Russian Expert Confirms 9/11 WTC Nuclear Basement
Readers are advised to watch Dimitri Khalezov's Videos first. Other related articles on the subject are :
9/11 Total Proof The WTC Towers Were Demolished by Nukes
Researchers Claim 9/11 Sicknesses Related to Radiation Contamination
Ground Zero Truth ( by German NEXUS magazine)
Arms Trafficking, Stolen Missiles, Soviet Submarines, Nuclear Detonations and 9/11: Interview with Dimitri Khalezov in Bangkok
World Mathaba Exclusive
Photo: Dimitri Khalezov discusses 9/11
with George Mapp in Bangkok
George Mapp, Bangkok (mathaba) Dimitri Khalezov explains in layman terms eye-opening and riveting truths concerning that catastrophic day, September 11, 2001, which is permanently scarred into my memory as I myself watched live as both towers collapse with many of my friends still inside.
A couple of days ago in Bangkok, Thailand, I met up with Dimitri Khalezov and we sat down and discussed his theories and conclusions in regards to 9/11. We met over several days as there was an enormous amount of interesting topics and discussions. Here is what Dimitri had to say:
GM: Dimitri, please tell me briefly about your background and how it relates to 9/11?
DK: It is not so easy to make it brief, especially describing my personal acquaintance with one of the chief planners of 9/11. Perhaps, you will need to read my book, since a few chapters of it are entirely devoted to this matter. But to be able to answer your question I would put it this way: first of all at the end of the ‘80s I served as a commissioned officer in the so-called “Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the former USSR, which is otherwise known by its code-name “military unit 46179”. This organization was responsible for gathering various kinds of nuclear intelligence, primarily for the detection of nuclear tests of various adversaries of the former USSR. In addition, this organization was tasked with official controlling functions regarding the observance of various international treaties related to nuclear explosions, nuclear tests, etc.
During my service in that organization it has come to my knowledge (still at the end of the ‘80s – more than 10 years prior to the 9/11 events) that under the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York there were two huge thermo-nuclear charges intended for emergency demolition of the WTC. This fact does not have any actual relation to 9/11 except only that it gave me some understanding to what actually happened with the WTC, why nearly all of the structural steel was pulverized and why the site of the WTC demolition bears the strange nuclear name “ground zero”.
However, due to the above knowledge of mine later I got acquainted with the real 9/11 perpetrators – those who planned the entire affair. And due to this acquaintance yes, we can say that I have some relevance to 9/11. In fact this relevance seemed to be so important to the American secret services that they even attempted to get me arrested and extradited to America in 2003 – together with one of the chief 9/11 planners. Ironically, neither he, nor I were actually extradited, despite the fact that both of us were indeed arrested for that reason by the request of the Americans. After making such a request the Americans wisely preferred not to let the truth of the WTC nuclear demolition be discussed in the U.S. court-room and so they dropped the extradition claims against me.
GM: I have been to Ground Zero many times, the first time was just several days after 9/11. Before I met you, I did not know its true meaning. Please discuss the actually meaning of Ground Zero.
DK: You simply have to get any unabridged English dictionary printed before 9/11 and you will see the meaning. Don’t make this mistake – don’t look for it in any newer, post-9/11 dictionary. Go only for a pre-9/11 one. I mean that only in a pre-9/11 English dictionary you could find the true meaning of this strange term. Because after the 9/11 events and in the ensuing cover-up the U.S. authorities had no choice than to re-print all dictionaries without exception in order to re-define the term “ground zero”.
Thus if you look for the definition of “ground zero” in any newer dictionary you will only find modified definitions. However, when Civil Defense specialists designated the WTC demolition spot as “ground zero” (that time still in low-case letters) they apparently used the pre-9/11 definition of this strange term, not the post-9/11 one. So, you have to do the same thing – just go for any large unabridged dictionary printed before September, 2001, and see what is the definition of “ground zero”.
GM: Dimitri, please tell me about the infamous Flight 93.
DK: I don’t know much about Flight 93. At least I don’t know about this affair as much as I do about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme (which was known to me in the ’80s due to my military service). All that I know about Flight 93 is this. When I watched the contemporary news on September 11, 2001, I remember that a few news agencies reported that one of the passenger flights was shot down by a U.S. fighter-jet over Pennsylvania because the U.S. authorities believed that it was hijacked and was heading towards a specific high-priority target.
I remember it clearly because some news agencies on that day had even shown a pilot who actually shot down the alleged 4th passenger aircraft. Several of my friends and acquaintances remember this fact as well – I especially asked several people who watched the 9/11 news in real time and almost all of them remember that the 4th flight was shot down by the U.S. fighter-jet. However, after some time this story was completely forgotten. A new story was quickly invented – that the passengers in the Flight 93 allegedly “rebelled” against the “hijackers” and allegedly “overpowered” them and thus caused the plane to crash thus “preventing” the plane from being used as a missile.
In fact, many 9/11 researchers who remembered the original news about Flight 93 were desperately hunting this seditious footage for years after 9/11. But to my knowledge none of them succeeded in finding any. But when it came to me, I was really lucky. In June 2010 I accidentally encountered an original 9/11 news footage on one Russian web site. It was in Russian, from a Russian news channel. I watched it all carefully and at one moment I noticed a part where a news reporter talks (apparently citing his colleagues from CNN) about the 4th passenger plane being shot down by the US fighter-jet. I cut this part of the video and uploaded it to my own You Tube channel.
I would say that it was a huge success, because out of all the 9/11 researchers, I was the first who was lucky enough to find such a thing as the confirmation of the Flight 93 being shot down. However, this was a limited success, since this piece of news was in Russian and not many people could truly appreciate it. I continued my search for the same thing and may be by the grace of God (because I can’t even attribute it to merely “good luck”) I managed to find a similar confirmation in English. In August 2010, I managed to get original FOX news footage where it was repeated twice, moreover by some real U.S. Air National Guard official, that their unit has indeed shot down the 4th passenger aircraft.
I cut two important pieces of FOX news, made them into a video clip, adding my explanation and some additional third-party confirmations of this fact and uploaded it to my You Tube channel. This video was very popular for the first few days after uploading. It got something like 1,000 views per day during the first few days. However, it seems that the You Tube and Google did something so that this most seditious video would not appear in search results and since then not too many new visitors have watched this clip. Nonetheless, this video is still there and you can watch it right now. Besides this I don’t know much more about Flight 93. In addition to these two news videos I found some other interesting materials discovered by other 9/11 researchers. Some interesting materials regarding Flight 93, that even include a photo of a pilot who shot it down, were made into a zip archive that you can download.
GM: When the World Trade Center was being designed in the late 1960's, nuclear technology was not taboo, in fact you could say at the time it was en vogue. Could you please discuss this as well as the building code for demolition plans for skyscrapers at that time?
DK: Since I am not a demolition expert, neither an architect, nor an official of the Department of Buildings, I don’t know much about it. My knowledge is limited to only what I got to know from the Soviet Special Control Service back in the ‘80s. All I know is this: in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s in the United States (at least in New York and in Chicago, but perhaps elsewhere too) Building Codes did not allow to permit the building of skyscrapers unless a developer of the construction project could submit a satisfactory demolition scheme of his would be skyscraper.
Since traditional demolition methods were designed to deal with old type of brick-walled and concrete-paneled buildings (since in the second half of the 20th century they used to demolish buildings built in the first half of the 20th century or in 19th century), nobody knew how to demolish the new type of incredibly strong steel-framed buildings that came into existence only in the end of the ‘60s. Traditional controlled demolition methods did not work with these steel-framed buildings due to their excessive strength.
So, developers of the new skyscrapers could not get permission from the Department of Buildings to build their project, since they were unable to submit any satisfactory demolition scheme to deal with their skyscrapers in the future. Hence their desire to implement the nuclear demolition schemes of the skyscrapers. These awful nuclear demolition schemes were not to actually demolish the buildings in the middle of the populated cities by huge nuclear explosions underground, don’t get me wrong, please, It was merely to satisfy bureaucratic demands of the Department of Buildings officials and to get the permission to build the steel-framed skyscrapers whatsoever. At least this is what we believed back then in the Soviet Special Control Service where I used to serve as an officer.
I will not go into exact details of the actual nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC, because it will take time, but if you are interested in details you can see them in my book. To answer the first part of your question: yes, those days the nuclear explosions were not as “evil” as they are now and it was perfectly acceptable – to use them for civil purposes such as demolishing of civil infrastructure. To get an additional confirmation you can look at a seditious diagram of the ‘70s that was used in a Wikipedia article dealing with nuclear tests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_tests. The diagram has its own web address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_nuclear_testing.svg
GM: Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to occur in lower Manhattan without devastating and destroying the entire population of New York City?
DK: Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage – just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11.
You have to understand that physical properties of deep underground nuclear explosion (not to be mistaken with shallow sub-surface nuclear explosion) are distinctly different from an atmospheric nuclear explosion. A deep, fully-contained underground nuclear explosion produces neither penetrating ionizing radiation (because its primary radiation is stopped by surrounding rock and can not reach the earth’s surface), nor air-blast wave (because there is no air around the nuclear explosions hypo-center), nor thermal radiation (because this one too requires air while air is absent in underground conditions), nor even Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), because EMP is an aftereffect of electrons’ flow, while in the underground conditions all electrons are stopped by surrounding rock – along with gamma-rays, X-rays, and neutrons. Thus an underground nuclear explosion (if it is only not shallow sub-surface one, but really deep and contained) would not cause anything noticeable on the ground: no sound, no flash, not thermal radiation, no air-blast wave, no penetrating ionizing radiation, no EMP, not even the trademark mushroom cloud.
It will only cause an earthquake – that is the only noticeable factor. And indeed right at the WTC Twin Towers collapse (precisely 11-12 seconds prior to the beginning of collapse) a strong earthquake that corresponded to a nuclear explosion of well over 100 kiloton was observed and felt by anyone around (and also recorded by several video cameras).
However, I must make one correction: even though none of the well-know destructive factors of a typical atmospheric atomic blast were present in the WTC demolition case, radioactive contamination of the surrounding area was still there. The levels of gamma-radiation after the three underground nuclear explosions were well over 200 roentgens per hour during the first hours, and tens of roentgens per hour during first few days after 9/11.
While alpha- and beta-contaminated radioactive particles (especially radioactive vapors that were ascending from beneath the WTC debris from extremely overheated cavities under them) were present for at least 4 months time – until the hot radioactive matters in the underground cavities was cooled down. And these radioactive vapors caused extreme damage to the health of those who worked without gas-masks on ground zero. Now almost all ground-zero responders suffer from leukemia and other secondary effects of chronic radiation sickness – mainly from various cancers. Also many of these responders have died since then and many more are dying right now.
GM: Please tell me briefly how according to the science of physics that it is absolutely impossible for a jumbo-jet to penetrate the frame of the former World Trade Center.
DK: Many people naively think that the WTC facades were made from huge panes of glass – because the “planes” shown in 9/11 footage appear to penetrate in too easily – without even reducing their speed upon the impact. However, it is not so simple in reality. In reality the facades of the Twin Towers were made from densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns.
Do you think that an aluminum plane could penetrate steel thick as tank’s front armor? Try to be realistic… Yes, intuitively it might appear to some people that a massive, fast-flying aircraft, even though it is made from aluminum, has a lot of kinetic energy to penetrate steel. But this is a very wrong perception. You intuition badly cheats you in this particular case. Aluminum can not penetrate steel irrespectively of its mass and its speed. Because if it were so simple then artillery armor-piercing shells would be made from aluminum. However, anti-tank rounds are not made from it. They are made from Wolfram (Tungsten) or from Depleted Uranium. Because either one of these materials is harder than steel.
Now we move further. Let’s imagine that we have a plastic swatter to kill flies. And we hit a fly with the swatter at an impact speed of 1 meter per second. It will flatten the fly. Now we increase the speed of the swatter to 10 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. We increase the speed of the swatter to 100 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. And even if we increase the speed to 1000 meters per second or to any other speed, the result will be the same – the hit of the swatter will flatten the fly. I think it is very obvious.
Now, we imagine that the swatter now is stationary and the fly is attempting to “penetrate” it by flying into it. If the fly hit the swatter at the speed of 1 meter per second what will happen? Apparently the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter (because it does not matter if the moving swatter hits a stationary fly or the moving fly hits a stationary swatter – the physics of this process is the same). If the fly increases the speed to 10 meters per second? The result is the same. 100 meters per second? The same. 1000 meters per second? The same: the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter irrespective of the speed of impact.
The very same consideration is applicable to the aluminum planes hitting the enormously strong steel Twin Tower boasting its outer skin as strong as the front armor of a tank. An empty aluminum plane would be flattened on impact without being able to penetrate the Tower and the flattened plane will fall back to sidewalks.
Add here an additional logical confirmation of what I have said. Imagine that a certain bridge collapses killing people on the bridge and under the bridge. Would you see an architect of the bridge arrested and brought before the court of law? No doubt. Have you seen an architect of the Twin Towers arrested and brought tried for his failure to provide an adequate strength to his construction? No. Now you get the point. The WTC architect is not guilty. Neither in a sense that aluminum planes could penetrate his steel building, nor in a sense that fires caused by kerosene could collapse his steel building. The architect is clearly innocent because neither of the two suggestions has taken place in reality: the aluminum planes have never penetrated the Twin Towers and “fires” did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse. Therefore there is no reason to arrest and try the architect.
GM: Please tell me what really took down World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7?
Do you still doubt it was nothing else by the nuclear explosions that determined the “ground zero” designation awarded by the U.S. Civil Defense servicemen to the former WTC site? Then look at this
(All possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559)
GM: Many firefighters, EMT and rescue workers who spent time at ground zero are disabled, terminally ill or dead. You claim this is not from smoke inhalation, please explain.
DK: No, it is not from “smoke” inhalation. It is from radioactive vapors inhalation. Radioactive vapors were ascending from deep cavities left by underground nuclear explosions. Make sure to notice that “smoke” (if any) is not white. It is much darker. But vapor (to be exact radioactive vapor in this case) is white.
(Vapors on ground zero as on October 17, 2001)
Because the cavities were filled with extremely hot radioactive materials in liquid state and the firefighters were ordered to poor water into the WTC debris (and through them – into the cavities underground).
(Deep underground cavity under one of the WTC buildings; molten rock could be clearly observed.)
This, understandably caused vapors. And the vapors were radioactive – each particle of vapors carried alpha- and beta- particles that were extremely dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Because they would continue to irradiate the victim’s body from inside for extended periods of time and eventually cause chronic radiation sickness.
GM: According to your video that you produced, you claim that the television footage was edited to add the frames of the planes. How can you prove that?
DK: Several such videos show black frames right at the time of impact. There are other multiple signs of digital manipulations. You can see some of such videos on my You Tube channel there I have a few videos dealing with “planes”. Here are direct links to these videos:
911 CNN - WABC fakery of the 2nd plane with black frames
911 CNN - WNYW fakery of the 2nd plane with black frames
911 NBC - eye-witness saw 2 explosions in Twin Towers, but no plane
911 CNN - eye-witness did not see any plane - Dick Oliver cut off, but too late...
911 NBC - Jennifer Oberstein - eye-witness who saw no plane
911 NBC - eye-witness George saw both explosions but no planes
911 ABC reporter Dan Dahler - an eye-witness saw no plane, only an explosion
911 FOX - an eye-witness says it was a bomb, no plane
911 CNN - an eye-witness heard a sonic boom, but no plane
911 BBC - eye-witness Steve Evans saw second explosion(s) but no plane
GM: Dimitri, if you don't mind I would like to interject here.
Dimitri, could you please tell me your thoughts about what really happened at the Pentagon?
(Picture taken immediately after the missile impact – before the Pentagon’s wall was collapsed and before the lampposts were toppled to imitate the “plane’s wings”.)
DK: The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. It is not even my thoughts; it is a matter of fact. You can get a confirmation of my words if you look at this picture showing penetrating details in the case of the Pentagon strike.
(Penetration details of the Pentagon; 6 capital walls were penetrated and the final punch-out hole.)
Do you think this type of damage could have been caused by a Boeing-767? Of course it was a Granit missile. Moreover, the missile was equipped by a real thermo-nuclear warhead (although unexploded due to its intentionally broken detonator). This fact caused an extreme panic in the U.S. government and caused various high-ranking officials to search for weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq. It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein was the actual owner of the missile that struck the Pentagon. It is a long topic do discuss, so I suggest that you read my book – at least three full chapters are devoted to this missile attack. Or you can get more ideas about the Pentagon missile attack if you read my interview on Victor Bout that is available here.
GM: Okay, Dimitri, let us really delve into what really happened on 9/11. Who were the actually perpetrators and what were there motives?
DK: De-facto perpetrators are some individuals from the Mossad and from French secret services. But it is only an outward appearance. The real planners and the real perpetrators are, of course, those folks who promote the New World Order, so-called “globalization”, and other means of the final enslavement of humanity on this Planet. Basically they are the very same guys who stood behind the United Nations Organization, Bilderberg Club, the WTO, the so-called “Council on Foreign Relations”, “Trilateral Commission”, Olympic Games enterprise, “Greenpeace”, “Amnesty International”, and other well-known and little-known instruments of the so-called “globalization”. The 9/11 job was conceived and ordered by these guys, of course. The Mossad and the French are merely hired executors – similar to contract killers in the common sense; they are by no means the masterminds.
GM: Was the Bush administration directly involved in the 9/11 cover-up?
Yes, of course. Can’t you just see this obvious fact with your own eyes? Doesn’t the infamous Report of the 9/11 Commission look like a desperate cover-up to you? But the 9/11 Commission is definitely not a circus and not a bunch of freelance comedians. It is a governmental entity, isn’t it?
GM: I know you are very close to Viktor Bout and his family as well as his Thai lawyer Lak. You were also extremely involved in the actually court case in Thailand. Is there any connection to Viktor Bout's extradition to America and 9/11?
(Dimitri Khalezov (in a black shirt on the background) and Victor Bout (in an orange prison garb) in the Thai Criminal Court during one of the last hearing on Victor’s extradition case in Thailand.)
Yes, of course. The Americans do not even hide this. They openly state that Viktor Bout is “bad guy” in connection to 9/11. But they do not go into details. However, I will. Viktor is actually wanted in America because the U.S. security officials are gullible enough to believe that Victor has allegedly sold the nuclear-tipped missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 to “terrorists”. In addition they believe that Viktor also sold several portable mini-nuclear devices (known as “mini-nukes”) to the so-called “Al-Qaeda” prior to 9/11, and they also believe that he sold weapon-grade Uranium to various terrorists who used the Uranium to produce home-made nuclear bombs that were used in several acts of nuclear terror – particularly in the infamous mini-nuke’s bombing at El-Nogal, in Bogota, Columbia, in 2003, that was presented to plebes as a “car-bombing”. If you need to know more about this affair with Viktor Bout’s extradition from Thailand and my involvement with it, you can read my interview given to Daniel Estulin, that is available for download as a pdf file here.
This one is in English, but it is also available in several other languages. You can find these files and many more interesting files related to Victor Bout and his extradition here.
GM: Dimitri, on behalf of our readers and myself, I want to thank you for these last several days and the wonderful and insightful discussions that we had as well as for your time. I am sure that since I have written quite a bit about Viktor Bout, that many readers would like to know more details about the Viktor Bout case and how it relates to 9/11. Perhaps we will have another discussion soon. Thank you again!