1 year ago

1.19K

Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 Truth 9/11 Nuclear Demolition 9/11 No Planes

Part 15. Discussion regarding the true causes of the WTC-7 demolition moves on. The
WTC-7 demolition was pure hiding of evidence, an earlier part of the would be 9/11
cover-up. The interviewer wonders - why would not the American officials honestly
admit to public that they were obliged to demolish the Twin Towers due to fears that
otherwise a few millions of New Yorkers might die? Khalezov answers that even though
such an explanation would sound justifiable, it would be very difficult to explain to
general public what the nuclear devices were doing under the World Trade Center in the
first instance. Were the US officials expecting some terrorist attacks, that they placed
their own nuclear devices under the Twin Towers (or just because of some bureaucratic
clause in the New York building code)? The public would apparently never accept this
and the responsible US officials realized this when planning their 9/11 cover up. The
interviewer asks why would the US officials launch two wars against innocent people on
the basis of something they knew wasn’t true? Khalezov answers that this, in fact, was
quite explainable because it was a very common step of political technology. It was
described in “1984” by Orwell. Khalezov gives an example - when there occurred a
nuclear bombing in Beirut in 1983 against US Marines barracks, the US Government had
no choice then but to launch a war against Grenada the very next day. Just in order to
distract a public attention from a nuclear explosion in Beirut towards the occupation of
Grenada. But it was a smaller thing (because in Beirut a typical mini-nuke less than 1
kiloton was used). In New York it was a much bigger event (three thermo-nuclear
explosions 150 kiloton each), so a war should be bigger as well, in order to distract the
public attention appropriately. So, it appears to Khalezov that launching two wars against
Iraq and Afghanistan was quite reasonable, in their view, considering the circumstances.
The interviewer moves on saying that the WTC Building #7 housed the largest offices of
the US secret services, the Mayor of New York’s Emergency Operational Center, all
these offices had kept in them some legal materials. Does Khalezov think the WTC-7
demolition might have anything to do with an intention to destroy these legal materials?
Khalezov answers he does not think so. The WTC-7 demolition had only something to do
with the hiding of the existence of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme and if some
incriminating materials were destroyed as a result, it was merely coincidence. Asked if
there must have been some safety device regarding the WTC nuclear demolition scheme,
Khalezov answers that there must have been some alarm system that would produce
alarm signals transmitted towards the dangerous area that was about to be demolished.
However, he says, if one reviews carefully a published time-table of 9/11, a strange thing
will be found: early in the morning September 11 this alarm system was turned off. And
nobody can explain why. So, when they actually pressed the Red button to demolish the
WTC (and they pressed them inside the WTC) there was no alarm signal produced.
Asked if these people who turned off the alarm system had some advanced knowledge of
the possible planes’ attacks Khalezov answers he does not think so. He thinks it was a
kind of conspiracy. The discussion then moves on to the exact positioning of the
demolition charges under the WTC and their effects on other buildings. Khalezov is
asked how he was able so precisely to calculate their exact positioning in his book. He
answers that it was quite easy, if you look at the picture of the World Trade Center. Using
a large background 3D map of the WTC, he explains which buildings were pulverized
and which were simply damaged. Particularly interesting, according to Khalezov, is the
fact that a building behind the WTC-7 (Fiterman Hall located 30 West Broadway) was
also damaged. It is very easy to understand why it was damaged. He shows a map of the
WTC complex where it is clear that the WTC-7 had the form of a trapezium if to look at
it from above. This “trapezium” occupied only a half of an imaginary full circle. In order
to demolish such a structure by an underground nuclear explosion a nuclear charge had to
be positioned outside of the actual “trapezium” perimeter - exactly in the middle of the
imaginary full circle. Only in this case its zone of destruction (which is round) would
“embrace” the entire “trapezium” of the WTC-7 and so it was in the case of its nuclear
demolition. The nuclear charge was obviously positioned at the spot described above.
Therefore it would produce an equal zone of destruction not only in the first half of the
imaginary full circle (that was occupied by the WTC-7 “trapezium”) but in the second
half of it as well. And that second half slightly touched the Fiterman Hall on the other
side of the road. That is why the Fiterman Hall too was damaged by the nuclear explosion
despite standing visibly far from the WTC-7. A photograph showing damage to the
Fiterman Hall is shown. It shows damage to one of its comers that perfectly correspond
to the described positioning of the nuclear charge. The Fiterman Hall had to be
demolished later due to its being “contaminated” as claimed in certain related Internet
articles found immediately via Google-search. However, the US Post Office and Verizon
Buildings standing much closer to the WTC-7 were not seriously damaged. This, yet
another 9/11 phenomenon, could be easily understood from the drawings shown in this
presentation.