There are 26 course comments:
|At 06:59 on 10/04/05, DR215 Professor from 911 University added:|
We hope it can be useful to others as well.
|At 19:47 on 10/05/05, Brian H. from American Almanac added:|
|At 18:43 on 10/08/05, Diane A. from California added:|
|At 18:15 on 11/17/05, I can see! from Gatlinburg, TN added:|
|At 11:03 on 12/24/05, James Ha from Tujunga,Ca. 91042 added:|
|At 05:52 on 01/13/06, Andrew from New Zealand added:|
|At 08:22 on 02/06/06, Mark McInnes from Daring To Question All 'Authority' added:|
It's been a lonely 4+ years (props to those who led the way) waiting for the world to start to catch on.
|At 04:58 on 03/27/06, truth seeker from Lawrence, KS added:|
I don't know which is more revealing, the content of this page, or how few "911 truth" sites link to it.
|At 18:57 on 03/27/06, reader from 198.207.168.** added:|
|At 10:47 on 03/30/06, Tina Louise from Arms Against War added:|
|At 20:11 on 04/03/06, u2r2h from Planet Earth added:|
911 is the greatest crime-story the world has ever seen...
The technical special effects and the snuff 3000 bloody murders are the biggest real-life cop show ever.
The important thing is that we will find out what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Every aspect is a lesson for generations to come.
The outcome of the lesson is clear: we must never allow private business and military madmen become big enough to harm us. in fact, its the VERY SAME conclusion that the germans reached after Hitler.. and their solution was powerful, independent public broadcasters (TV without ads and free, tenured journalists), public-(state-)owned banks and strong, independent courts.
|At 17:12 on 04/23/06, Citizen of the World from A World Without Borders added:|
Power was the motive
And so the US government begins suborning democracy at home and invading third world countries, supported by its own mislead public. History repeats itself.
We live in sad times.
|At 20:39 on 04/24/06, richard i knight from rossville, ga added:|
|At 03:13 on 05/01/06, Jared from San Francisco, CA added:|
|At 03:28 on 05/02/06, Diana Lea from Ogden Utah added:|
|At 06:21 on 06/17/06, DR215 Professor from 911 University added:|
|At 04:35 on 08/02/06, SeekTheTruth from Orlando, FL added:|
|At 00:36 on 01/04/07, theSaiGirl from 9/11 Truth - Los Alamos added:|
Is it ok if I post a link to it from one of my blogs ?
|At 19:33 on 03/18/07, Frankie M. from http://myspace.com/no2nwo added:|
|At 20:47 on 04/24/07, DR215 Professor from 911 University added:|
JOB TWO of 9/11 was Homeland Creation
|At 08:30 on 08/07/07, John 9/11 Doe from 221.40.80.** added:|
|At 21:44 on 09/06/07, DR215 Professor from 911 University added:|
And, considering the BBC can apparently not notice, among other big blatant discrepancies in official evidence, that the guy in the U.S. government's "Osama confession video" looks and acts nothing like Osama, but that they were somehow able to report the fall of the 47-story WTC building #7 23 minutes before it fell, and then they (their words) cocked up (their original copy of that video is mysteriously missing from their archive vault), and their explanation for it all is wholly inadequate (both refusing to confirm that they'd done it at all, and also trying to equate saying things which later turned out to be untrue or inaccurate with reporting in advance an unforseeable impossible 'accident'), we probably should have known better than to have linked to the BBC in the first place.
In deciding whether to believe the BBC as it tells us which of its conflicting reports to disbelieve, please do not fail to note that in the BBC blog entry to which you referred, "The Editors" label as a "conspiracy theorist" anyone who has seen through the impossible official government conspiracy theory, but do not label those who've swallowed and still cling to the disproven discredited preposterous conspiracy theory which holds that "19 guys with boxcutters did all that".
|At 13:12 on 08/22/10, GodSend from Sons of Light added:|
"Off with their heads!"
HOW the Israeli did it is not nearly as important as THAT they did it - but very interesting.
|At 01:51 on 08/26/10, Student of 9/11 from North Carolina added:|
So, even if you are correct (you could be...; saying it doesn't make it true, but I can't prove you're wrong, and even a stopped clock is right twice per day), how does that not divert attention from the enemy within?
All in all, the blaming of foreign entities for what clearly was and remains domestic treason is and always will be good cover for the home-grown traitors.
Also, there are many loud-mouthed nitwits and haters who seem to 'think' that since the Mossad admittedly uses deception, that, therefore, any time deception is involved, it must have been caused by Mossad...
|At 17:38 on 04/19/11, D Y from Khalezov's 911thology added:|
He is witness to some '100% verifiable' facts and maybe some 500-1000 assertions which answer questions, with less than 100% consistency, imho.
Video is well worth watching, a must see.
Or do you want us to think for ourselves!!!!?
|At 05:16 on 08/05/11, DR215 Professor from 911 University added:|
First, the physics: Khalezov claims that the twin towers and WTC7 were destroyed by underground old-fashioned atomic bombs (1 per building). He bases this primarily on his claimed knowledge of some supposed Soviet intelligence information regarding purported secret self-demolition capabilities built into U.S. skyscrapers. He strives to loosely fit the unconventional (ie, nuclear) aspects of the ""Ground Zero"" devastation to this supposed secret Soviet intelligence information. Parts of this he does worse than others, including by using conventional terms to refer to, and thus downplay, highly unconventional effects. Compared to the ludicrous nonsense spewed by Dr. S.E. Jones, Khalezov's views seem to require fewer leaps of faith, and violate fewer laws of physics, or at least violate them by fewer orders of magnitude. Still, both are nonsense. At least Khalezov's theory remains testable (fused bedrock would still be radioactive), if one can just obtain a coring sample from one of the right spots hundreds of feet below the WTC.
Meanwhile, we do not believe it. For one thing, evidence of large chunks of exterior tower walls, trailing roilimg plumes of particles as they fell from great heights, while the exterior walls and support columns closer to the ground still remained intact, is consistent with extremely intense energy having been (first) released far above ground level, contrary to Khalezov's nebulous energy-transmitted-via-solids underground-A-bomb theory. For another, the critical WTC "tub", which kept (and still keeps) the below-sea-level portions of the WTC dry, would likely not have survived intact, if at all, 3 such underground detonations, which supposedly somehow "pulverized" [sic] the structures (and all the contents?) of the twin towers (and WTC7), to heights far above ground level...
Tne disinfo: the overall presentation leaves much to be desired. Each of the first 3 (of 26) 10-minute segments is chock full of the phrase "the planes" -- so much so that they are probably best skipped, except as an example of 9/11 disinformation (it's borderline comical, a kind of disclaimer/correction at the very end of segment 3; we can't tell if they're trying to convince themselves or confuse their audience that they don't really believe in "the planes" to which they've both just spend half an hour repeatedly referring to as if they do). Talking about a fictitious element of 9/11 as if it is real is not only illogical, but a known disinfo tactic -- and these 2 did it even though they know it's wrong! Further, much later in the video, Khalezov attempts to refute the notion of "the planes" (including by drawing a nearly-matching outline of a plane on top of an image of a damaged tower wall; he also talks about the other "crash sites"). This, following the repeated references to "the planes", seems like an attempt to create doublethink in the minds of their audience. There is also some odd reference to some notion that the towers were secretly deliberately underground-nuked in order to prevent some kind of greater calamity resulting from the detonation of suddenly-introduced high-above-ground nukes (as if the people who deliberately nuked the towers were doing public good in making a tough decision, to use an old existing built-in demolition system, to thwart some unanticipated sudden attack from some whole other entity!).
Just a few minutes from the very end of the 4+ hour presentation, it actually quotes the last paragraph of this 911U physics discussion (see just above "(DIS)PROVING THIS HYPOTHESIS", which was appended subsequently, and presents video evidence for which Khalezov's theory can not account), without attribution (though he does refer to the work of others by name for no obvious reason), and even falsely suggests that this unnamed article ("some physicist") agrees with his nuclear theory, without ever mentioning that the unattributed 911U physics article refers to many tiny planted fissionless nuclear fusion devices! So there can be no doubt that 911U's physics article preceded Khalezov's video. This all makes Khalezov's presentation seem compatible with the possibility that its primary purpose is to enable people to mistakenly believe that ""Ground Zero"" was indeed a nuclear event, but not any kind of working demonstration of a new energy paradigm capable of transforming the planet for the better; therefore "no secret larger than 9/11 itself was revealed; nothing too terribly special happened there, Citizen; move along"...
It would be (and would have been) nice and interesting to hear Dmitri comment on this discussion, of which he was obviously aware at the time. There is no way of knowing how much of a gulf may exist between his views (then or now) and the way that 'interview' was steered and the video was produced (the DVD's menu screen image is of a "light cross" -- Sun + lens flare -- shining between the twin towers, which helps people to mistakenly see 9/11 cast in a religious framework, which is good disinfo, but curious behavior for an honest 9/11 lie-buster who not only says that the towers were nuked, but that other aspects of the official legend of 9/11 are also false).
In terms of both physics and overall content and its presentation, we find there to be a striking serious lack of coherence and credibility to the alternative-explanation 9/11 musings in Dimitri Khalezov's video.
26 comments displayed
Add a worthy comment of your own: