictionaries. On visiting this link, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ground+zero , you will notice that the definition has not been revised. Is this significant, or was the site created to discredit Dimitri?
  

Quote:

 

Therefore it is entirely unnecessary to me to explain it to public why and how the WTC was actually pulverized and why the WTC collapse was initiated in the way we saw it in TV.

Quote:

 

So, what you could do now? The only way that remains for you is to accuse me of being an impostor. Because you at once lost all you points to argue with me in regard to technical details. The only remaining resort is to try to disprove my claims that I served in the Soviet nuclear intelligence. Go ahead. Try to disprove it. You are welcome, lol.

Quote:

 

Let’s leave the rest of proof to appropriate scientists – let the scientists explain to us why the Towers were pulverized while the papers were not, and why the cars were eroded from top and not from down. Why should lay people like us argue about these difficult to explain technical things? Let us leave them to the real specialists.

Quote:

 

Hi, Jeff.

Will try to download the phone call and listen to it.

About you downloaded the pdf files, I think you selected the wrong link. I have actually two zip archives with files - one with reference fils (pdf files of articles I referred to in my video) and the other one with jpg pictures - pre-9/11 definitions of 'ground zero' term in various old dictionaries + one sample of manipulation in post-9/11 dictionary - just to compare with the same old dictionary). You have to download that one from here: http://depositfiles.com/files/b4ccnxl52

What I asked you to post - just select a couple or more pics with ground zero definition and add them into an appropriate space in that bigger post of mine where I asked you to add them. If it is technically possible, of course (I don't know if it is possible to edit posts there or not).

Sincerely yours,
Dimitri.

Quote:

 

Hey Dimitri,

I downloaded the pdf's, what do you want me to post from them? The nucleardemolition.com ones?

ps; I talked to the lady from John Hopkins University that made the comments about molten metal. Here is the link to the phone call:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3347038/


Take care,
Jeff

Quote:

 

Hi, Jeff.

I did not download the actual file yet, because once I got to the web page mentioned by you I found it out that I know that bitch very well. She is the most shameless liar who knows all the truth about the ground zero radiation dangers, but is intentionally cheating people. By the way you spelt her name wrongly her surname is Geyh, not Gehy. I suggest you correcting it. If you attentively watched my movie in its part 24 or 25 (I can't remember for sure) I mentioned one shameless article where it is 'revealed' to us, stupid lay people, that some clever guys and gals secretly monitored radiation exposure per gamma-radiation by attaching an individual dosimeter to each gullible ground zero worker (in disguise of so-called 'air-monitor') that had to be taken from him every evening for alleged 're-calibration' (means for those capable of reading between the lines - for taking readings from the dosimeters and for calculating the summary radiation dose for each gullible victim of this unprecedented atrocity). Here are links to both parts of the article for your reference:
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch2.htm
So, Alison Geyh was one of those cheaters who participated in that unprecedented secret monitoring of radiation doses (instead of plainly stepping forward and demanding that the full haz-mat suits with gas-masks should be immediately issued to each ground zero worker along with individual dosimeter that shall be named as such and not as an 'air-control monitor').
Therefore, since you got in contact with her already, I strongly suggest you to make one more interview with her, this time asking her (based on your reading of the above article) what kind of 'air-monitors' were attached to each worker as claimed in the article? In which units their scales were graduated to measure the 'air quality' (in meters, in meters per second, in degrees, in kilograms, in volts, in watts or in what? Perhaps in Roentgens or in Sieverts?) Ask her also what kind of 're-calibration' was needed every evening? What did the actual re-calibration process looked like? Zeroing-in the scales based on some standard unit of 'air hazard'? Or what? What was the standard? What were the measurements units, after all? Who was the actual manufacturer of these 'air-quality monitors'? What was the official designation (unit name) of the 'air-quality monitors'? You may continue the list yourself. If you construct in advance a nice list of question that would look innocent from the beginning you might have a very good luck in luring this shameless bitch into some very bad situation. I strongly suggest you prepare at least 3 reliable witnesses to be with you, so that later they would testify before the court if necessary that the results of this interview were genuine and not falsified by you. I think you have a very good chance, Jeff. I wish you good luck.
Keep me informed, if you can.
Sincerely yours,
Dimitri.

Quote:

 

Dear Jeff.

I can't remember if you sent you a link to my 'shortened' version of the book.

I just corrected a couple of minor errors in the 'free' version of my book and re-uploaded the file here:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapters.pdf

http://depositfiles.com/files/s5socosne

Please, get this one and replace the out dated file if you have the old one. You can feel free to share it with other people if you wish.

Sorry for disturbance Sincerely yours,

Dimitri.