---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dick Eastman <oldickeastman@q.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citize, former officer of nuclear intelligence "Special Control Service" on WTC radiation mini-nukes at
To: "Dr. Michael Chossudovsky" <chossudovsky@videotron.ca>, "Dr. Steven Jones" <stj911.info@yahoo.com>
I don't have much to comment, honestly. And I guess a reader, who reached this Chapter, already knows
how to read between the lines. Please, only read all of the above carefully – about the "50 meters deep"
certain "combustible mass", about strange "underground" fires still lasting as on December 3, 2001, about
two powerful "ultra-violet absorbers", designed "to absorb high-energy emissions from the fire" – that were
mixed into the water used by the unsuspecting firefighters, and also about the alleged "terrorist atrocity".
Please, don't miss to notice also that the "underground fires" were roaring not only under the WTC-1 and
-2, but under the WTC-7 as well – since the latter also required the two "powerful ultra-violet absorbers" to
be used against. Just read it all.
And make your own conclusions. I hope now, at last, you can properly compare "Ground Zero" works with
the Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" and with the way it was handled by Soviet specialists. This time I am
abstaining from helping you to conclude. Just do it yourself. But try to be unbiased when concluding.
(End of the free edition of the book. Even though it is free it provides the most important 9/11 information.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
As I have already mentioned, there is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a witness. The
difference is that a conspiracy theorist claims what he thinks/guesses/concludes, while a witness states
what he knows. They also enjoy a very different legal status. The testimony of a conspiracy theorist is not
admissible in legal proceedings. While the testimony of a witness is not only admissible in the court-room,
but it is the primary evidence which is technically far more valuable than any documentary evidence.
There is a very big difference in approach to the claims of a conspiracy theorist and to those of an eyewitness,
which many people unfamiliar with law seem not to comprehend. The difference is this. While a
conspiracy theorist could be "right" or "wrong" in what he claims, a witness could not be "right" or "wrong".
A witness could only be a truthful witness, who says the truth, or a false witness who intentionally lies. In
the first case he performs his citizen's duties. In the second case he commits a crime punishable with the
imprisonment. Hope now, at last, you understood what the difference is and from now on you will no
longer call this book a "conspiracy theory"?
The difference between the humble author of these lines and other people who advanced their claims in
regard to 9/11 like Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Prof. James H. Fetzer, Prof. Morgan
Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, so-called "Anonymous Physicist", and other well-known and less-known 9/11
scholars is that not even one of them could testify under oath that he knows the truth and promises to say
the truth, the only truth and nothing by the truth, primarily because they do not know the truth and are only
guessing, while the humble author of these lines could testify under oath, because he knows the truth and
does not need to guess.
Since many people attempted to claim that my video presentation (that first appeared on the Internet in March, 2010) and, consecutively, my book, were allegedly a new, although a "very plausible" 9/11 "conspiracy theory", I am obliged to disprove this dangerous accusation in an official manner. My version is not a "conspiracy theory", dear accusers, because by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you intentionally, again, intentionally, try to diminish my legal status from being an important 9/11 witness, whose testimony is admissible in the court of law – to being a meager 9/11 conspiracy theorist, whose suggestions have no legal value. But, please, be informed, dear accusers, that this kind of cheap trick does not work with the humble author of these lines. I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a witness, who testifies as follows:
As I have already mentioned, there is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a witness. The difference is that a conspiracy theorist claims what he thinks/guesses/concludes, while a witness states what he knows. They also enjoy a very different legal status. The testimony of a conspiracy theorist is not admissible in legal proceedings. While the testimony of a witness is not only admissible in the court-room, but it is the primary evidence which is technically far more valuable than any documentary evidence. There is a very big difference in approach to the claims of a conspiracy theorist and to those of an eyewitness, which many people unfamiliar with law seem not to comprehend. The difference is this. While a conspiracy theorist could be "right" or "wrong" in what he claims, a witness could not be "right" or "wrong". A witness could only be a truthful witness, who says the truth, or a false witness who intentionally lies. In the first case he performs his citizen's duties. In the second case he commits a crime punishable with the imprisonment. Hope now, at last, you understood what the difference is and from now on you will no longer call this book a "conspiracy theory"?
The difference between the humble author of these lines and other people who advanced their claims in regard to 9/11 like Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Prof. James H. Fetzer, Prof. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, so-called "Anonymous Physicist", and other well-known and less-known 9/11 scholars is that not even one of them could testify under oath that he knows the truth and promises to say the truth, the only truth and nothing by the truth, primarily because they do not know the truth and are only guessing, while the humble author of these lines could testify under oath, because he knows the truth and does not need to guess.
Since many people attempted to claim that my video presentation (that first appeared on the Internet in
March, 2010) and, consecutively, my book, were allegedly a new, although a "very plausible" 9/11 "conspiracy theory", I am obliged to disprove this dangerous accusation in an official manner. My version is not a "conspiracy theory", dear accusers, because by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you intentionally, again, intentionally, try to diminish my legal status from being an important 9/11 witness, whose testimony is admissible in the court of law – to being a meager 9/11 conspiracy theorist, whose suggestions have no legal value. But, please, be informed, dear accusers, that this kind of cheap trick does not work with the humble author of these lines. I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a witness, who testifies as follows:
(His actual name is withheld in this particular edition of the book, but is available in the full one).
5) I indeed honestly informed the US authorities at the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, of all of the abovementioned facts providing them in a form of a detailed testimony and I could confirm that the US authorities definitely know about all the four abovementioned facts at least from my testimony.
6) I could confirm that the US authorities knew about terrorism-related activities of the abovementioned high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, as well as about my and his close relationship, even without me informing them as mentioned in the clause 5) above, and they US officials indeed attempted to prosecute him. However, they abandoned all prosecution attempts against the abovementioned Israeli intelligence official and let him escape the prosecution by using another bogus identity. This particular fact that the US officials knowingly let the abovementioned person escape the justice is duly documented in several Thai law courts and I know the corresponding criminal cases' numbers and could provide them if necessary. Anyone could use the text of the abovementioned testimony of mine in any legal proceedings, without modifying any word of mine and without taking any word of mine out of the entire context of the said. I could repeat the above testimony of mine in front of the court of law of any country.
Dimitri A. Khalezov,
the witness.
============================================
About author:
Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called "military unit 46179", otherwise known as "the Special Control Service" of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later "nuclear") intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov
undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center as well as its building 7 were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions – which earned the very name "ground zero" to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the in-built so-called "emergency nuclear demolitions scheme" of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the '80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.
=====
1) Unfortunately, all these so-called "conspiracy theories" (at least those known to me and therefore mentioned below) are in no sense better then the well-known "truth" No.1 concocted by the US Government.
2) Even though the US Government absolutely rightly deserves to be suspected as being the chief perpetrator of 9/11, in reality it was not guilty. It did not know anything in advance about the attacks and has nothing to do with it at all (except, of course, being involved in the ensuing coverup and into a declaration of the so-called "War" against the so-called "Terror"…). There should not be a slightest doubt concerning the US Government's total innocence in regard to the actual 9/11 attacks and in regard to following the attacks the World Trade Center's nuclear demolition.
3) The 9/11 conspiracy theories, unfortunately, are not as "innocent" as they might appear. They do not help truth-seekers to find the truth. They rather prevent them from finding the truth. Moreover, the most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (if not ALL of them) are promoted by shills, appointed by the FBI. It is because the conspiracy theories actually help the FBI to hide the truth about 9/11.
So here is it:
Conspiracy theory No.1 (the most famous proponent – David Ray Griffin): Many people allege that the
US Government has used a big number of cleverly placed charges of conventional explosives . . .
One might try to imagine how it might look – if those alleged "conspirators" have attached some thermite
charges to each of those steel-bars – located not only at the Tower's middles, but also around their dense
outer perimeters only one meter apart from each other. Considering that such charges supposed to have
been positioned not just on one level only, but let's say in 1 meters interval vertically – you are welcome
to make your own calculations as to the number of thermite charges required – similar to the calculations
in regard to explosive charges above… And now try to imagine how the targeted Tower would look if all of
those alleged thermite charges were simultaneously ignited. A thermite reaction, if somebody doesn't
know, produces extremely intense, blinding sparkly flames – similar to that of electric welding (because
thermite is the very material used in the electric welding). You can't simply look with your naked eyes into
such a thing; you must wear a protective mask with dark glasses. Did you see the entire WTC Tower
8 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060906/911_Conspiracy_060906/20060910/
9 Thermite is a composition of aluminum powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction
known as a thermite reaction commonly used in electric welding. It is often used to join railroad rails and is also
implemented in some special hand-grenades intended to quickly and efficiently destroy weapons – such as artillery
pieces, but also to destroy machinery, etc.
44
sparkling from bottom to top at the entire area of each of its four 64 meters wide x 415 meters tall façades
prior to its instant pulverization and collapse? The answer is "no". Yes, indeed there were a couple of
some strange sparkling fires somewhere in the Twin Towers prior to their collapse; these were clearly
visible on some footage. But you have to understand that these were small and isolated sparkling fires
and their alleged importance can not be exaggerated to such an extent as to claim that the entire Towers
were allegedly "stuffed with thermite". It is simply ridiculous. It was not technically possible to stuff the
Twin Towers with thermite due to the very same considerations discussed in debunking the conspiracy
theory No.1 above. Besides, the actual Towers' views before their collapse did not reveal any enormous
blinding sparkling torches that supposed to embrace the entire Towers' bodies from top to bottom and to
be visible even from the most distant outskirts of New York City.
Moreover, even if this particular conspiracy theory struggles to somehow explain those molten pieces of
steel found at "Ground Zero", it would never be able to explain very fine dust to which has been reduced
almost 80% of the entire Tower's structure – i.e. the very core structures made of thick steel the
proponents of the "thermite theory" are talking about. If thermite is capable of melting steel, would it really
mean that thermite would be also capable of reducing this steel to fluffy microscopic dust? Such claim is
not serious.
The initial "thermite theory" was born apparently out of desperation – simply because the truth-seekers
could not find any other reasonable explanation to the "unexplainable" Twin Towers' collapse and also to
"unexplainable" high temperatures found at "Ground Zero" several weeks later – which were intense
enough to melt boots of firefighters who worked there in just only a few hours. I hope it is self-evident that
any potential thermite reaction would never be able to sustain any high temperatures for a few weeks – it
would cool down in half-an-hour at the worst case.
Some proponents of the "thermite theory" also claimed that it must have been thermite which cut some
steel columns found at "Ground Zero" precisely evenly – as it was shown in some pictures. It is not true,
apparently – those "precise cuts" of in the steel columns were caused by conventional explosives – by the
very hollow-shaped charges used to create the alleged "impact" holes for the "terrorist planes". Such
precisely cut ends of the steel columns (at least those on the perimeters) could be clearly seen at that
picture which shows the detailed "impact spot" in the façade of the North Tower, where you could also
see poor Mrs. Edna Cintron, desperately leaning on one of such "precisely cut" columns before the North
Tower's collapse. It is clear that those cuts were caused to steel columns well before the collapse and
could not be blamed on alleged "thermite" which might have been allegedly used later to bring the Twin
Towers down.
Unfortunately, the Theory No. 2 itself is not sustainable at all. It is not plausible even if someone would try
to use it in combination with the abovementioned Theory No.1.
There is also a sub-variety of this incendiary theory – which claims that the evil US Government allegedly
"napalmed" the World Trade Center, but I think we do not need to bother to disprove it, because it is too
bizarre to be even remotely plausible.
Conspiracy theory No.3 (the most famous proponent – Prof. Steven Jones): a so-called "nano-thermite"
theory. This theory is probably the most dangerous lie – not because it sounds plausible to any extent; it
is actually as stupid and as ridiculous as either of the two theories discussed above. It is dangerous
because nowadays it is being favored by the absolute majority of main-stream 9/11 "truthers" tricked into
believing this nonsense by their shifty FBI-appointed leaders.
This is a relatively new theory. It surfaced not later than in 2007, but most probably in 2008. It is based on
an alleged "fact" that "some traces" of so-called "nano-thermite" were allegedly "found" in the WTC dust.
Strangely enough, these alleged "traces" were not found back in 2002, not even in 2003 when it would be
logical to expect them to be found in the WTC dust. They were "found" only around 2007-2008. Which
says a lot of this theory's and its main proponent's credibility, by the way. The "discovery" of the so-called
"nano-thermite" traces strangely coincided with the first attempt by the humble author's of these lines to
publish his book on the WTC nuclear demolition.
According to this so-called "nano-thermite" theory the malicious US Government allegedly "sprayed" (or
"painted") the entire steel columns of the WTC Towers with so-called "nano-thermite" and this alleged
coating was allegedly the very factor that destroyed the steel bearing structures of the Twin Towers.
However, this theory does not provide any plausible physical (or chemical) explanation in regard to how
this so-called "nano-thermite" actually works. Supporters of this theory can't even audibly explain what the
45
so-called "nano-thermite" actually is – whether it is a kind of incendiary (like commonly known themite or
napalm), or it is a kind of explosive (like dynamite, TNT, RDX or C4). Nonetheless, despite this theory
being unexplained, unfeasible from the logical point of view, and, moreover, born in highly suspicious
circumstances, it managed to win a lot of popularity among so-called "main-stream 9/11 truthers" led by
Prof. Steven Jones. It so happened that the "9/11 Truth" society almost unanimously supported this most
bizarre notion and even attempted to prepare some legal charges based on this so-called "nano-thermite"
theory against the US Government. Leaving aside our prediction what would happen in the court-room
when this straw-man argument would be legally submitted to the court of law, we will try to disprove on
our own this most ridiculous notion which, nonetheless, stands on our own way to the ultimate 9/11 truth.
Could it be true that so-called "nano-thermite" was indeed responsible for the WTC demolition as claimed
by Prof. Steven Jones and his flock? There are primary points and secondary points which will help us to
debunk this dangerous nonsense.
The primary points are these:
If so-called "nano-thermite" exists not only in sick imaginations of 9/11 "truthers" but also in reality, then
logically it should belong to either of the two groups:
a) explosives;
b) incendiaries.
If so-called "nano-thermite" indeed exists in reality and it is "explosive", then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by "nano-thermite" due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.1.
If so-called "nano-thermite" indeed exists in reality and it is "incendiary", then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by "nano-thermite" due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.2.
The secondary points are these:
Prof. Steven Jones who is the author of this notion is also an author of another infamous notion – that
empty aluminum projectiles could allegedly penetrate thick steel targets. Unlikely it would be reasonable
to believe a person who claims that hitherto unknown mysterious substance could allegedly "melt" steel
into fluffy microscopic dust, considering that this very same person also claims that steel was allegedly
susceptible to being cut using aluminum cutting tools. If you add here that Prof. Steven Jones is actually a
physicist, it aggravates the whole thing. If he were a former priest or a former senator, it, perhaps, would
be forgivable. But unlikely it could be forgivable to a physicist. In addition to all of it, it shall be taken into a
serious consideration that being a nuclear scientist, Prof. Steven Jones must have known what "ground
zero" really meant in the then specific nuclear jargon. It did not mean "a place where a building has been
melted by so-called "nano-thermite" into fluffy microscopic dust". It meant "a place of a nuclear or thermonuclear
explosion". And it is highly unlikely that a person holding a Doctorate in nuclear physics might not
notice this more than transparent hint.
I believe that from now on the reader of this book would not bother trying to adjust reality to the bogus
claims of the so-called "nano-thermite" theory, and realized, at last, that this senseless theory is intended
only to dupe him and to lead him away from the truth.
Conspiracy theory No.4 (proponents – all U.S. and foreign high-ranking officials, 9/11 Commissioners,
NIST Commissioners, FEMA Commissioners, etc.): the infamous kerosene-pancake-collapse theory (or
as a variety "kerosene-progressive collapse" theory). This theory, as you could probably understand, is
the least plausible, because those "patricians" who promote it for consumption of gullible plebeians,
themselves do not believe it either. However, quite a few people still believe this theory. The theory
claims that burning kerosene from alleged "planes" along with fires caused by further burning of various
office materials allegedly weakened structural steel of the WTC Twin Towers and this allegedly caused a
so-called "pancake collapse" (other version: a so-called "progressive" collapse) of both buildings. Since
some few gullible people still believe this ridiculous notion, I am obliged to devote a few lines to
disproving this particular theory as well. The easiest way to disprove it, perhaps, is this: the Twin Towers'
designers apparently had to take into consideration that one day some fire might occur inside these
buildings. Therefore they had to design them with a certain degree of "overprotecting" or "reinsurance" –
i.e. you don't even have to doubt that the WTC designers calculated structural strength of steel frame in
case of the worst possible fires – eg. caused by a direct hit by a fully loaded largest commercial aircraft.
46
And by no means could the WTC designers have been mistaken in their calculations. It would be just
stupid of us to presume that the original WTC architects would design a 415 meters tall structure that
should have been populated by perhaps 50.000 human beings and sincerely hoped (and keep their
fingers crossed) that no fires would ever happen inside their brainchild, because in case of bad luck the
construction would collapse due to some unfortunate fires. Do you agree with this logic? Besides, it shall
be known that any architect should be arrested and tried in a court of law if any construction designed by
him would ever collapse and cause some damage (not to say the loss of life). If the WTC Twin Towers
indeed collapsed due to kerosene weakening their structural integrity, the original WTC designers, along
with those who supplied them steel of presumably inferior quality should have been behind bars now.
This is the way the law functions in any civilized country, the United States inclusive. Did you see any of
the WTC architects on trial so far? The answer is "no". This
Another excerpt from larger except of many chapters from the book -- dealing with his nuclear device thesis
What we need to find is this: according to our presumption, a few hundreds of people (most of them
firefighters) must accumulate dangerous doses of ionizing radiation during the first hours at ground zero –
which would unavoidably lead to their suffering from acute radiation sickness that would be immediately
noticeable. Thus, we could presume that these people should begin to seek medical treatment on the 2nd
and 3rd day after being exposed to huge doses of radiation, since it would be logical to presume so. Let's
try to find some confirmation of this presumption in the above mentioned report.
I am quoting (from page 72 of the report): "…WTC exposures can best be understood as a temporal
sequence of five exposure categories of varying intensity. The first exposure category occurred during the
first 12 hours after the collapse, during the most intense exposure to rescuers, residents, commercial
building occupants and people in transit and when they were exposed to the highest concentration of
large and small particles and various gases. The second exposure category occurred twelve hours after
the collapse up to the first rain on September 14, 2001 at which time WTC-affected groups were exposed
to large and small particles that were periodically resuspended, as well as to gases which were
emitted from intense fires at Ground Zero..."
We make here our first attempt to read "between the lines". As you might sincerely expect the author of
this report "forgot" to explain to his gullible reader what "ground zero" really meant those days. This is
understandable, indeed. Let's follow his advice and try to "understand" the WTC "exposures" using the
abovementioned time frames. Why "the most dangerous" exposure occurred during first 12 hours after
the collapse? What do you think? To get an answer to this puzzle, please, look again at the dynamics of
how typically radiation levels subside in first hours after a nuclear explosion – mentioned at the end of the
previous Chapter. Why the "second exposure category" mentioned by this report is placed in a time-frame
between September 11 and September 14? You can get an answer to this second puzzle from the same
source – just look again at the digits available at the end of the previous Chapter and you will get the
point. Because during first 3 days the levels of radiation are the highest – so the people exposed to these
levels could likely develop some acute radiation sickness. While it is very unlikely that the people would
accumulate such large doses after the first 3 days have been passed. Still, this report mentions three
more categories of "exposure", but in our case we can neglect them. Because here were are looking only
for causes and available victims of acute radiation sickness, leaving chronic radiation sickness and its
victims aside for a while.
I am quoting again (from page 73): "During these five periods of exposure, WTC-affected populations
sustained varying, but largely unknown, levels of exposure to a long list of toxic agents generated by the
collapse of the WTC. Among these were asbestos fibers (from insulation and fireproofing materials);
concrete and the crystalline silica it contained (made from Portland cement and used in the Towers'
118
construction); carbon monoxide (from fires and engine exhaust); diesel particulates (from vehicle engine
exhaust); mercury (from fluorescent lights); heavy metals such as aluminum, titanium, chromium, zinc
and manganese (from building materials and furnishings); hydrogen sulfide (from sewers, decomposing
human remains and spoiled foodstuffs); inorganic acids; volatile and semivolatile organic compounds
("VOCs"); polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"); polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs");
polychlorinated dioxins ("PCDDs") and furans ("PCDFs"); various pesticides; and other toxic agents."
As you might sincerely guess in our case we can disregard with a light heart all those alleged "toxic
agents", except only the very last one, vaguely defined in this shameless report as "other".
Quote from page 79: "…Surrogates such as time of arrival at the WTC site, time exposed to the plume,
distance from Ground Zero, and specification of activities involving exposure to debris, dust, and smoke
could be used as semiquantitative determinants of exposure." You don't have to doubt that this is exactly
the case. As earlier you arrive at ground zero, as closer to ground zero you will be, and as longer you will
be there, as more radiation you will be exposed to.
And, at last, on the page 84 of this report we found what we were looking for. Here is a confirmation about
acute radiation sickness: "…In the first 24 hours after the WTC attacks, 240 FDNY personnel sought
emergency medical treatment. Of these, 28 were hospitalized and 50 received treatment for acute
respiratory symptoms caused by inhalation of airborne smoke and dust. Several firefighters had
respiratory problems that started within hours of the disaster, and they were treated for serious, newly
onset lung diseases. Others had respiratory symptoms that arose weeks or months after their work at
Ground Zero began..." In this statement all – figures and time-frames are quite believable and correspond
to our estimation of radiation doses received during the first, the most dangerous hours. All you have to
do here is to change words "respiratory symptoms" to words "radiation sickness" while leaving the word
"acute" in its place. And you will get about the right picture: 240 firefighters got serious doses of ionizing
radiation – definitely exceeding 50 Roentgens (probably even exceeding 100 Roentgens in many cases),
they felt seek and sought emergency medical treatment. Some of them with the most heavy condition
were hospitalized (and you could guess that some of them died), while some other might require only outpatient
treatments – typical to light- and medium-light cases of acute radiation sickness (though even they
could die later). You can add here that some civilians who were trapped in the immediate vicinity of the
Towers during their collapse and spent there some time before being able to run away also got their tensand
hundreds of Roentgen doses of ionizing radiation, also felt sick the next day and they also sought
emergency medical treatment, but they were not embraced by this report. It happened because they
sought their treatment in a variety of hospitals around and nobody bothered to count all of them, unlike
the FDNY – which had more or less centralized approach when monitoring health conditions of its staff.
Now we understand, at last, that it was not that there were no cases of acute radiation sickness at ground
zero in Manhattan. There were hundreds of cases of acute radiations sickness – as expected, but they
were not honestly reported as such. However, practically all those cases of acute radiation sickness
occurred only during the first day; that is why there were only hundreds of them, rather than thousands.
Now let's imagine that the US officials who knew for sure what happened at "Ground Zero" in reality were
not completely ignorant when it comes to radiation effects. And even if they were ignorant they would be
advised by those ABC specialists who visited "Ground Zero" in "lunar-looking hazmat suits" – since those
guys apparently knew about radiation and its properties very well. Actually, you don't have to doubt that
responsible (or to be more exact "irresponsible") US officials by one way or another knew it very well that
if they let people wonder at "Ground Zero" and around it without any control, it will soon (in only 2-3 days)
result in multiple cases of acute radiation sickness, ranging from light- and medium- to heavy- and even
very heavy cases. But in any case even light forms of such acute radiation sickness will be immediately
noticeable. In only a couple of days thousands will feel sick and an awful truth about severe radioactive
contamination of Manhattan would spread out. I guess it is easily imaginable what would happen if some
5-6 thousands of the people would feel immediately sick and would be hospitalized with "strange" but
well-known symptoms after obviously obtaining their "sickness" at "Ground Zero".
That is why we shall presume that some crafty US officials were obliged to find some solution on how to
prevent Ground Zero workers and nearby Manhattan residents from being subjected to doses of residual
radiation that could exceed 50 Roentgens and so to prevent them from feeling feel sick right away. How
they did it in regard to the Manhattan residents is well-known – they simply evacuated them and did not
allow them to return until dangerous levels of radiation have naturally subsided. Once they judged that
radiation levels were as low as not to allow anyone to accumulate the required 50 Roentgens in, let's say
a whole year, the residents were allowed to return (and to continue to inhale deadly radioactive vapor that
would in only a couple of years cause chronic radiation sickness rather than acute one). This is clear how
the US officials prevented acute radiation sickness among Manhattan residents. But it was not so easy to
119
prevent it among gullible Ground Zero responders, as anyone could probably imagine. Still, those crafty
US officials managed to do it either even in regard to the responders.
Here is an extremely seditious article from John Hopkins Public Health Magazine published on the
Internet76. Of course, you have to read it as usual – meaning "between the lines" (note what is in bold).
"Mobilizing Public Health - Turning Terror's Tide with Science
Danger in the Dust
It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the
School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on
foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of airmonitoring
equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the
tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast.
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very
intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now
being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Geyh, an assistant scientist with the School's Department
of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), heads the team of scientists sent by the School in
response to a request by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for a
coordinated study of the disaster's potential health effects to those in the immediate environment.
By attaching personal air monitors to the workers and by placing stationary air sampling
pumps outside the periphery of Ground Zero, Geyh (pronounced "Guy") and her colleagues can
determine the density of the particulate matter in the air, the size of those particles, and any
short-term health effects to those at and around the site.
"This is an incredible situation," she reports. "The recovery and clean-up efforts are going on
around the clock. Hundreds of people are at the site every day; and many of them have been
there since Sept. 11. Workers at the site want to know what they are breathing and what to do to
protect themselves."
Since the drivers and equipment operators are working in
two 12-hour shifts, the researchers must start early and stay
late. "None of the monitors can be left out overnight," says
Geyh, "so around midnight we retrieve everything and take
the equipment back to the hotel, where we recalibrate it
before going to bed." The whole thing recommences at 4
a.m.
"People have been coming back really frazzled," says John Groopman, PhD. "It's clearly among
the most energy-draining experiences of their lives." Groopman, Anna Baetjer Professor and
chair of EHS, knows of no analogous research situation. "The fact that thousands of bodies are
still hidden in the rubble makes the work very tense [and] changes the tenor of everything."
At every stage of the clean-up operation, plumes of dust and smoke are sent skyward. The
Hopkins scientists are also gearing up to measure air quality in the nearby neighborhoods and
to enter residences around Ground Zero to collect and study samples of the dust originally
produced by the collapse, which has sifted into buildings throughout lower Manhattan. - Rod
Graham"
76 http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm - page 1; and
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch2.htm - page 2.
This project is "clearly among
the most energy-draining
experiences of their lives."
- John Groopman
120
No one shall be duped by this article. There is no "air-monitoring equipment" that needs to be attached to
each worker and, moreover, taken from him at the end of the day to be allegedly "re-calibrated". Just try
to be realistic… There is a certain "radiation monitoring equipment" namely "individual dosimeters" that
must be issued to everyone who is exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. And these individual
dosimeters, of course, must be collected from the people at the end of each day in order to get their
meter readings and to calculate each worker's total radiation dose he managed to accumulate on the last
day + on all previous days. It is pretty self-evident what kind of so-called "air-monitoring equipment" they
are talking about in this shameless article. They just used complete ignorance and gullibility of the
"Ground Zero" responders and used them more like cattle, than like humans. Now, at last, you can
imagine why not many Ground Zero responders were able to accumulate 50 Roentgens – in order to get
sick immediately from light form of acute radiation sickness. It happened because some crafty people –
like July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh – were appointed to clandestinely monitor their personal acquired
radiation doses. Once they saw that a radiation dose of a certain worker was getting close to the
dangerous digit and his acute radiation sickness would be noticeable probably tomorrow if he only gets a
few more Roentgens, they quickly took some measures to prevent him from working at "Ground Zero".
For example, they either permanently or temporarily shifted such a person to some other location – for
example to the Staten Island Landfill where levels of radiation supposed to be negligible. That is, by the
way, the very reason why so many Ground Zero responders were routinely shifted from one location to
another – seemingly without any valid reason. But there was a reason, apparently. And the people like
July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh, as well as those "good guys" behind them, knew that reason very well.
Apparently, they performed their clandestine duties very diligently. They only "forgot" to explain their
gullible patients whom they treat like cattle that acute radiation sickness was just one part of ground zero
dangers, while their another part was chronic radiation sickness – which no "secretly" issued individual
dosimeters would be able to prevent…
What is chronic radiation sickness, why it occurs, and what is the difference between chronic and acute
radiation sickness? First of all, when we talk about "radiation exposure" we usually mean only a
momentarily exposure to a hard front of penetrating [ionizing] radiation that in its most dangerous part is
represented by gamma-rays and high-energy neutrons, plus long-times exposure to residual and induced
[ionizing] radiation while being in radioactively contaminated environment – and here again we only count
gamma-radiation, while totally disregarding beta- and alpha- radiations. When we talk about threshold of
50 Roentgens that is the minimum required dose to begin to feel sick immediately, what we mean is 50
Roentgens of gamma-radiation only. We do not count alpha- and beta- radiations in this case. Why it is
that alpha- and beta-radiations are always discarded? It is because only gamma-radiation has enough
penetrating capability to penetrate our entire body and to strike cells of internal organs in order to cause
them to dysfunction. And why we always disregard alpha- and beta- radiations? It is because neither of
them could cause any radiation injury to our internal organs, irrespective of their actual intensities. Alphaparticles,
although extremely dangerous, can not penetrate our skin – they are all stopped by a thin layer
of dead skin tissue that always covers every human being as his "outer skin". Since alpha-radiation is not
penetrative enough to get to inside our bodies, we simply ignore it. Beta-radiation is more penetrative and
it can penetrate the outer "dead" layer of our skin and cause burns to inner "live" layers of our skin. These
skin burns (called "beta-burns") could be quite serious if this beta-radiation was intense enough. Still, we
usually ignore even beta-radiation, along with alpha-radiation. We ignore it because even though betaradiation
in huge quantities could cause "beta-burns", still, it can not get deep inside our bodies and so to
cause any damage to the cells of our internal organs. Besides, beta-radiation can not penetrate our thick
clothes, so one who wears enough clothing is protected from beta-radiation anyway. That is why since we
feel protected from both – alpha- and beta- radiations we don't even count them when we calculate "safe"
and "dangerous" radiation doses in general. During calculations only gamma-radiation levels are counted.
However, the above consideration is true only for the case when you are subjected to alpha- and betaradiations
when these radiations originate from outside of our bodies. It is not the case when you inhale
or ingest some radioactive materials that emit these alpha- and beta- radiations. Because in the latter
case these alpha- and beta- radiations would originate from inside your body, and not from outside of it.
You will no longer be protected from most dangerous alpha-radiation by your skin, since you are being
irradiated from inside. Neither will you be protected from still very dangerous beta-radiation, because you
are being irradiated by it from inside your body. Here is an example: let's say that there is a radioactively
contaminated area – a/k/a "ground zero". You have to perform some job on it and you have to calculate a
safe radiation dose. You sent there a dosimetrist first (in lunar-looking hazmat suit) who reports that levels
of radiation in that area are, let's say, 10 Roentgens per hour. I don't know what an acceptable radiation
dose in the United States is, so I will use here a former Soviet standard. In the Soviet Union it was
believed that even though only doses of 50 Roentgens up could cause noticeable radiation sickness (i.e.
do visible harm to one's body), doses in between 20 and 50 Roentgens could still cause harm to one's
body (although invisible one). That is why it was the following "safe" radiation doses (per gamma121
radiation, of course, because only gamma-radiation is counted in such case) established in the Soviet
Union for the cases of emergency: 25 Roentgen maximum summary doses for combat conditions, and
half of it – i.e. 12.5 Roentgens – for non-combat conditions. In this case "combat" and "non-combat"
conditions could be perceived as follows. If someone who received 12.5 Roentgens dose must be
immediately taken away to prevent him from any further radiation exposure (even from a potential one), in
combat conditions – i.e. when there is an ongoing fighting, even the one who has already received 12.5
Roentgens could be left on the front-line even though he could be subjected to some more exposure –
let's say arising from radioactive contamination after nuclear explosions. However, even in combat
conditions someone whose acquired radiation dose gets close to 25 Roentgens must be removed from
any further potential radiation exposure. These "safe" doses were applicable for emergency cases – such
as a necessity to stop some radioactive leakage immediately and at any cost, or to continue fighting, and
so on. For non-emergency cases, though, these maximum acceptable radiation doses were often set
much lower – let's say only 3-5 Roentgens – depending on the actual situation.
We come back to our sample above. Let's base it on the former Soviet standards, since we do not know
the American ones for sure. We have: "ground zero" where levels of radiation are currently ~10 Roentgen
per hour, according to our dosimetrist's report. We have to establish first whether this work is really an
"emergency" work or not. Regarding the removal of debris it is apparently not an "emergency" – because
debris could be removed even a few months later, when the levels of radiation at "ground zero" would
subside considerably. However, regarding rescuing the people who might be trapped under the debris, it
must be considered as an "emergency". Thus we decided that this is an "emergency" work. So, we have
to stick to the maximum allowed radiation doses for emergency cases. We know that levels of radiation
are ~10 Roentgen per hour, while the maximum allowed radiation dose set as 12.5 Roentgens. Besides,
we apparently have a lot of people at our disposal that could do the work, so it is not really necessary to
expose each worker to the maximum allowed radiation dose. That is why, after some consideration, we
decided that we will set the maximum allowed dose for 10 Roentgens, rather than for 12.5 – just to be on
the safe side and not to abuse our emergency powers at the cost of the workers health. What we have to
do in this case? We have to bring to the workers' attention following information and to act as follows:
1) We have to tell them that to work in this area is allowed for a maximum time of 1 hour per person
– and no one and under no circumstances shall remain at ground zero any longer than 1 hour.
2) Every worker must have an individual dosimeter attached to his body – so we will be able to
measure his exact radiation exposure and able to take immediate measures if someone gets
accidentally overexposed.
3) Every worker must be issued a full hazmat-suit that will limit his exposure to only outer radiation
and will prevent deadly radioactive particles from being deposited on his hair and his skin, and,
God forbid, from inhaling or ingesting such radioactive particles.
4) Every worker upon completing his 1 hour shift must be thoroughly decontaminated by specialists
before allowed to remove his hazmat suit – so to prevent him and other people around him from
accidentally inhaling radioactive particles that were deposited on outer parts of his hazmat suit.
5) Each worker who completed his shift must be forever (at least for the next few years) removed
from any work that contain even slightest possibility to be exposed to radiation; and he himself
must be well aware of it and he must be warned and acknowledge it in written not to seek any job
that has anything to do with such things as radiation or radioactive materials.
As you can probably guess, it is not enough to establish only a "covert" radiation control and to issue to
each worker an individual dosimeter in the disguise of the alleged "air monitoring equipment". Because
unless each worker understood that radiation dangers are involved, this "secret" dosimeter will not save
him. It will only save us and it will allow us to formally "observe" a certain "safe" radiation dose received
by this worker in regard to gamma-radiation. What about the worker – he will never exceed 50 Roentgen
(or whatever other dose we set as maximum) acquired radiation dose per gamma-radiation, but nothing
more than that. He will still inhale and ingest not just "some", but "all" deadly particles of radioactive dust
and of radioactive vapor available at ground zero. And while his dose per gamma-radiation (which we in
this case "secretly" monitor) would not be enough to develop any acute radiation sickness and to feel sick
right away, it does not mean that he will be "saved" from radiation by our "covert efforts". Because this
worker (as well as a Manhattan resident when he eventually returns) would deposit inside his body some
quantities (in some cases some absolutely enormous quantities) of deadly radioactive particles that would
continue to irradiate him from inside by most dangerous alpha-radiation (as well as by beta- and even by
gamma- ones) for months and years to come. Depending on the severity of this internal irradiation, in a
couple of years (or later, or sometimes, even earlier) a hidden (or "latent") period of his chronic radiation
sickness would end and his radiation sickness would be obvious. He will suffer from leukemia, various
cancers, secondary infections, and eventually he will die. And that is what really happened in Manhattan.
122
Powerful "ultra-violet absorbers" and the longest-burning
"structural fire" in history.
On 03 December 2001 the strangest article was published on-line by the NewScientist.com. It still existed
in the Internet as on May 2010, but I am afraid that it might be removed after I publish this book. So, in
order to preserve this unprecedented publication for both – history and may be even for a future inquiry –
I decided to place 2 screenshots of that article – as it appeared in my browser. Obviously, I would need a
permission to reproduce the entire actual article here, which I would never get. But it is very unlikely that
anyone could prohibit me from photographing my own computer (with whatever contents) and from using
my own photos in any way I wish. Here is the article (sorry, not actually the "article", but only the two
photos of my computer with its Internet Explorer browser loaded – with some strange webpage it shows):
-- From: Dick Eastman <oldickeastman@q.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citize, former officer of nuclear intelligence "Special Control Service" on WTC radiation mini-nukes at
To: "Dr. Michael Chossudovsky" <chossudovsky@videotron.ca>, "Dr. Steven Jones" <stj911.info@yahoo.com>
The "third" truth about 9/11
Dimitri Khalezov (some excerpts from his book - I can send more)
Note from Dick Eastman: I have been sent from Mike Harris the 6 .17 MB abridgement in pdf of Dimitri Khalezov's book demonstrating that bombings around the world, including many car bombings and truck bombing (e.g. Oaklahoma City) as well as the WTC involved mini-nuke nuclear weapons.
In my opinion this man is out to discredit Steven Jones and nothing more. He has been too inaccuarate and systematically biased against Jones findings to be playing honest with the facts -- I give allowance for some bias in favor of one's own thesis (if you think its proven) or theory (if you think it is not proven).
Will forward upon request to anyone asking for in subject line "Dimitri Khalezov "third" truth " send to oldickeastman@q.com -- I will forward to you the extended excerpts attachment Harris sent to me.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
brief excerpt from a later chapter:
I don't have much to comment, honestly. And I guess a reader, who reached this Chapter, already knows
how to read between the lines. Please, only read all of the above carefully – about the "50 meters deep"
certain "combustible mass", about strange "underground" fires still lasting as on December 3, 2001, about
two powerful "ultra-violet absorbers", designed "to absorb high-energy emissions from the fire" – that were
mixed into the water used by the unsuspecting firefighters, and also about the alleged "terrorist atrocity".
Please, don't miss to notice also that the "underground fires" were roaring not only under the WTC-1 and
-2, but under the WTC-7 as well – since the latter also required the two "powerful ultra-violet absorbers" to
be used against. Just read it all.
And make your own conclusions. I hope now, at last, you can properly compare "Ground Zero" works with
the Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" and with the way it was handled by Soviet specialists. This time I am
abstaining from helping you to conclude. Just do it yourself. But try to be unbiased when concluding.
(End of the free edition of the book. Even though it is free it provides the most important 9/11 information.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Khalezov witness statement ("not a conspiracy theorist")
As I have already mentioned, there is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a witness. The
difference is that a conspiracy theorist claims what he thinks/guesses/concludes, while a witness states
what he knows. They also enjoy a very different legal status. The testimony of a conspiracy theorist is not
admissible in legal proceedings. While the testimony of a witness is not only admissible in the court-room,
but it is the primary evidence which is technically far more valuable than any documentary evidence.
There is a very big difference in approach to the claims of a conspiracy theorist and to those of an eyewitness,
which many people unfamiliar with law seem not to comprehend. The difference is this. While a
conspiracy theorist could be "right" or "wrong" in what he claims, a witness could not be "right" or "wrong".
A witness could only be a truthful witness, who says the truth, or a false witness who intentionally lies. In
the first case he performs his citizen's duties. In the second case he commits a crime punishable with the
imprisonment. Hope now, at last, you understood what the difference is and from now on you will no
longer call this book a "conspiracy theory"?
The difference between the humble author of these lines and other people who advanced their claims in
regard to 9/11 like Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Prof. James H. Fetzer, Prof. Morgan
Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, so-called "Anonymous Physicist", and other well-known and less-known 9/11
scholars is that not even one of them could testify under oath that he knows the truth and promises to say
the truth, the only truth and nothing by the truth, primarily because they do not know the truth and are only
guessing, while the humble author of these lines could testify under oath, because he knows the truth and
does not need to guess.
[ Note from Dick Eastman: Only the first two are not exposed charlatons in my opinion -- also Khalezov fails to understand that a conspiracy theorist is nothing more than a detective or a scientist -- the good ones sift the available data and draw only the implications that the data permit -- my work is all deduction from photos and witness statement -- the process is to eliminate explainations and see which explanation can't be knocked down -- my method has NEVER been to hypothesize a theory and then test its validity debating in its favor etc. To those who know psychology -- it is the difference between Freud and Maslow on one hand and Skinner and Pavlov on the other. Dr. Steven Jones had no theory -- he let the evidence and the laboratory tests tell their own story -- then used logic to deduct what these laboratory established premises implied. Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood of course posit discredited theories and stick by them as a way of bogging down the pursuit of swift justice by wrangling and argument and anger over their obstructive delaying stink-bomb disinformation. Sorry, but that is the way it has been. Then there is Dr. Griffin -- he has acted as a juror -- an intelligent man with training in academic scholarship methods who has sifted the available data -- some of which I was instrumental in making known to him. The witness is what is smelled. The scientist/detective is the dog that does the smelling. And the citizen juror -- we all must judge wether treason is being committed -- we are all citizen jurors when the government itself is on trial for treason -- the citizen juror is the man on the other end of the bloodhound's leash. In fact, I am also in the Griffin category and so are you. I have done very little research -- the witnesses (Faran, Lagasse) have usually contacted me -- although Riskus was an exception. fyi -- Dick Eastman]
Since many people attempted to claim that my video presentation (that first appeared on the Internet in March, 2010) and, consecutively, my book, were allegedly a new, although a "very plausible" 9/11 "conspiracy theory", I am obliged to disprove this dangerous accusation in an official manner. My version is not a "conspiracy theory", dear accusers, because by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you intentionally, again, intentionally, try to diminish my legal status from being an important 9/11 witness, whose testimony is admissible in the court of law – to being a meager 9/11 conspiracy theorist, whose suggestions have no legal value. But, please, be informed, dear accusers, that this kind of cheap trick does not work with the humble author of these lines. I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a witness, who testifies as follows:
As I have already mentioned, there is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and a witness. The difference is that a conspiracy theorist claims what he thinks/guesses/concludes, while a witness states what he knows. They also enjoy a very different legal status. The testimony of a conspiracy theorist is not admissible in legal proceedings. While the testimony of a witness is not only admissible in the court-room, but it is the primary evidence which is technically far more valuable than any documentary evidence. There is a very big difference in approach to the claims of a conspiracy theorist and to those of an eyewitness, which many people unfamiliar with law seem not to comprehend. The difference is this. While a conspiracy theorist could be "right" or "wrong" in what he claims, a witness could not be "right" or "wrong". A witness could only be a truthful witness, who says the truth, or a false witness who intentionally lies. In the first case he performs his citizen's duties. In the second case he commits a crime punishable with the imprisonment. Hope now, at last, you understood what the difference is and from now on you will no longer call this book a "conspiracy theory"?
The difference between the humble author of these lines and other people who advanced their claims in regard to 9/11 like Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Prof. James H. Fetzer, Prof. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, so-called "Anonymous Physicist", and other well-known and less-known 9/11 scholars is that not even one of them could testify under oath that he knows the truth and promises to say the truth, the only truth and nothing by the truth, primarily because they do not know the truth and are only guessing, while the humble author of these lines could testify under oath, because he knows the truth and does not need to guess.
Since many people attempted to claim that my video presentation (that first appeared on the Internet in
March, 2010) and, consecutively, my book, were allegedly a new, although a "very plausible" 9/11 "conspiracy theory", I am obliged to disprove this dangerous accusation in an official manner. My version is not a "conspiracy theory", dear accusers, because by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you intentionally, again, intentionally, try to diminish my legal status from being an important 9/11 witness, whose testimony is admissible in the court of law – to being a meager 9/11 conspiracy theorist, whose suggestions have no legal value. But, please, be informed, dear accusers, that this kind of cheap trick does not work with the humble author of these lines. I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a witness, who testifies as follows:
(His actual name is withheld in this particular edition of the book, but is available in the full one).
4) I was indeed invited by the abovementioned Israeli intelligence official to his celebratory breakfast early morning, 12 of September, 2001, Bangkok time (still evening of 11 of September in the United States). This celebratory breakfast took place in his diplomatic residence at: 15A, Bangkapi Mansion, 89, Soi 12, Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok, Thailand. And I indeed discussed with this Israeli intelligence official various proceeds of the 9/11 perpetration during this breakfast which was indeed the celebratory one.
5) I indeed honestly informed the US authorities at the US Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, of all of the abovementioned facts providing them in a form of a detailed testimony and I could confirm that the US authorities definitely know about all the four abovementioned facts at least from my testimony.
6) I could confirm that the US authorities knew about terrorism-related activities of the abovementioned high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, as well as about my and his close relationship, even without me informing them as mentioned in the clause 5) above, and they US officials indeed attempted to prosecute him. However, they abandoned all prosecution attempts against the abovementioned Israeli intelligence official and let him escape the prosecution by using another bogus identity. This particular fact that the US officials knowingly let the abovementioned person escape the justice is duly documented in several Thai law courts and I know the corresponding criminal cases' numbers and could provide them if necessary. Anyone could use the text of the abovementioned testimony of mine in any legal proceedings, without modifying any word of mine and without taking any word of mine out of the entire context of the said. I could repeat the above testimony of mine in front of the court of law of any country.
Dimitri A. Khalezov,
the witness.
============================================
About author:
Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called "military unit 46179", otherwise known as "the Special Control Service" of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later "nuclear") intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov
undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center as well as its building 7 were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions – which earned the very name "ground zero" to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the in-built so-called "emergency nuclear demolitions scheme" of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the '80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.
=====
Dick Eastman: I loose respect for the author when I see the way he dismisses the finding of Dr. Steven Jones and fails to mention the independent corroboration of Jone's conclusions from entirely different samples of WTC dust by European scientific teams. He also misrepresents Jone's on how the thermite might have been applied to effect the demolition. After reading the following I hesitate to forward any of Khalezov's work -- but we all must judge for ourselves. My impression is that this man has departed from objectivity in his haste to establish his own explanation (and he does have some good arguments as far as my limited knowledge allows me to see) and, perhaps, to differentiate this product which is the books he wants to sell.
-----------------
Khalezov:
.The author of these lines totally agrees with President G.W. Bush in the abovementioned sense. Nobody shall tolerate those outrageous conspiracy theories in regard to September the 11th attacks. Ironically, the most outrageous of all 9/11 conspiracy theories is the one concocted by the US Government – namely the Report of the "9/11 Commission", alias the first "truth" intended for "plebeian" consumption. However, the second "truth" intended for "confidential" consumption of "patricians" is by no means less outrageous than the first one, because it is also deliberate and cynical cheating, probably even more cynical than the primitive cheating of the "plebeians". However, even though the rest of conspiracy theories are much less outrageous than the abovementioned two, they shall not be tolerated as well. Let us speak the truth about "terror" – exactly as President G.W. Bush has urged us. I would like to state in advance that all of these remaining "conspiracy theories" were worked out by the people who knew nothing of what exactly happened with the WTC and who did speculate only. With all due respect to the people, who have their undeniable right to voice their private opinions amidst atmosphere of lies and suspicions, I am obliged to state that:
1) Unfortunately, all these so-called "conspiracy theories" (at least those known to me and therefore mentioned below) are in no sense better then the well-known "truth" No.1 concocted by the US Government.
[ I am sorry to have to say it, but Khalezov has lost me right there. Look at my evidence here:
http://www.rense.com/general86/hight1.htm Highest Treason Substantiated
and tell me if Khalezov is right that the "box cutter" and Flight 77 killed the people at the Pentagon theory is really on equal theory with the Honegger-Eastman view of planted bombs and multiple missiles hitting the Pentagon. Why does Khalezov know all about Fetzer and Wood and Reynolds any of the many names that I would put at the top of the list of citizen investigators and analyzers. -- Dick Eastman ]
2) Even though the US Government absolutely rightly deserves to be suspected as being the chief perpetrator of 9/11, in reality it was not guilty. It did not know anything in advance about the attacks and has nothing to do with it at all (except, of course, being involved in the ensuing coverup and into a declaration of the so-called "War" against the so-called "Terror"…). There should not be a slightest doubt concerning the US Government's total innocence in regard to the actual 9/11 attacks and in regard to following the attacks the World Trade Center's nuclear demolition.
3) The 9/11 conspiracy theories, unfortunately, are not as "innocent" as they might appear. They do not help truth-seekers to find the truth. They rather prevent them from finding the truth. Moreover, the most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (if not ALL of them) are promoted by shills, appointed by the FBI. It is because the conspiracy theories actually help the FBI to hide the truth about 9/11.
So here is it:
Conspiracy theory No.1 (the most famous proponent – David Ray Griffin): Many people allege that the
US Government has used a big number of cleverly placed charges of conventional explosives . . .
Contents page
Introductory Part:
Foreword to the 11-chapters free edition of my book..………………….…………………..…...7
Copyright notice…………………………………………………………………………………..8
About this book………………………………………………………………….…….…….…....9
The 9/11thology, its difference from a conspiracy theory, and the list of the most difficult 9/11
questions answered by this new exact science………………………………………….…….….12
My testimony………………………………………………………………….……………...…17
The Book:
Prologue. The largest "non-nuclear" blast ever... …………….……………………….……..19
John Walcott, FBI agents, and haz-mat suits. (Or why this book appeared) .......................23
About "ground zero", "Ground Zero": pre-9/11 and post-9/11 meanings (incomplete)…...25
Why there are two "truths" about 9/11. Plebeians and Patricians………...…..……………xx
Reminding about the exact events at September the 11, for those who might have already
forgotten them. …………………………………………………………….…………………..xx
Part 1. Official claims and 9/11 events in short ………………..…….……….…….…...……...xx
Part 2. Real events in chronological order ………………….….……………………………….xx
Suspicious facts about the 9/11 and "nuclear card" from the sleeve of the US
Government.(only an excerpt with explanation in regard to holes made by the "planes")..32
Conspiracy theories about the 9/11 in a sense: "How did they manage to fake
planes?"………………………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Brief introduction to nuclear weapons. Destructive factors of nuclear explosions…….....xxx
"Mini-nukes". Brief introduction……………………….………………………….….……..xxx
Conspiracy theories about 9/11 in a sense: "How did they demolish the World Trade
Center?" and disproving these conspiracy theories………………………………...……......39
Explosives theory…………….……………………………………………...…………………...39
Thermite theory…………………………………………………………………………….…….43
So-called "nano-thermite" theory……………………………………………………………......44
Kerosene pancake collapse theory………………………….…………….....45
5
Laser beams/Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory……….……..…….……………………47
Mini-nukes theory……………………………………………………………...………………...48
Clandestine reactors theory or the first introduction to Nuclear Madness…..………………......61
Meet the main culprit of 9/11: Xxxx Xxxxxx.…………...…………………………………..xxx
Barbarian truth: the WTC nuclear demolition scheme and what benefits could have been
extracted out of it……………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Bangkok. Before and after 9/11………………..………………………………………..……xxx
Barbarian truth: Nuclear Coup de Grâce or the H-Hour of the World Trade Center.
Technicalities of the Twin Towers collapse from the "nuclear" point of view……………..65
Barbarian truth: technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse from the "nuclear" point of
view………………………………………………………………………………………….…..73
Technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse and the rest of the WTC collapses from the logical
point of view. Unproven suspicions……………………..……………………………..………78
Nuclear Madness 1……………………………………………………..………………………...87
Explaining Unexplainable: the alleged "absence of damages" to "the bathtub" and to PATH.....97
Some interesting testimonies of the 9/11 witnesses……………………………………...…..101
Barbarian truth: legal aspects of the Twin Towers collapse from the "nuclear" point of
view. Legal "Nuclear Madness"……………………………………. ……………..………...xxx
Levels of radiation and personal radiation doses received at "Ground Zero"…….……...111
More information about radiation sickness: why not too many cases of acute radiation
sickness were noticed among "Ground Zero" responders?...................................................114
Comparing the 1986 Chernobyl "nuclear disaster" with the 2001 Manhattan thermonuclear
catastrophe (this chapter is also available in a free version separately)……......…….xxx
Powerful "ultra-violet absorbers" and the longest-burning "structural fire" in history…122
Bio-terrorism – anthrax attacks following 9/11…………..………………...……..….……..299
Modern mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as "car-bombings"……………..….…….308
2002 Bali nightclub nuclear bombing …………………...……….………………...…………..309
1995 Oklahoma nuclear bombing………...………...…………….………………...…………..326
Bangkok. After September 11………………………………………………………...………333
6
Operation "Black Magic" – "Hambali" and others…………………………………….…..334
French secret services and the 9/11 Vendetta ……………...………….……………………356
Secret services of Thailand and their role in 9/11………………..…...…………….………370
The Pentagon attack. Disproving "conspiracy theories"…….………….………………….373
Barbarian truth: the Pentagon attack; introducing the true "attacker"...….…………….382
Barbarian truth: the "Kursk" submarine. One year before the Pentagon attack……..…391
"Nuclear Madness 2" (or "Nuclear Madness à la Russian").….…………….………..……401
Few more mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as "car-bombings"………………...…..418
.
Nuclear hysteria of the US Government and some reasons behind it..................................443
Study Details Catastrophic Impact of Nuclear Attack on US Cities……………………….…..443
Instruction on actions during an atomic strike………………………………………….………445
Viktor Bout – the so-called "Merchant of Death" and the so-called "Lord of War", and the
true causes of the post-9/11 persecution against him……………………………….……….451
"Nuclear Madness 3". The first 1993 WTC bombing and the last 9/11 conspiracy
theory…………………………………………………………………………………….…….472
The first mini-nuclear bombing of the WTC also known as the 1993 WTC "car-bombing"…..473
"Nuclear Madness 4" (or "Nuclear Madness à la Spanish"). Maxi-nuclear bombings
masquerading as "car-bombings", and other strange nuclear events in Spain…….……..482
2006 Madrid Barajas International Airport "car" bombing…………………………………….482
Spanair Flight JK 5022 nuclear "crash"………………………………………………………..486
First official reactions to this book. Fake "mini-nuclear" car-bombings………………….495
Covert-Labs Red Button: Party Music pre-9/11 prediction and post-9/11 controversy….500
Who wanted to "pulverize" Ostankino Tower in August 2000 and why…………………..504
How to properly sue the US Government for 9/11 and what to demand back………..…..512
Appendix. History: a chain of people who introduced me to Xxxx Xxxxxx, photos, etc.....516
Contacts/Donation info…………………………………………………..……………....……124
Introductory Part:
Foreword to the 11-chapters free edition of my book..………………….…………………..…...7
Copyright notice…………………………………………………………………………………..8
About this book………………………………………………………………….…….…….…....9
The 9/11thology, its difference from a conspiracy theory, and the list of the most difficult 9/11
questions answered by this new exact science………………………………………….…….….12
My testimony………………………………………………………………….……………...…17
The Book:
Prologue. The largest "non-nuclear" blast ever... …………….……………………….……..19
John Walcott, FBI agents, and haz-mat suits. (Or why this book appeared) .......................23
About "ground zero", "Ground Zero": pre-9/11 and post-9/11 meanings (incomplete)…...25
Why there are two "truths" about 9/11. Plebeians and Patricians………...…..……………xx
Reminding about the exact events at September the 11, for those who might have already
forgotten them. …………………………………………………………….…………………..xx
Part 1. Official claims and 9/11 events in short ………………..…….……….…….…...……...xx
Part 2. Real events in chronological order ………………….….……………………………….xx
Suspicious facts about the 9/11 and "nuclear card" from the sleeve of the US
Government.(only an excerpt with explanation in regard to holes made by the "planes")..32
Conspiracy theories about the 9/11 in a sense: "How did they manage to fake
planes?"………………………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Brief introduction to nuclear weapons. Destructive factors of nuclear explosions…….....xxx
"Mini-nukes". Brief introduction……………………….………………………….….……..xxx
Conspiracy theories about 9/11 in a sense: "How did they demolish the World Trade
Center?" and disproving these conspiracy theories………………………………...……......39
Explosives theory…………….……………………………………………...…………………...39
Thermite theory…………………………………………………………………………….…….43
So-called "nano-thermite" theory……………………………………………………………......44
Kerosene pancake collapse theory………………………….…………….....45
5
Laser beams/Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory……….……..…….……………………47
Mini-nukes theory……………………………………………………………...………………...48
Clandestine reactors theory or the first introduction to Nuclear Madness…..………………......61
Meet the main culprit of 9/11: Xxxx Xxxxxx.…………...…………………………………..xxx
Barbarian truth: the WTC nuclear demolition scheme and what benefits could have been
extracted out of it……………………………………………………….……………………..xxx
Bangkok. Before and after 9/11………………..………………………………………..……xxx
Barbarian truth: Nuclear Coup de Grâce or the H-Hour of the World Trade Center.
Technicalities of the Twin Towers collapse from the "nuclear" point of view……………..65
Barbarian truth: technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse from the "nuclear" point of
view………………………………………………………………………………………….…..73
Technicalities of the WTC-7 collapse and the rest of the WTC collapses from the logical
point of view. Unproven suspicions……………………..……………………………..………78
Nuclear Madness 1……………………………………………………..………………………...87
Explaining Unexplainable: the alleged "absence of damages" to "the bathtub" and to PATH.....97
Some interesting testimonies of the 9/11 witnesses……………………………………...…..101
Barbarian truth: legal aspects of the Twin Towers collapse from the "nuclear" point of
view. Legal "Nuclear Madness"……………………………………. ……………..………...xxx
Levels of radiation and personal radiation doses received at "Ground Zero"…….……...111
More information about radiation sickness: why not too many cases of acute radiation
sickness were noticed among "Ground Zero" responders?...................................................114
Comparing the 1986 Chernobyl "nuclear disaster" with the 2001 Manhattan thermonuclear
catastrophe (this chapter is also available in a free version separately)……......…….xxx
Powerful "ultra-violet absorbers" and the longest-burning "structural fire" in history…122
Bio-terrorism – anthrax attacks following 9/11…………..………………...……..….……..299
Modern mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as "car-bombings"……………..….…….308
2002 Bali nightclub nuclear bombing …………………...……….………………...…………..309
1995 Oklahoma nuclear bombing………...………...…………….………………...…………..326
Bangkok. After September 11………………………………………………………...………333
6
Operation "Black Magic" – "Hambali" and others…………………………………….…..334
French secret services and the 9/11 Vendetta ……………...………….……………………356
Secret services of Thailand and their role in 9/11………………..…...…………….………370
The Pentagon attack. Disproving "conspiracy theories"…….………….………………….373
Barbarian truth: the Pentagon attack; introducing the true "attacker"...….…………….382
Barbarian truth: the "Kursk" submarine. One year before the Pentagon attack……..…391
"Nuclear Madness 2" (or "Nuclear Madness à la Russian").….…………….………..……401
Few more mini-nuclear bombings masquerading as "car-bombings"………………...…..418
.
Nuclear hysteria of the US Government and some reasons behind it..................................443
Study Details Catastrophic Impact of Nuclear Attack on US Cities……………………….…..443
Instruction on actions during an atomic strike………………………………………….………445
Viktor Bout – the so-called "Merchant of Death" and the so-called "Lord of War", and the
true causes of the post-9/11 persecution against him……………………………….……….451
"Nuclear Madness 3". The first 1993 WTC bombing and the last 9/11 conspiracy
theory…………………………………………………………………………………….…….472
The first mini-nuclear bombing of the WTC also known as the 1993 WTC "car-bombing"…..473
"Nuclear Madness 4" (or "Nuclear Madness à la Spanish"). Maxi-nuclear bombings
masquerading as "car-bombings", and other strange nuclear events in Spain…….……..482
2006 Madrid Barajas International Airport "car" bombing…………………………………….482
Spanair Flight JK 5022 nuclear "crash"………………………………………………………..486
First official reactions to this book. Fake "mini-nuclear" car-bombings………………….495
Covert-Labs Red Button: Party Music pre-9/11 prediction and post-9/11 controversy….500
Who wanted to "pulverize" Ostankino Tower in August 2000 and why…………………..504
How to properly sue the US Government for 9/11 and what to demand back………..…..512
Appendix. History: a chain of people who introduced me to Xxxx Xxxxxx, photos, etc.....516
Contacts/Donation info…………………………………………………..……………....……124
Here is on except dealing with the thermite thesis:
Conspiracy theory No.2: Some people, understandably, can not reconcile themselves with a notion that
aviation fuel (namely "kerosene") might allegedly combust with such a high temperature which is enough
to melt or to weaken the WTC core columns made of extremely thick steel – as an officially approved
version of 9/11 events claims. Seeking the truth, such people have arrived to a conclusion that certain
incendiary materials (such as pyrotechnic composition known as "thermite9") have been allegedly used by
9/11 perpetrators to melt core structures of the WTC Towers. They support their claims primarily by this:
somewhere at "Ground Zero" there have been several molten pieces of steel found and this apparently
could not have been caused by burning of fuel of any kind.
aviation fuel (namely "kerosene") might allegedly combust with such a high temperature which is enough
to melt or to weaken the WTC core columns made of extremely thick steel – as an officially approved
version of 9/11 events claims. Seeking the truth, such people have arrived to a conclusion that certain
incendiary materials (such as pyrotechnic composition known as "thermite9") have been allegedly used by
9/11 perpetrators to melt core structures of the WTC Towers. They support their claims primarily by this:
somewhere at "Ground Zero" there have been several molten pieces of steel found and this apparently
could not have been caused by burning of fuel of any kind.
One might try to imagine how it might look – if those alleged "conspirators" have attached some thermite
charges to each of those steel-bars – located not only at the Tower's middles, but also around their dense
outer perimeters only one meter apart from each other. Considering that such charges supposed to have
been positioned not just on one level only, but let's say in 1 meters interval vertically – you are welcome
to make your own calculations as to the number of thermite charges required – similar to the calculations
in regard to explosive charges above… And now try to imagine how the targeted Tower would look if all of
those alleged thermite charges were simultaneously ignited. A thermite reaction, if somebody doesn't
know, produces extremely intense, blinding sparkly flames – similar to that of electric welding (because
thermite is the very material used in the electric welding). You can't simply look with your naked eyes into
such a thing; you must wear a protective mask with dark glasses. Did you see the entire WTC Tower
8 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060906/911_Conspiracy_060906/20060910/
9 Thermite is a composition of aluminum powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction
known as a thermite reaction commonly used in electric welding. It is often used to join railroad rails and is also
implemented in some special hand-grenades intended to quickly and efficiently destroy weapons – such as artillery
pieces, but also to destroy machinery, etc.
44
sparkling from bottom to top at the entire area of each of its four 64 meters wide x 415 meters tall façades
prior to its instant pulverization and collapse? The answer is "no". Yes, indeed there were a couple of
some strange sparkling fires somewhere in the Twin Towers prior to their collapse; these were clearly
visible on some footage. But you have to understand that these were small and isolated sparkling fires
and their alleged importance can not be exaggerated to such an extent as to claim that the entire Towers
were allegedly "stuffed with thermite". It is simply ridiculous. It was not technically possible to stuff the
Twin Towers with thermite due to the very same considerations discussed in debunking the conspiracy
theory No.1 above. Besides, the actual Towers' views before their collapse did not reveal any enormous
blinding sparkling torches that supposed to embrace the entire Towers' bodies from top to bottom and to
be visible even from the most distant outskirts of New York City.
Moreover, even if this particular conspiracy theory struggles to somehow explain those molten pieces of
steel found at "Ground Zero", it would never be able to explain very fine dust to which has been reduced
almost 80% of the entire Tower's structure – i.e. the very core structures made of thick steel the
proponents of the "thermite theory" are talking about. If thermite is capable of melting steel, would it really
mean that thermite would be also capable of reducing this steel to fluffy microscopic dust? Such claim is
not serious.
The initial "thermite theory" was born apparently out of desperation – simply because the truth-seekers
could not find any other reasonable explanation to the "unexplainable" Twin Towers' collapse and also to
"unexplainable" high temperatures found at "Ground Zero" several weeks later – which were intense
enough to melt boots of firefighters who worked there in just only a few hours. I hope it is self-evident that
any potential thermite reaction would never be able to sustain any high temperatures for a few weeks – it
would cool down in half-an-hour at the worst case.
Some proponents of the "thermite theory" also claimed that it must have been thermite which cut some
steel columns found at "Ground Zero" precisely evenly – as it was shown in some pictures. It is not true,
apparently – those "precise cuts" of in the steel columns were caused by conventional explosives – by the
very hollow-shaped charges used to create the alleged "impact" holes for the "terrorist planes". Such
precisely cut ends of the steel columns (at least those on the perimeters) could be clearly seen at that
picture which shows the detailed "impact spot" in the façade of the North Tower, where you could also
see poor Mrs. Edna Cintron, desperately leaning on one of such "precisely cut" columns before the North
Tower's collapse. It is clear that those cuts were caused to steel columns well before the collapse and
could not be blamed on alleged "thermite" which might have been allegedly used later to bring the Twin
Towers down.
Unfortunately, the Theory No. 2 itself is not sustainable at all. It is not plausible even if someone would try
to use it in combination with the abovementioned Theory No.1.
There is also a sub-variety of this incendiary theory – which claims that the evil US Government allegedly
"napalmed" the World Trade Center, but I think we do not need to bother to disprove it, because it is too
bizarre to be even remotely plausible.
Conspiracy theory No.3 (the most famous proponent – Prof. Steven Jones): a so-called "nano-thermite"
theory. This theory is probably the most dangerous lie – not because it sounds plausible to any extent; it
is actually as stupid and as ridiculous as either of the two theories discussed above. It is dangerous
because nowadays it is being favored by the absolute majority of main-stream 9/11 "truthers" tricked into
believing this nonsense by their shifty FBI-appointed leaders.
This is a relatively new theory. It surfaced not later than in 2007, but most probably in 2008. It is based on
an alleged "fact" that "some traces" of so-called "nano-thermite" were allegedly "found" in the WTC dust.
Strangely enough, these alleged "traces" were not found back in 2002, not even in 2003 when it would be
logical to expect them to be found in the WTC dust. They were "found" only around 2007-2008. Which
says a lot of this theory's and its main proponent's credibility, by the way. The "discovery" of the so-called
"nano-thermite" traces strangely coincided with the first attempt by the humble author's of these lines to
publish his book on the WTC nuclear demolition.
According to this so-called "nano-thermite" theory the malicious US Government allegedly "sprayed" (or
"painted") the entire steel columns of the WTC Towers with so-called "nano-thermite" and this alleged
coating was allegedly the very factor that destroyed the steel bearing structures of the Twin Towers.
However, this theory does not provide any plausible physical (or chemical) explanation in regard to how
this so-called "nano-thermite" actually works. Supporters of this theory can't even audibly explain what the
45
so-called "nano-thermite" actually is – whether it is a kind of incendiary (like commonly known themite or
napalm), or it is a kind of explosive (like dynamite, TNT, RDX or C4). Nonetheless, despite this theory
being unexplained, unfeasible from the logical point of view, and, moreover, born in highly suspicious
circumstances, it managed to win a lot of popularity among so-called "main-stream 9/11 truthers" led by
Prof. Steven Jones. It so happened that the "9/11 Truth" society almost unanimously supported this most
bizarre notion and even attempted to prepare some legal charges based on this so-called "nano-thermite"
theory against the US Government. Leaving aside our prediction what would happen in the court-room
when this straw-man argument would be legally submitted to the court of law, we will try to disprove on
our own this most ridiculous notion which, nonetheless, stands on our own way to the ultimate 9/11 truth.
Could it be true that so-called "nano-thermite" was indeed responsible for the WTC demolition as claimed
by Prof. Steven Jones and his flock? There are primary points and secondary points which will help us to
debunk this dangerous nonsense.
The primary points are these:
If so-called "nano-thermite" exists not only in sick imaginations of 9/11 "truthers" but also in reality, then
logically it should belong to either of the two groups:
a) explosives;
b) incendiaries.
If so-called "nano-thermite" indeed exists in reality and it is "explosive", then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by "nano-thermite" due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.1.
If so-called "nano-thermite" indeed exists in reality and it is "incendiary", then the WTC Twin Towers could
not have been demolished by "nano-thermite" due to considerations discussed during debunking of the
abovementioned conspiracy theory No.2.
The secondary points are these:
Prof. Steven Jones who is the author of this notion is also an author of another infamous notion – that
empty aluminum projectiles could allegedly penetrate thick steel targets. Unlikely it would be reasonable
to believe a person who claims that hitherto unknown mysterious substance could allegedly "melt" steel
into fluffy microscopic dust, considering that this very same person also claims that steel was allegedly
susceptible to being cut using aluminum cutting tools. If you add here that Prof. Steven Jones is actually a
physicist, it aggravates the whole thing. If he were a former priest or a former senator, it, perhaps, would
be forgivable. But unlikely it could be forgivable to a physicist. In addition to all of it, it shall be taken into a
serious consideration that being a nuclear scientist, Prof. Steven Jones must have known what "ground
zero" really meant in the then specific nuclear jargon. It did not mean "a place where a building has been
melted by so-called "nano-thermite" into fluffy microscopic dust". It meant "a place of a nuclear or thermonuclear
explosion". And it is highly unlikely that a person holding a Doctorate in nuclear physics might not
notice this more than transparent hint.
I believe that from now on the reader of this book would not bother trying to adjust reality to the bogus
claims of the so-called "nano-thermite" theory, and realized, at last, that this senseless theory is intended
only to dupe him and to lead him away from the truth.
Conspiracy theory No.4 (proponents – all U.S. and foreign high-ranking officials, 9/11 Commissioners,
NIST Commissioners, FEMA Commissioners, etc.): the infamous kerosene-pancake-collapse theory (or
as a variety "kerosene-progressive collapse" theory). This theory, as you could probably understand, is
the least plausible, because those "patricians" who promote it for consumption of gullible plebeians,
themselves do not believe it either. However, quite a few people still believe this theory. The theory
claims that burning kerosene from alleged "planes" along with fires caused by further burning of various
office materials allegedly weakened structural steel of the WTC Twin Towers and this allegedly caused a
so-called "pancake collapse" (other version: a so-called "progressive" collapse) of both buildings. Since
some few gullible people still believe this ridiculous notion, I am obliged to devote a few lines to
disproving this particular theory as well. The easiest way to disprove it, perhaps, is this: the Twin Towers'
designers apparently had to take into consideration that one day some fire might occur inside these
buildings. Therefore they had to design them with a certain degree of "overprotecting" or "reinsurance" –
i.e. you don't even have to doubt that the WTC designers calculated structural strength of steel frame in
case of the worst possible fires – eg. caused by a direct hit by a fully loaded largest commercial aircraft.
46
And by no means could the WTC designers have been mistaken in their calculations. It would be just
stupid of us to presume that the original WTC architects would design a 415 meters tall structure that
should have been populated by perhaps 50.000 human beings and sincerely hoped (and keep their
fingers crossed) that no fires would ever happen inside their brainchild, because in case of bad luck the
construction would collapse due to some unfortunate fires. Do you agree with this logic? Besides, it shall
be known that any architect should be arrested and tried in a court of law if any construction designed by
him would ever collapse and cause some damage (not to say the loss of life). If the WTC Twin Towers
indeed collapsed due to kerosene weakening their structural integrity, the original WTC designers, along
with those who supplied them steel of presumably inferior quality should have been behind bars now.
This is the way the law functions in any civilized country, the United States inclusive. Did you see any of
the WTC architects on trial so far? The answer is "no". This
Another excerpt from larger except of many chapters from the book -- dealing with his nuclear device thesis
What we need to find is this: according to our presumption, a few hundreds of people (most of them
firefighters) must accumulate dangerous doses of ionizing radiation during the first hours at ground zero –
which would unavoidably lead to their suffering from acute radiation sickness that would be immediately
noticeable. Thus, we could presume that these people should begin to seek medical treatment on the 2nd
and 3rd day after being exposed to huge doses of radiation, since it would be logical to presume so. Let's
try to find some confirmation of this presumption in the above mentioned report.
I am quoting (from page 72 of the report): "…WTC exposures can best be understood as a temporal
sequence of five exposure categories of varying intensity. The first exposure category occurred during the
first 12 hours after the collapse, during the most intense exposure to rescuers, residents, commercial
building occupants and people in transit and when they were exposed to the highest concentration of
large and small particles and various gases. The second exposure category occurred twelve hours after
the collapse up to the first rain on September 14, 2001 at which time WTC-affected groups were exposed
to large and small particles that were periodically resuspended, as well as to gases which were
emitted from intense fires at Ground Zero..."
We make here our first attempt to read "between the lines". As you might sincerely expect the author of
this report "forgot" to explain to his gullible reader what "ground zero" really meant those days. This is
understandable, indeed. Let's follow his advice and try to "understand" the WTC "exposures" using the
abovementioned time frames. Why "the most dangerous" exposure occurred during first 12 hours after
the collapse? What do you think? To get an answer to this puzzle, please, look again at the dynamics of
how typically radiation levels subside in first hours after a nuclear explosion – mentioned at the end of the
previous Chapter. Why the "second exposure category" mentioned by this report is placed in a time-frame
between September 11 and September 14? You can get an answer to this second puzzle from the same
source – just look again at the digits available at the end of the previous Chapter and you will get the
point. Because during first 3 days the levels of radiation are the highest – so the people exposed to these
levels could likely develop some acute radiation sickness. While it is very unlikely that the people would
accumulate such large doses after the first 3 days have been passed. Still, this report mentions three
more categories of "exposure", but in our case we can neglect them. Because here were are looking only
for causes and available victims of acute radiation sickness, leaving chronic radiation sickness and its
victims aside for a while.
I am quoting again (from page 73): "During these five periods of exposure, WTC-affected populations
sustained varying, but largely unknown, levels of exposure to a long list of toxic agents generated by the
collapse of the WTC. Among these were asbestos fibers (from insulation and fireproofing materials);
concrete and the crystalline silica it contained (made from Portland cement and used in the Towers'
118
construction); carbon monoxide (from fires and engine exhaust); diesel particulates (from vehicle engine
exhaust); mercury (from fluorescent lights); heavy metals such as aluminum, titanium, chromium, zinc
and manganese (from building materials and furnishings); hydrogen sulfide (from sewers, decomposing
human remains and spoiled foodstuffs); inorganic acids; volatile and semivolatile organic compounds
("VOCs"); polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"); polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs");
polychlorinated dioxins ("PCDDs") and furans ("PCDFs"); various pesticides; and other toxic agents."
As you might sincerely guess in our case we can disregard with a light heart all those alleged "toxic
agents", except only the very last one, vaguely defined in this shameless report as "other".
Quote from page 79: "…Surrogates such as time of arrival at the WTC site, time exposed to the plume,
distance from Ground Zero, and specification of activities involving exposure to debris, dust, and smoke
could be used as semiquantitative determinants of exposure." You don't have to doubt that this is exactly
the case. As earlier you arrive at ground zero, as closer to ground zero you will be, and as longer you will
be there, as more radiation you will be exposed to.
And, at last, on the page 84 of this report we found what we were looking for. Here is a confirmation about
acute radiation sickness: "…In the first 24 hours after the WTC attacks, 240 FDNY personnel sought
emergency medical treatment. Of these, 28 were hospitalized and 50 received treatment for acute
respiratory symptoms caused by inhalation of airborne smoke and dust. Several firefighters had
respiratory problems that started within hours of the disaster, and they were treated for serious, newly
onset lung diseases. Others had respiratory symptoms that arose weeks or months after their work at
Ground Zero began..." In this statement all – figures and time-frames are quite believable and correspond
to our estimation of radiation doses received during the first, the most dangerous hours. All you have to
do here is to change words "respiratory symptoms" to words "radiation sickness" while leaving the word
"acute" in its place. And you will get about the right picture: 240 firefighters got serious doses of ionizing
radiation – definitely exceeding 50 Roentgens (probably even exceeding 100 Roentgens in many cases),
they felt seek and sought emergency medical treatment. Some of them with the most heavy condition
were hospitalized (and you could guess that some of them died), while some other might require only outpatient
treatments – typical to light- and medium-light cases of acute radiation sickness (though even they
could die later). You can add here that some civilians who were trapped in the immediate vicinity of the
Towers during their collapse and spent there some time before being able to run away also got their tensand
hundreds of Roentgen doses of ionizing radiation, also felt sick the next day and they also sought
emergency medical treatment, but they were not embraced by this report. It happened because they
sought their treatment in a variety of hospitals around and nobody bothered to count all of them, unlike
the FDNY – which had more or less centralized approach when monitoring health conditions of its staff.
Now we understand, at last, that it was not that there were no cases of acute radiation sickness at ground
zero in Manhattan. There were hundreds of cases of acute radiations sickness – as expected, but they
were not honestly reported as such. However, practically all those cases of acute radiation sickness
occurred only during the first day; that is why there were only hundreds of them, rather than thousands.
Now let's imagine that the US officials who knew for sure what happened at "Ground Zero" in reality were
not completely ignorant when it comes to radiation effects. And even if they were ignorant they would be
advised by those ABC specialists who visited "Ground Zero" in "lunar-looking hazmat suits" – since those
guys apparently knew about radiation and its properties very well. Actually, you don't have to doubt that
responsible (or to be more exact "irresponsible") US officials by one way or another knew it very well that
if they let people wonder at "Ground Zero" and around it without any control, it will soon (in only 2-3 days)
result in multiple cases of acute radiation sickness, ranging from light- and medium- to heavy- and even
very heavy cases. But in any case even light forms of such acute radiation sickness will be immediately
noticeable. In only a couple of days thousands will feel sick and an awful truth about severe radioactive
contamination of Manhattan would spread out. I guess it is easily imaginable what would happen if some
5-6 thousands of the people would feel immediately sick and would be hospitalized with "strange" but
well-known symptoms after obviously obtaining their "sickness" at "Ground Zero".
That is why we shall presume that some crafty US officials were obliged to find some solution on how to
prevent Ground Zero workers and nearby Manhattan residents from being subjected to doses of residual
radiation that could exceed 50 Roentgens and so to prevent them from feeling feel sick right away. How
they did it in regard to the Manhattan residents is well-known – they simply evacuated them and did not
allow them to return until dangerous levels of radiation have naturally subsided. Once they judged that
radiation levels were as low as not to allow anyone to accumulate the required 50 Roentgens in, let's say
a whole year, the residents were allowed to return (and to continue to inhale deadly radioactive vapor that
would in only a couple of years cause chronic radiation sickness rather than acute one). This is clear how
the US officials prevented acute radiation sickness among Manhattan residents. But it was not so easy to
119
prevent it among gullible Ground Zero responders, as anyone could probably imagine. Still, those crafty
US officials managed to do it either even in regard to the responders.
Here is an extremely seditious article from John Hopkins Public Health Magazine published on the
Internet76. Of course, you have to read it as usual – meaning "between the lines" (note what is in bold).
"Mobilizing Public Health - Turning Terror's Tide with Science
Danger in the Dust
It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the
School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on
foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of airmonitoring
equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the
tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast.
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very
intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now
being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Geyh, an assistant scientist with the School's Department
of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), heads the team of scientists sent by the School in
response to a request by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for a
coordinated study of the disaster's potential health effects to those in the immediate environment.
By attaching personal air monitors to the workers and by placing stationary air sampling
pumps outside the periphery of Ground Zero, Geyh (pronounced "Guy") and her colleagues can
determine the density of the particulate matter in the air, the size of those particles, and any
short-term health effects to those at and around the site.
"This is an incredible situation," she reports. "The recovery and clean-up efforts are going on
around the clock. Hundreds of people are at the site every day; and many of them have been
there since Sept. 11. Workers at the site want to know what they are breathing and what to do to
protect themselves."
Since the drivers and equipment operators are working in
two 12-hour shifts, the researchers must start early and stay
late. "None of the monitors can be left out overnight," says
Geyh, "so around midnight we retrieve everything and take
the equipment back to the hotel, where we recalibrate it
before going to bed." The whole thing recommences at 4
a.m.
"People have been coming back really frazzled," says John Groopman, PhD. "It's clearly among
the most energy-draining experiences of their lives." Groopman, Anna Baetjer Professor and
chair of EHS, knows of no analogous research situation. "The fact that thousands of bodies are
still hidden in the rubble makes the work very tense [and] changes the tenor of everything."
At every stage of the clean-up operation, plumes of dust and smoke are sent skyward. The
Hopkins scientists are also gearing up to measure air quality in the nearby neighborhoods and
to enter residences around Ground Zero to collect and study samples of the dust originally
produced by the collapse, which has sifted into buildings throughout lower Manhattan. - Rod
Graham"
76 http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm - page 1; and
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch2.htm - page 2.
This project is "clearly among
the most energy-draining
experiences of their lives."
- John Groopman
120
No one shall be duped by this article. There is no "air-monitoring equipment" that needs to be attached to
each worker and, moreover, taken from him at the end of the day to be allegedly "re-calibrated". Just try
to be realistic… There is a certain "radiation monitoring equipment" namely "individual dosimeters" that
must be issued to everyone who is exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. And these individual
dosimeters, of course, must be collected from the people at the end of each day in order to get their
meter readings and to calculate each worker's total radiation dose he managed to accumulate on the last
day + on all previous days. It is pretty self-evident what kind of so-called "air-monitoring equipment" they
are talking about in this shameless article. They just used complete ignorance and gullibility of the
"Ground Zero" responders and used them more like cattle, than like humans. Now, at last, you can
imagine why not many Ground Zero responders were able to accumulate 50 Roentgens – in order to get
sick immediately from light form of acute radiation sickness. It happened because some crafty people –
like July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh – were appointed to clandestinely monitor their personal acquired
radiation doses. Once they saw that a radiation dose of a certain worker was getting close to the
dangerous digit and his acute radiation sickness would be noticeable probably tomorrow if he only gets a
few more Roentgens, they quickly took some measures to prevent him from working at "Ground Zero".
For example, they either permanently or temporarily shifted such a person to some other location – for
example to the Staten Island Landfill where levels of radiation supposed to be negligible. That is, by the
way, the very reason why so many Ground Zero responders were routinely shifted from one location to
another – seemingly without any valid reason. But there was a reason, apparently. And the people like
July Herbtsman or Alison Geyh, as well as those "good guys" behind them, knew that reason very well.
Apparently, they performed their clandestine duties very diligently. They only "forgot" to explain their
gullible patients whom they treat like cattle that acute radiation sickness was just one part of ground zero
dangers, while their another part was chronic radiation sickness – which no "secretly" issued individual
dosimeters would be able to prevent…
What is chronic radiation sickness, why it occurs, and what is the difference between chronic and acute
radiation sickness? First of all, when we talk about "radiation exposure" we usually mean only a
momentarily exposure to a hard front of penetrating [ionizing] radiation that in its most dangerous part is
represented by gamma-rays and high-energy neutrons, plus long-times exposure to residual and induced
[ionizing] radiation while being in radioactively contaminated environment – and here again we only count
gamma-radiation, while totally disregarding beta- and alpha- radiations. When we talk about threshold of
50 Roentgens that is the minimum required dose to begin to feel sick immediately, what we mean is 50
Roentgens of gamma-radiation only. We do not count alpha- and beta- radiations in this case. Why it is
that alpha- and beta-radiations are always discarded? It is because only gamma-radiation has enough
penetrating capability to penetrate our entire body and to strike cells of internal organs in order to cause
them to dysfunction. And why we always disregard alpha- and beta- radiations? It is because neither of
them could cause any radiation injury to our internal organs, irrespective of their actual intensities. Alphaparticles,
although extremely dangerous, can not penetrate our skin – they are all stopped by a thin layer
of dead skin tissue that always covers every human being as his "outer skin". Since alpha-radiation is not
penetrative enough to get to inside our bodies, we simply ignore it. Beta-radiation is more penetrative and
it can penetrate the outer "dead" layer of our skin and cause burns to inner "live" layers of our skin. These
skin burns (called "beta-burns") could be quite serious if this beta-radiation was intense enough. Still, we
usually ignore even beta-radiation, along with alpha-radiation. We ignore it because even though betaradiation
in huge quantities could cause "beta-burns", still, it can not get deep inside our bodies and so to
cause any damage to the cells of our internal organs. Besides, beta-radiation can not penetrate our thick
clothes, so one who wears enough clothing is protected from beta-radiation anyway. That is why since we
feel protected from both – alpha- and beta- radiations we don't even count them when we calculate "safe"
and "dangerous" radiation doses in general. During calculations only gamma-radiation levels are counted.
However, the above consideration is true only for the case when you are subjected to alpha- and betaradiations
when these radiations originate from outside of our bodies. It is not the case when you inhale
or ingest some radioactive materials that emit these alpha- and beta- radiations. Because in the latter
case these alpha- and beta- radiations would originate from inside your body, and not from outside of it.
You will no longer be protected from most dangerous alpha-radiation by your skin, since you are being
irradiated from inside. Neither will you be protected from still very dangerous beta-radiation, because you
are being irradiated by it from inside your body. Here is an example: let's say that there is a radioactively
contaminated area – a/k/a "ground zero". You have to perform some job on it and you have to calculate a
safe radiation dose. You sent there a dosimetrist first (in lunar-looking hazmat suit) who reports that levels
of radiation in that area are, let's say, 10 Roentgens per hour. I don't know what an acceptable radiation
dose in the United States is, so I will use here a former Soviet standard. In the Soviet Union it was
believed that even though only doses of 50 Roentgens up could cause noticeable radiation sickness (i.e.
do visible harm to one's body), doses in between 20 and 50 Roentgens could still cause harm to one's
body (although invisible one). That is why it was the following "safe" radiation doses (per gamma121
radiation, of course, because only gamma-radiation is counted in such case) established in the Soviet
Union for the cases of emergency: 25 Roentgen maximum summary doses for combat conditions, and
half of it – i.e. 12.5 Roentgens – for non-combat conditions. In this case "combat" and "non-combat"
conditions could be perceived as follows. If someone who received 12.5 Roentgens dose must be
immediately taken away to prevent him from any further radiation exposure (even from a potential one), in
combat conditions – i.e. when there is an ongoing fighting, even the one who has already received 12.5
Roentgens could be left on the front-line even though he could be subjected to some more exposure –
let's say arising from radioactive contamination after nuclear explosions. However, even in combat
conditions someone whose acquired radiation dose gets close to 25 Roentgens must be removed from
any further potential radiation exposure. These "safe" doses were applicable for emergency cases – such
as a necessity to stop some radioactive leakage immediately and at any cost, or to continue fighting, and
so on. For non-emergency cases, though, these maximum acceptable radiation doses were often set
much lower – let's say only 3-5 Roentgens – depending on the actual situation.
We come back to our sample above. Let's base it on the former Soviet standards, since we do not know
the American ones for sure. We have: "ground zero" where levels of radiation are currently ~10 Roentgen
per hour, according to our dosimetrist's report. We have to establish first whether this work is really an
"emergency" work or not. Regarding the removal of debris it is apparently not an "emergency" – because
debris could be removed even a few months later, when the levels of radiation at "ground zero" would
subside considerably. However, regarding rescuing the people who might be trapped under the debris, it
must be considered as an "emergency". Thus we decided that this is an "emergency" work. So, we have
to stick to the maximum allowed radiation doses for emergency cases. We know that levels of radiation
are ~10 Roentgen per hour, while the maximum allowed radiation dose set as 12.5 Roentgens. Besides,
we apparently have a lot of people at our disposal that could do the work, so it is not really necessary to
expose each worker to the maximum allowed radiation dose. That is why, after some consideration, we
decided that we will set the maximum allowed dose for 10 Roentgens, rather than for 12.5 – just to be on
the safe side and not to abuse our emergency powers at the cost of the workers health. What we have to
do in this case? We have to bring to the workers' attention following information and to act as follows:
1) We have to tell them that to work in this area is allowed for a maximum time of 1 hour per person
– and no one and under no circumstances shall remain at ground zero any longer than 1 hour.
2) Every worker must have an individual dosimeter attached to his body – so we will be able to
measure his exact radiation exposure and able to take immediate measures if someone gets
accidentally overexposed.
3) Every worker must be issued a full hazmat-suit that will limit his exposure to only outer radiation
and will prevent deadly radioactive particles from being deposited on his hair and his skin, and,
God forbid, from inhaling or ingesting such radioactive particles.
4) Every worker upon completing his 1 hour shift must be thoroughly decontaminated by specialists
before allowed to remove his hazmat suit – so to prevent him and other people around him from
accidentally inhaling radioactive particles that were deposited on outer parts of his hazmat suit.
5) Each worker who completed his shift must be forever (at least for the next few years) removed
from any work that contain even slightest possibility to be exposed to radiation; and he himself
must be well aware of it and he must be warned and acknowledge it in written not to seek any job
that has anything to do with such things as radiation or radioactive materials.
As you can probably guess, it is not enough to establish only a "covert" radiation control and to issue to
each worker an individual dosimeter in the disguise of the alleged "air monitoring equipment". Because
unless each worker understood that radiation dangers are involved, this "secret" dosimeter will not save
him. It will only save us and it will allow us to formally "observe" a certain "safe" radiation dose received
by this worker in regard to gamma-radiation. What about the worker – he will never exceed 50 Roentgen
(or whatever other dose we set as maximum) acquired radiation dose per gamma-radiation, but nothing
more than that. He will still inhale and ingest not just "some", but "all" deadly particles of radioactive dust
and of radioactive vapor available at ground zero. And while his dose per gamma-radiation (which we in
this case "secretly" monitor) would not be enough to develop any acute radiation sickness and to feel sick
right away, it does not mean that he will be "saved" from radiation by our "covert efforts". Because this
worker (as well as a Manhattan resident when he eventually returns) would deposit inside his body some
quantities (in some cases some absolutely enormous quantities) of deadly radioactive particles that would
continue to irradiate him from inside by most dangerous alpha-radiation (as well as by beta- and even by
gamma- ones) for months and years to come. Depending on the severity of this internal irradiation, in a
couple of years (or later, or sometimes, even earlier) a hidden (or "latent") period of his chronic radiation
sickness would end and his radiation sickness would be obvious. He will suffer from leukemia, various
cancers, secondary infections, and eventually he will die. And that is what really happened in Manhattan.
122
Powerful "ultra-violet absorbers" and the longest-burning
"structural fire" in history.
On 03 December 2001 the strangest article was published on-line by the NewScientist.com. It still existed
in the Internet as on May 2010, but I am afraid that it might be removed after I publish this book. So, in
order to preserve this unprecedented publication for both – history and may be even for a future inquiry –
I decided to place 2 screenshots of that article – as it appeared in my browser. Obviously, I would need a
permission to reproduce the entire actual article here, which I would never get. But it is very unlikely that
anyone could prohibit me from photographing my own computer (with whatever contents) and from using
my own photos in any way I wish. Here is the article (sorry, not actually the "article", but only the two
photos of my computer with its Internet Explorer browser loaded – with some strange webpage it shows):
=====================
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment