Strong Evidence Of Fake Planes And A Media Hoax On 9/11

[Deborah]

What Khalezov has said is 'some Mossad agents' not the entire Mossad, were involved in the planning of the WTC attack. The US Government was involved. The Demolition Plan in place at construction of the WTC and Bldg. 7 must surely be a matter of public record though I have not been able to find it myself, other researchers say they have. Still looking for factual evidence of that smoking gun. I am attaching below one of the articles about Dimitri Khalezov's findings published in Veterans Today as it speaks specifically about Mike Harari and also about the identity of the person who was responsible for supplying the missile that hit the Pentagon, Viktor Bout. Thought you might find this article informative."February 8, 2011 Veterans Today http://www.veteranstoday.com Veterans Today Staff Writer Dimitri Khalezov Talks on 9/11 and the Mysterious Death of Nick RoweBy J B Campbell STAFF WRITERYou may not remember Nick Rowe. His 1971 book, Five Years to Freedom, told the story of his being captured by Viet Cong after a hellacious gunfight in October, 1963 and his five years as a POW, followed by his escape just before being executed. The Vietnamese Communists had just learned that he had deceived them for five years and kept from them the fact that he was in Special Forces, rather than in the engineers.YouTube - Veterans Today -American students had passed on to the Viet Cong Central Committee their research on Nick. Hiding his true identity and the loss of face to the Reds resulted in a death sentence. He was being marched to the place of execution when a B-52 air raid scattered the firing squad and Nick whacked the one remaining guard with a limb and a circling Huey picked him up.Dimitri Khalezov explains about the nuclear-tipped "Granit" missile with 500 kiloton warhead used in the Pentagon attack.I met Nick when he came to Monterey in ’87 to take a crash course in Tagalog at the Defense Language Institute. A mutual friend asked me to help him find a place to stay. Then he was off to a new job in Manila as the chief of the anti-terror unit of the Military Advisory Group. The Filipino Communists and the Vietnamese Communists very much wanted him assassinated, the latter just for old times’ sake. And he was, but not by them.YouTube - Veterans Today -On April 21, 1989 Nick was in an unprotected car supplied to him by the US Embassy in Manila. Bullet resistant cars for guys on the known assassination list were taken out of the budget. A car pulled up next to Nick’s car and opened fire with an M-16 and a .45. He was hit in the head and elsewhere and died instantly.Willis Carto told me shortly after Nick was shot that the infamous Mossad agent, Mike Harari, had organized the assassination.I have been fortunate to be in contact with Dimitri Khalezov, whose blockbuster revelations about 9-11 are about to change our perception of reality for the better just as profoundly as 9-11 changed them for the worse. He has revealed from first-hand knowledge that Mike Harari organized the 9-11 massacre. First-hand means in this case, Mike Harari told him.The world first heard about Mike Harari during the US invasion of Panama in 1989. He was known in Panama as Mr. 60%, because that’s how much he took from any business deal done between Israel and Panama. He and Noriega split the take. The US invasion of Panama began at 0100 on December 20. Harari and a couple of Israeli colleagues had been warned hours earlier to get out but were caught at the airport by the 82nd Airborne. Here was the chief advisor to Manuel Noriega in drug smuggling and arms smuggling, the very crimes for which Liberace-Bush ordered the invasion. Once the paratroopers figured out who they had, they put him on the plane for Tel Aviv.Dimitri Khalezov says that Harari told him in Bangkok that he had organized the 9-11 massacre. I mentioned Nick Rowe to Dimitri and he immediately confirmed that Harari had admitted this to him also. Harari said that he’d had to depart Manila for Bangkok because of an American colonel he’d assassinated there. Dimitri investigated and found that the colonel was James Nicholas Rowe. Harari’s actual assassin had been careless and had left clues that would tie him to the Israeli. So this shows that Dimitri truly had a confidential relationship with Mike Harari, who he says is an Israeli national hero smaller in stature only to Ben-Gurion or Golda Meir. His revelations about Harari must be taken very seriously, just as his explanations of the nuclear demolition of the three WTC buildings and the Granit missile attack on the Pentagon must be taken seriously. All in all, Dimitri Khalezov has solved the (so far) crime of the 21st Century.Dimitri will be a guest on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad radio show on Thursday February 10, 9-10AM, the first of no doubt many interviews to come.Dimitri’s video series on the nuclear demolitions and the missile attack have been heavily suppressed by YouTube and Google over the past year, but are now quite available from various on-line sources. His latest interview is here.His explanation is devastating in its simplicity. The conversion of three steel-built skyscrapers to fine powder is only possible with nuclear explosions underneath them. Thermite, nano-thermite and thermate may well have been used by the killers to cut beams and girders but they would not have turned concrete to powder, or steel for that matter. For those not familiar with his basic position, gained from his professional experience as a Soviet nuclear security officer, a joint US/USSR treaty called the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Explosions allowed the use of nukes for the demolition of tall buildings, specifically the WTC and Sears Tower in Chicago (which is now reportedly owned by Lucky Larry Silverstein). The New York Port Authority insisted that the architects provide a means for demolition of the buildings when their useful lives inevitably ended. The famous Maryland firm of Controlled Demolition, Inc – the Loizeaux family – came up with the nuclear demolition plan after the WTC architects could offer no other way to bring down their massively-built towers. Dimitri points out that this was a theoretical plan, made to satisfy the Port Authority that the buildings could be demolished. But the plan was there from the beginning. And it was Controlled Demolition, Inc that was put in charge of removing the debris of the 9-11 attack.The twelve-foot round holes punched through six steel-reinforced structural walls of the three rings of the Pentagon could only have been produced by the seven-ton steel Granit (“Shipwreck”) naval cruise missile, which is designed to strike aircraft carriers right at the waterline. Hence, the very low entry point on the outer wall that left no damage to the lawn.Dimitri has also been pressed into service to Viktor Bout, a fellow Russian who was lured into Bangkok by the Americans to be framed for supplying the stolen Granit missile, stolen from the sunken submarine Kursk. Dimitri says that the Granit that hit the Pentagon was carrying a disconnected 500 kiloton warhead that would have flattened Washington DC. The yield by comparison of our Hiroshima uranium bomb was estimated at 15 kilotons, or 15,000 tons of TNT. And our Nagasaki plutonium bomb’s yield was estimated at 21 kilotons. So, we can now grasp how easily our national capital could have been moved to Denver, as some say is the plan after the destruction of Washington DC.The reader should become familiar with Dimitri Khalezov and his great contributions to our understanding what the hell happened on September 11, 2001."

[Deborah]

Mike Ellwood wrote:Thanks for the link Deborah; intriguing.See also this one (first clip of 4):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKhdZTeaZsBTW, does anyone know the name of the person in the TV interview with Khalezov (Deborah's link)? He sounds English, but his face is not familiar to me; he is not a well-known TV personality here, at least not one that I know.Hello MikeIt is purported that the name of the interviewer in the 1-26 video interview series was not divulged on purpose. In a commentary blog one reader asserts that this interviewer was 'suicided' by a heart attack shortly after the interview. When and if I find the name of the interviewer I will send it to you.

[Mike Ellwood]

Thanks Deborah, for both postings.So, it was the Port Authority, rather than the city of New York authorities that insisted on the demolition plan.Presumably, whether or not this was really the case could be easily verified by them.However, given the controversial nature of the plan, perhaps they would deny that it had ever existed.Interviewer: Well, he seemed a bit overweight and lacking in energy, so a heart attack might be a credible way to go. Do you know for which TV station or outlet it was made, and when?EDIT: I was looking for some independent information about any possible rules about compulsory demolition plans for planned skyscrapers in NYC. Not found so far, but I came across the following, which is Dimitri's work, but provides a bit more technical detail, and may be of interest:http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/index.htmlEDIT2: Actually, according to that piece, it was the Department of Buildings, presumably part of the local government of NYC, that insisted on the demolition plan. However, I wouldn't quibble too much about this.....local bureaucracy usually involves an interworking of different layers of authority. The important point is that this requirement is something that in theory, could be easily checked if one knew where to find the information.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Mike Ellwood wrote:Sorry, not talking about fake planes, but in this posting:http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewto ... p6222dated Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:25 am Wim said fairly forcibly the thesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition had been disproven.(See below for complete posting)I was not aware that it had either been proven or disproven, but was still open to debate. Can anyone give me a link to anywhere where it is disproven? (Please note: I am not talking about Building 7). Thank you.I didn't say that 9/11 and the JFK coup are not related, or bear no similarities. That doesn't mean the JFK forum should become a 9/11 forum, especially not when credence is given to long disproven theses like a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, like the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, (building 7 was, not the towers), like mysterious military planes hit the Twin Towers and the commercial flights were made to dissapear .... etc, etc. Yes, it can be quite irritating to counter such diehard myths time and again, the more so if they have nothing to do with JFK, and take away from the core issue that 9/11 was NOT a surprise attack.Mike Ellwood,Don't take this the wrong way, but questioning whether the twin towers were brought down but saying that you don't want to address building 7 seems to be an analysis that is doomed to fail. Building 7 was part of the event. What you need to know (and can easily check out on your own) is that those twin towers were roughly one hundred stories tall (I think 110 stories?). In any event, they came down at virtually FREE FALL SPEED. LOL They both came down in about ten seconds each. That means the lower floors offered NO RESISTANCE to the upper floors coming down. This did not happen by accident. The really important part is that the official story is that jet fuel and fire weakened the steel in the twin towers, etc., causing some sort of pancake collapse. Building 7, WTC 7, is important because it was not hit by a plane at all, and it came down at virtually free fall speed too. It was a shorter building, roughly fifty stories tall if I remember correctly, and it came down in about 6 or 6.5 seconds, which is virtually FREE FALL SPEED again. It also came down hours later like at around 5pm that afternoon. So, when you do an analysis of whether those twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, you sort of HAVE to include building 7, WTC 7, in your analysis. To exclude building 7 in your analysis would be to analyze a picture that is not complete.

[kenmurray]

Here is a good site on WTC7:http://www.wtc7.net/Also:The BBC''s WTC 7 Collapsed at 4:54 PM! http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ideos.html

[Mike Ellwood]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Mike Ellwood wrote:Sorry, not talking about fake planes, but in this posting:http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewto ... p6222dated Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:25 am Wim said fairly forcibly the thesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition had been disproven.(See below for complete posting)I was not aware that it had either been proven or disproven, but was still open to debate. Can anyone give me a link to anywhere where it is disproven? (Please note: I am not talking about Building 7). Thank you.I didn't say that 9/11 and the JFK coup are not related, or bear no similarities. That doesn't mean the JFK forum should become a 9/11 forum, especially not when credence is given to long disproven theses like a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, like the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, (building 7 was, not the towers), like mysterious military planes hit the Twin Towers and the commercial flights were made to dissapear .... etc, etc. Yes, it can be quite irritating to counter such diehard myths time and again, the more so if they have nothing to do with JFK, and take away from the core issue that 9/11 was NOT a surprise attack.Mike Ellwood,Don't take this the wrong way, but questioning whether the twin towers were brought down but saying that you don't want to address building 7 seems to be an analysis that is doomed to fail. Building 7 was part of the event. What you need to know (and can easily check out on your own) is that those twin towers were roughly one hundred stories tall (I think 110 stories?). In any event, they came down at virtually FREE FALL SPEED. LOL They both came down in about ten seconds each. That means the lower floors offered NO RESISTANCE to the upper floors coming down. This did not happen by accident. The really important part is that the official story is that jet fuel and fire weakened the steel in the twin towers, etc., causing some sort of pancake collapse. Building 7, WTC 7, is important because it was not hit by a plane at all, and it came down at virtually free fall speed too. It was a shorter building, roughly fifty stories tall if I remember correctly, and it came down in about 6 or 6.5 seconds, which is virtually FREE FALL SPEED again. It also came down hours later like at around 5pm that afternoon. So, when you do an analysis of whether those twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, you sort of HAVE to include building 7, WTC 7, in your analysis. To exclude building 7 in your analysis would be to analyze a picture that is not complete.Pasquale,I was taking it as a given that WTC was demolished. I only mentioned it because Wim was not questioning WTC 7, but he was questioning (the demolition of) buildings 1 and 2, the twin towers.I think we are at slightly cross purposes here, so I will repeat my question/request:Leaving aside for the moment the question of WTC 7 (which I think was demolished), can anyone point me to purported proof that the twin towers were NOT demolished (I am referring to Wim's old posting, but he didn't give a reference). I personally also think that the Twin Towers, i.e. towers 1 and 2, were demolished, but of course I personally don't have any proof. I find Dimitri's case compelling on some levels, but a little far-fetched on others.(But not as far-fetched as the idea that the steel girders could be rendered into powder by jet fuel).Regards,Mike

[Mike Ellwood]

kenmurray wrote:Here is a good site on WTC7:http://www.wtc7.net/Also:The BBC''s WTC 7 Collapsed at 4:54 PM! Perfidious Albion strikes again!

[Deborah]

Engineers for 911 Truth are holding many events at home and abroad during 2011. www.ae911truth.org

[Mike Ellwood]

kenmurray wrote:Here is a good site on WTC7:http://www.wtc7.net/Also:The BBC''s WTC 7 Collapsed at 4:54 PM! http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... eos.htmlOn that site is a link to this:http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -by.htmlIn the end, a paper was actually published, although it hadn't been when the BBC said it had.Perhaps this is the proof (or disproof) [ that the 2 towers had been demolished] that Wim referred to.However, this is only one man's opinion (Seffen's), although we will have to assume that it was peer-reviewed if it was published in a reputable journal, and is essentially a mathematical model, as I understand it. And models are themselves unproven theories.I don't think it even attempts to disprove that the towers may have been taken down by controlled demolition. Rather it gives a possible explanation as to how they could have collapsed "naturally", given the initial weakening by impact and then fire. If we accept that it was possible, then it weakens (but does not disprove) the theory that they were taken down by controlled demolition. It does rob the conspiracy theorists of the argument that the towers could ONLY have been taken down by controlled demolition.The onus would then be on them to prove controlled demolition (which is rather hard given the disposal of much of the evidence).

[Alex Hidell]

Can we all agree that this discussion has virtually nothing to do with the JFK assassination?Can we all agree that the terrorists who flew the plans into the buildings weren't even alive in 1963 when JFK was killed?