1 year ago

1.81K

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

Part 17. An official video animation by ABC is shown that purports to represent an
official version of the Pentagon attack - the American Airlines Flight 77 approaches the
Pentagon on a high altitude, makes an unprecedented sharp descent - a kind of high¬
speed downward spiral and then continues at full cruise speed parallel to the ground,
toppling standing lamp-posts with its wings till it hits the wall of the Pentagon. A
punched-out hole is shown that bears no signs of the plane’s wings and that clearly
pertains to a kind of a missile. Contemporary CNN footage is shown where a Senior
Pentagon correspondent for CNN Jamie McIntyre reports live from the Pentagon lawn
claiming that he did not see any sign of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon. The green Pentagon lawn is clean and pristine and the CNN’s camera-man
makes sure to show how intact the lawn is. It is clear that the CNN’s reporter does not
believe the Pentagon was hit by any plane. The next footage from NBC briefly shows the
Pentagon lawn before the collapse of its wall damaged on impact. The lawn is pristine
without any signs of a “plane crash” whatsoever. Moreover, all lampposts (that would be
toppled later to blame that on alleged “plane wings”) are still standing. The next footage
shows how a former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer affords a Freudian slip of the
tongue saying that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, then correcting himself and
continuing talking about a “passenger plane” as if nothing happened. Two contemporary
witnesses are shown from a CBS clip who talk about a “huge explosion” without
mentioning any passenger plane, moreover, one of the witnesses says that he thought it
was a generator that malfunctioned and exploded. Yet another witness - not unknown
Mike Walter from “USA Today” - in the next clip claims that “it was like a cruise
missile with wings that went right there and slammed into the Pentagon”. From this point
the discussion moves on the sunken Russian submarine “Kursk” and origins of the
“Granit” missile. When asked to repeat what he stated in his book in regard to the
“Kursk” missiles and missile silos, Khalezov proceeds to explain that the missiles were
stolen from the submarine and by the time of the operation to recover the “Kursk” the
missiles were no longer there and the top Russian officials apparently knew this fact very
well. Therefore before the recovery operation had started, the Russian Navy commanders
had sent a special unit of navy divers with a strange instruction - to fill the empty silos
(where the “Granit” missiles were supposed to be) with certain fast-setting foam and then
- to seal their lids. It was done with an apparent reason to hid the fact that the missiles
were no longer there. However, the Russians were obliged to produce some official
explanation to this strange action. The official version was that this fast setting foam was
used to allegedly prevent the missiles from dangling during the submarine transportation
to the port. With submarine already recovered and secured in the port, the Russian
officials had no choice then but to continue with this what Khalezov calls “production”.
The officials concocted a report that the missiles were allegedly so badly damaged that it
was not possible to open the lids of their launching tubes and it was necessary to destroy
the missiles along with their silos. However bizarre, this idea was carried out: the entire
missile silos were cut out of the board of the submarine by means of welding, delivered
to some secure location, laid in trenches and destroyed by portable nuclear devices (mini¬
nukes). To provide proof of these unprecedented claims Khalezov refers to two on-line
news articles in Russian language supplied with English translations from which it is
clear that: a) the Russians indeed destroyed the alleged “Granit” missiles along with their
thermo-nuclear warheads and even launch-tubes; b) they indeed carried out their
destruction without opening the silos that were cut “as is” from the submarine’s board; c)
they apparently used some low-caliber nuclear munitions to actually destroy the silos,
because it appears so from the context of the second article - due to the fact that local
deer-breeders were advised by the Department of Civil Defense to take iodine during the
abovementioned works. Khalezov also confirms that it would be logical to destroy the
empty silos with nuclear munitions, because only a nuclear explosion could ensure the
destruction of the silos completely, without leaving any evidence that could point out that
there were no actual missiles (and neither their half-megaton thermo-nuclear warheads)
inside the silos filled only with the fast-setting foam. Both news articles, however bizarre,
corroborate Khalezov’s claims in regard to the stealing of all the missiles from the
“Kursk”.