FAQ for 'Third Truth' skeptics

For third truth skeptics:

Many readers are skeptical of the 'third truth' - that missiles, not planes, impacted the buildings on 911, and the three buildings which collapsed in New York were demolished using underground nuclear devices.

To see a "professional" skeptic's thoughts - although we don't know for certain he is a paid shill so perhaps we shouldn't say that - read this:

www.scribd.com/doc/65420635/91…

It also includes Dimitri's replies to the skeptic.

I am going to compile the thoughts of "unprofessional" skeptics on this forum and rebuttals to those ideas:

You slam something like that into the side of a skyscraper moving that fast, it's almost a guarantee that everything's going to come crashing down. You shame the memories of those lost with such ridiculous lies."

Firstly I agree that lying brings about shame. But it is the official story which is the lie. By supporting it, you are unwittingly lying.

If you slam something fast into a building there is no guarantee what will happen. When insects hit a car windshield they are traveling (relative to the car) at the speed of 50 mph or so. We cannot say because kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared (.5mv^2), and the forces in the collision are proportional to the speed (f=ma=m(vf-vi/t)) that because the insect is traveling "that fast" the insect will destroy the  windshield. In fact it will not even dent the windshield! It is also the case with these planes traveling "that fast". The forces they exert on the steel layers of the buildings would not be sufficient for the plane to penetrate through.

From Dimitri:


The mere notion that an aluminum item might
cut steel sounds a little bit "strange", not to say crazy. It shall be also noted that armor-piercing shells fired
against tanks or other armored items, travel to their targets with a speed at least trice as much as a speed
of sound – because even though they are made of Wolfram, this fact alone is not enough to achieve
steel-piercing capability – some very high speed is the second required factor. Speed of a typical armorpiercing
shell fired from anti-tank cannon is actually over triple sound-speed – it is at least 1000 meters
per second, and normally even faster than this, while a maximum cruise speed of whatever passenger
Boeing is subsonic – less than 250 m/sec in the best case. It is good to look at these columns again. And
imagine that their thick double walls are comparable with some armor used to make tanks. To penetrate
such a column alone would be a challenge for an armor-piercing shell fired from a long-barreled anti-tank
cannon at point-blank range. In fact, this concept of "double-walls" is applicable only to the case of an
armor-piercing shell because it faces a task of penetrating only two walls perpendicular to its way.
However, an aluminum plane faces a bigger task – it addition to the two walls perpendicular to its way, it
has to cut two more walls – that are parallel to its way, because each of such tubes has actually 4 walls,
not just two. And these two parallel to its way columns would evidently have much greater "thickness"…
Now, I guess, it would be a little bit easier to contemplate over those alleged armor-piercing capabilities of
the aluminum "Boeings 767" – after comparing such with an artillery armor-piercing shell. Why the "9/11
Commission" or those "engineers" from the above mentioned NIST, who managed even to count the
exact number of the "severed" steel columns, did not want then to try to make some penetrating
experiment with some written-off passenger "Boeing 767" and with several of those columns? That kind of
experiment would be a really good thing to prove to the doubtful guys that it were really the "terrorist
planes" that did demolish the World Trade Center…


"both Boeing 767's, and were both at optimal cruising speeds when they hit the towers, which is around 533 mph"

From Dimitri who responded to a different person who claimed high speeds for the Jetliners at low altitude:

could you just imagine that 510 mph
is the full cruise speed of an airliner that is impossible to achieve on such a low altitude as only a few
hundred meters above the sea-level? This man does not possess even a basic understanding about
physics (or he prefers to pretend so and thus to exploit the general public's gullibility), so there is nothing
to discuss with him further, actually.

Someone backing up that the planes alleged speed exceeded maximum possible speeds at those altitudes:

lucianarchy.proboards.com/inde…


"Insider knowledge" from a guy whose entire credentials list appears to be exclusively his website or yours. Why is this random Soviet an insider with knowledge more credible than any of the other numerous people who've written on the subject?

Why is this guy more trustworthy than, for example, the authorities? Or the people who wrote about how the planes crashing into the buildings would be sufficient to bring the structure down?
"

For individuals who understand logic, have access to accounts of 911 evidence and are willing to look up scientific literature, one does not have to 'trust' someone to come to conclusions. One can evaluate their claims! It would not matter to me for example if Isaac Newton was a 'dodgy geezer' for me to accept the laws relating to forces he proposed because I have seen situations consistent with them.

How does Dimitri differ from other people who write on 911? It is because he was at a celebratory breakfast with Mike Harrarri who orchestrated the attacks, and he also has relevant knowledge of nuclear weapons.

From Dimitri:


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:


I, Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, swear to The God Almighty that I say the truth, the only truth, and nothing but
the truth and if I lie let The God punish me in This World and in the World to Come, and testify as follows:
1) I indeed used to serve as a commissioned officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, which was the codename
of the Soviet Special Control Service – an organization primarily responsible for detecting nuclear
explosions (underground or otherwise) everywhere in the world.
2) I indeed knew from the time of my former military service mentioned above about the existence of a socalled
"emergency nuclear demolition scheme" of the World Trade Center in the city of New York, in the
United States of America; and I knew about the existence of this so-called "emergency nuclear demolition
scheme" of the World Trade Center in New York City during not less than ten years prior to the eleventh
day of September, year 2001 AD.
3) I indeed used to know personally a very high-ranking and the very-well known official from the Israeli
secret service [edit:Mike Hararri] who was using a bogus Arabic identity and a diplomatic cover for setting up various bogus
Muslim terrorist networks in South East Asia and elsewhere and for organizing various false-flag terror
actions, including those directly connected to the 9/11 perpetration and to the 2002 Bali bombing, at least.

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.