January 16, 2014

Banned - 9/11 Disinfo Scumbag List on YouTube

Well, it finally happened. YouTube banned my 9/11 Disinfo Scumbag List video.

The video basically listed YouTube accounts that were known to be spreading disinformation about 9/11. The list grew from several years of discussing 9/11 events online and experiencing outright lies, disinformation and hostility. I started seeing a pattern of these same accounts copy-pasting lies to 9/11 videos.

"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content."

The allegation that my video was "spam", a "scam" or "commercially deceptive" is utter nonsense since it was nothing of the sort. The good news is, that the video hit clearly a nerve with the scumbags behind those disinfo accounts. And here is the disinfo list:

PEOPLE - 9/11 Disinfo Scumbags

ALEX JONES - 9/11 Disinfo Scumbags on PrisonPlanet forum:


YOUTUBE - 9/11 Disinfo Agents, Teams
These are disinfo agents that post tens of thousands of bullshit
comments designed to keep you from learning the truth about 9/11.
They know exactly what they're doing.

ctcole77  // this account tens of thousands of posts. Clearly a group behind this account.
ctcole77 - /watch?v=R4lt2Rl3YGM
ctcole77 - /watch?v=wIgzE_317to
IranContraScumDid911 // ridicules no planes

YOUTUBE - 9/11 Disinfo, Channels
UCSbNNZLluqOFMZOw7ylDlSQ - Clotter Dotter
UCl6kLRMVS1CRUQYCvOi2qiA - Chris Opzoomer

YOUTUBE - 9/11 Disinfo, Misguided
1958Antimatter - Casey c

November 28, 2011

Eco Fees or Eco Scam?

Confused about the new “eco fees” in Ontario?

If you think the Canadian government is collecting the new “eco fees” to help the environment, you’d be wrong.  The company collecting these new “eco fees” is actually a private company called Stewardship Ontario. This private “non-profit” company called Stewardship Ontario has lobbied to enact new eco legislation that grants them and their clients the right to collect new “eco fees” from consumers.

How Eco Fees Work
Stewardship Ontario solicits businesses, such as Costco and Best Buy, to join their “eco” program with the idea that Stewardship Ontario will provide common “green packaging” for its members. This common packaging service will supposedly reduce waste and help the environment. Stewardship Ontario charges their members, which are called “stewards”, for this common eco packaging service. The stewards (i.e. Costco, Best Buy, etc.) then have the option to incur the cost of joining Stewardship Ontario’s eco program or they may “optionally” pass along an “eco fee” onto their customers. This basically means that steward companies can now charge their customers an additional fee to pay because they have joined forces with Stewardship Ontario.

Where does the money go?
Eco fees do not actually go to the government nor do they go towards “saving the environment”. Eco fees go directly to this private company called “Stewardship Ontario”, and because Stewardship Ontario is a private company, they can do whatever they want with the money they collect.  This private company has basically lobbied law makers to create “eco laws” that benefit them. Canadians now have to pay more for the exact same items because of “eco fees”, under the promise to “save the environment”.

How do eco fees affect you?
Since Costco is part of Stewardship Ontario, let’s examine eco fees in buying a new TV from Costco. Costco charges a $25 eco fee, which means we pay 5% more on a $500 TV. Since Costco has joined forces with Stewardship Ontario, they are now “legally” allowed to pass along a new “eco fee” directly to us (or they may choose not to). Well, if we purchased an LG TV for example, and LG is manufactured in China as are virtually all TVs, this LG TV ships to Canada and US already pre-packaged. 

So, how exactly did Stewardship Ontario provide “eco packaging” services that justified our new $25 eco fee? The obvious answer is, they didn’t. Stewardship Ontario along with its members, have basically figured out how to impose a new “tax” disguised as an “eco fee” on a wide range of products. We now have the pleasure of paying more money for the exact same items in the name of “saving the environment”.

Eco Scam
It should be clear by now that “eco fees” are a well-orchestrated scam riding the wave of “save the environment”.  Politicians work for the highest bidder. Politicians need your vote, but they do not enact legislation on your behalf. Politicians write and enact legislation that is sponsored by rich and powerful lobby groups. These lobbyists groups wield immense power over politicians by way of campaign contributions, grants, donations and promises of lucrative post-political private sector jobs. 

Yes, regular citizens can organize, perhaps sign petitions to enact legislation that supports a cause, but the vast majority of legislation is enacted because powerful lobby groups petitioned politicians to enact laws on their behalf, not on ours. These laws serve the best interests of business, not citizens and certainly not the environment. Now that we understand “eco fees” a little bit better, have a look at some of the people involved with “Stewardship Ontario". It should be no surprise to find many people working for Stewardship Ontario are in fact lobbyists:

Board of Directors of Stewardship Ontario
  • Justin Sherwood – President, Refreshment Canada (Lobby group)
  • Jill Carman – Director, General Mills Canada
  • John Coyne – VP, Unilever Canada
  • Rosanne Angotti – Chief Counsel, Kraft Canada
  • Dianne Brisebois – CEO, Retail Council of Canada (Lobby group)
  • Stephanie Jones – VP, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (Lobby group)
  • Tamara Burns – VP, Sears Canada Ashley Dent – VP, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (Lobby group)
  • Vaughn Crofford – President,Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturing Association (Lobby group)
  • John Hinds – CEO, Canadian Newspaper Association (Lobby group)
  • David Bois – Manager, Home Hardware Stores Ltd.
  • Shannon Coombs – President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (Lobby group)
  • Jim Quick – President, Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (Lobby group)
  • Mark Reed – Director, Pennzoil-Quaker State Canada Kent Hatton – Director, Energizer Canada
A politicians’ real job is to convince the public that a particular policy or law is actually good for them, or good for something the public cares about (e.g. environment). They use many tactics to convince (i.e. trick) the public into believing bad policies are good and needed.  Fear is one of the most powerful tactics used (i.e. homeland security to fight terrorism, carbon taxes to fight global warming, etc.). Politicians say one thing and do another and ultimately care about their careers and in keeping and obtaining power. This is what the eco movement is all about to these people. It’s never been about the environment, it’s always been about how to make more money and gain more power.

Links to research further:

Stewardship Ontario

Eco-Fees in Ontario « The Daily Bayonet

Eco-Fees 2: Stewardship Ontario « The Daily Bayonet

Stewardship Ontario – Let’s Dig Deeper | Wind Concerns Ontario

2010-07-14 Eco tax scam, sham, bam ... bad public policy: Walter Robinson

Eco fee sham | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

Ontario News: Eco-fee agency says levies could be buried in price - thestar.com

September 28, 2011

Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 Support Evidence

Share this article:
Share this article on YouTube: tinyurl (dot) com/432w33o

Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 Support Evidence

The following links provide additional support evidence for Dimitri Khalezov's 9/11 testimony. Watch the full 2 part documentary interview below called "9/11: The Third Truth - Dimitri Khalezov" and review the detailed "Nuclear Demolition - WikiSpooks" article to learn about Dimitri's testimony and detailed explanation of how the WTC buildings were demolished using built-in underground nuclear devices.

In his 2-Part interview, Dimitri explains the details about virtually all events that unfolded on 9/11 ... he leaves no stone unturned

Start here, watch these videos and review the WikiSpooks article:
Additional support videos:

Complete 9/11 Research

Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 Bookmarks

Dimitri Khalezov Support Evidence

Radiation and 9/11 Rescue Workers at Ground Zero
Nuclear demolition evidence
WTC buildings collapsed to dust
Damage to the WTC "Bathtub"
Super high temperatures at and below Ground Zero
9/11 Digital Deception - No planes hit the WTC towers
(AA 11 and WTC 1, United 175 and WTC 2)

      Excellent analysis of 9/11 video and image footage
       More analysis of the fake WTC airplane  videos and images
      Analysis of impossible plane speeds and maneuvers at Sea Level
Pentagon hit by Missile, not a plane
(AA 77 @ Pentagon)
Plane shot down over Shanksville, PA, plane did not "crash"
("United Flight 93")
Alleged "Hijackers" are alive and well
Other interviews with Dimitri Khalezov

This quote is from a fellow member posting to a discussion about Dimitri Khalezov's documentary interview on the Prison Planet forum. This member, along with myself and two other members were eventually banned from that message board. You can review the discussion thread here:

Click to see zoom image.

          September 19, 2011

          Review: Judy Wood "New Hiroshima" WRT Dimitri Khalezov "9/11: Third Truth"

          This article is for those that are familiar with Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 testimony and.or Dr. Judy Wood's  theory about 9/11. I want to preface this article saying that i believe Dimitri Khalezov offers the most detailed and most logical explanation of virtually all events of 9/11 in his 2-Part documentary interview called "9/11: The Third Truth". You can watch his interview video here:

          Part 1: 9/11: The Third Truth - Dimitri Khalezov (1of2 Full)

          Part 2: 9/11: The Third Truth - Dimitri Khalezov (2of2 Full)

          When discussing Dimitri Khalezov, people often mention Dr. Judy Wood's "Energy Directed Weapon" theory about 9/11. So rather than simply dismissing Judy Wood's theory, i decided to watch her presentation and make up my own mind. This article outlines various points presented by Judy and offers comments.

          One very important point is that Dr. Judy Wood offers a "theory" to what happened on 9/11 whereas Dimitri Khalezov is a in fact a material witness and provides "testimony" (not a theory) to the fact that the WTC towers were demolished using three 150kt underground nuclear devices.

          I watched the Judy Wood 2-part video called "New Hiroshima" filmed in 2007 at Madison. Here are the 2 videos i watched:

          Part 1: 9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007

          Part 2: 9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007

          Overall, her content in Part 1 was not bad. Her overall presentation was lack luster, but that's not critical so i will focus focus on the material she presented. If you stopped watching Judy after Part 1, and started watching Dimitri, the material she presented would provide Dimitri with a great intro. Also, i found it odd that she used the term "New Hiroshima", which was a nuclear event, even though that was not her claim.

          I have organized my commentary on Dr. Judy Wood's "New Hiroshima" 2-part presentation by organizing key points of her presentation into Pros and Cons as follows:

          Pros - Comments made by Dr. Judy Wood that either agree with, or provide support to, Dimitri's testimony (i.e. the same comments can be made for Dimitri's testimony)

          Cons - Comments made that lack support evidence, any unsubstantiated claims, outright inaccurate comments or claims made by Dr. Judy Wood.

          PART 1

          • Building disappears, not collapse @6:30'
          • Nuclear test @7:30'
          • Rotates over and disappears @15'
          • Building didn't hit the ground (again, dust) @15:30'
          • "At least not 110' (she meant "stories") of outer columns" @15:40'
          • Fumes, not smoke, came from the ground
          • World record (of dust) @19:30'
          • Kingdome demolition @20'
          • "Seemed like jet engines shooting upwards" @21'
          • "Fumes, not smoke" @28'
          • See the fire stove image shows fire inside metal stove @41
          • Building #4 (not bad) @34'
          • Demolition wave "ahead" of gravity @16' // That's not actually what we we saw, this is an inaccurate statement
          • Cylindrical cut outs // There was o evidence of this, it was just Judy's comments @23' and 35'
          • "Whole bunch of 24' cylindrical cut outs that coalesced" @31' // Again, no clear evidence
          • Cars spontaneously combust, and instant rust @38:30' // Lack of evidence, just Judy's commentary
          • Cars have "instantly rusted" @40' // Lack of evidence, just her commentary
          • Car on fire but not paper @42' // Failed to show how this was relevant 
          • "rusting", "no door handles" @43' // Failed to show how this was relevant 
          • No molten metal / microwave oven comment @46' // But there is ample evidence of molten metal
          PART 2

          In Part 2, she continues to focus on "dust", which completely supports Dimitri's explanation, but she starts to introduce strange comments and made-up terms not backed by very much evidence beyond her claims. Part 2 was a letdown.

          • "Fumes, not smoke" @1'
          • "Dust clouds" @5:20'
          • (dust) "dark on top, light on bottom" @5:30' // Dimitri explains this in depth: Crushed zone and Damaged zone
          • Building 6 @7'
          • See the "blue flames" in the diagrams @19' // points to radiation fumes 
          • FBI photo of them scrubbing the streets (toothbrush comment) @30' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
          • Constant scrubbing @31' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
          • "Air monitors" @34' // Dimitri claims they were used to monitor radiation
          • "Tower 1 getting packed with dirt" @34' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
          • Lots of evidence about dirt being brought to Ground Zero from 34' to 40' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
          • Comment by audience about dirt being used at Chernobyl to contain radiation  @42'
          • "Still fuming" @43'
          • Took 1 year to solve a crime @1:04 (vs. 1 hour to solve WTC)
          • Kingdome demolition @1:15'  // Nice comparison of demolitions showing charges going off, yet we don't see charges going off at any WTC building
          • "Strongest building material turned into clouds" clip @1:28'

          • "Looked at data, data told me so" @3:30' // Judy failed to present that data so we can follow her line of thinking
          • "Path train" @7:30 // Interesting, but she failed to provide evidence 
          • "Toasted cars" @ 15' // I put this as a con because she made ongoing commentary about "instant rust" and "toasted" but failed to show evidence to support these claims. We can see dust on damaged cars but "instant rustification" was not proven. She harped on this point throughout her presentation. She also mentioned "it must have been some type of chemical reaction", without proof to support this claim
          • "Missing engine block" #17' // Judy stated this twice and it made no sense both times. The photos showed a damaged car with the hood closed, so her statement was wrong
          • "Toasted car lot" @17' // Not clearly presented, not any explanation was offered
          • "Toasted bodies" 19' // There was no evidence of "toasted bodies", it was just her commentary
          • @22:40' // I found it hard to believe that two ladies in her small audience happen to be in NY on 9/11. Too coincidental for me 
          • Audience member claims "Smell burning bodies" @23' // Again, there was no evidence of this from rescue workers and more importantly, the overall destruction of buildings would have overwhelmed any distinct smell of "burning bodies". I seriously doubt the validity of this statement. And again, it was a random person's statement
          • "fuzzy balls" @27:50' // Judy now starts to invent terms that do not actually describe what is being presented
          • "Molten metal myth" @30' // Judy harps on this point, but it contradicts several firefighters testimony and it contradicts videos and photos we see, also contradicts articles reporting the fires were still burning, plus you can see smoke coming from Ground Zero weeks later. She provides very weak evidence to disprove this fact.
          • "Steel doesn't rust that fast" @33' // She made a baseless claim. We have no idea if that was in fact rust, and we have no idea if it was rusted/colored that way before hand. I would not have point this out, but she harped on this topic so much that it requires comment
          • Judy's explanation about steel getting hot, regarding the equipment "could not get that hot" and will "expand" was total gibberish @44'. // Judy's explanation was misleading and incorrect stating that the large equipment could not possibly handle hot steel 
          • Molten metal @47' // Judy claims that this is disinfo yet multiple reports of molten steel were made by firefighers and we can see many photos of hot steal being pulled from the wreckage. I seriously doubt, and the evidence does not support, that molten metal was disinfo, yet she harped on it without providing any evidence to support her claims.
          • "Good psyops" @53' // Judy spent time discussing psyops as if she was an authority. In fact, her explanation was, i quote: "if you're going to pull a good psyops, you start out with saying something honest. Because the first impression of someone, they're wondering, is this person someone i can trust or not. They say the right thing "ah, i'm gonna trust them." And then they move into something that's kind of odd. That's just a good rule of thumb. The issue is, this comment can be applied to Judy's presentation. Part 1 of her presentation, she made accurate observations which most people could agree with. But now in Part 2, she presents exactly this "kind of odd" information using made-up terms and statements about molten metal that contradict various evidence. It was a very bizarre statement to make during her presentation on "materials and structural engineering".
          • "This particular one is what i call a pysops video. It's to re-enforce the 'molten metal myth' that got introduced somehow at some point. I wanna make it clear that in no way do i think any of the emergency workers were lying when they said they saw molten metal. They were conditioned that, and everybody was saying that, everyone kept assuming thats what that was, and just moved on, and it became this myth" @53' // I have a serious problem with her statements about this clip. She provides no evidence to disprove that there was not molten lava, which means that she is sharing her opinion, not fact. I find it strange that she stresses this point so vigorously yet provides little to no evidence to support it. In fact, it goes against the testimony of firefighters that were clearly standing on the rubble. 
          • "No fires below" @59' // She fails to provide evidence to support her claim and evidence that is available contradicts her statement.
          • "Instant rust" @1:06 // She offers no evidence of this happening. She offers an unclear photo and her statement as evidence. 
          • "Bright orange rust" @1:08 // Again, an unsubstantiated claim. It's very unclear if it is in fact rust. We can see dust, but that's the only thing we can confirm. She offers no explanation and no evidence.
          • "You can tell when a building is ready to go" @1:13 // Big statement wrong on many levels. No, people can't actually tell when a building is ready to collapse unless they have special knowledge of it happening.
          • "Soap suds" @1:13 // Ongoing use of made-up terms added confusion and did not actually describe what was being presented
          • "Lathering up smoke rings" @1:16 // She offers no explanation nor evidence as to what these actually were nor what caused them
          • "Dust" @1:18' // Simple explanation, the wind was blowing the dust and fumes all over the place (down draft, up draft, etc.). She made a big deal about how the dust and smoke were traveling yet it was easily explained by wind blowing. She seemed to be hinting at something, yet offered no alternative explanation.
          • "Lathering up" @1:23' // I see no "lathering" of any sort. I see a building that was pulverized to dust that's about to fall down
          • "Fuzzy blobs" @1:25'
          • "Lathering up material" @1:26 // At this point, the more she spoke, the less credible she became
          • "Most people are unable to talk about it"  1:30' to 1:36'  // Judy presents no evidence, just a few photos and a story
          • "Fumes, no bent steal" @1:38 // We can see bent steal in countless photos.

          In summary, Judy Wood made fairly good observations in Part 1 of the event and Ground Zero itself (i.e. massive amounts of dust, fumes/not smoke, building came down to dust, etc.) but failed to deliver evidence in trying to offer her explanation in Part 2. She focused on "toasted cars", "24' diameter holes", "instant rust", "some sort of chemical reaction", etc. without providing evidence to support her observations and claims. Her observations are very much up for debate. Her introduction of made-up terms to describe events that did not match what she was presenting was a fail. Terms like, "lathering" or "lathering up material" or "lathering up sequence" or "soap suds" or "fuzzy blobs" were introduced  with no support evidence, nor any explanation as to what created them. Again, it was just her commentary. That was a fail and was in fact a deal breaker for accepting her commentary beyond Part 1.

          An extremely important fact to note is that Dr. Judy Wood offers a "theory" about 9/11, whereas Dimitri Khalezov is a "material witness" and provides testimony to the fact that the WTC towers were demolished using three 150kt built-in underground nuclear devices. Judy makes some good observations, but fails to offer substantial evidence to explain what exactly happened to the buildings. Watch both presentations and decide for yourself.

          September 18, 2011

          Dimitri Khalezov reply to Judy Wood supporter

          The following is an email between Dimitri Khalezov and Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez regarding Judy Wood theory and claims. Quotes from Abe are italic above the dashed line. Dimitri's replies are below the dashed line.

          From: Dimitri Khalezov
          To: Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
          FROM: ‘911thology’
          SUBJECT: ‘your final answer’
          DATE: May 29th, 2010

          Dear Abe.

          As you could probably understand I am quite a busy person and I spent so much time on trying to convince you simply because after reading your multiple posts on various forums regarding Dr Judy Wood I felt a kind of pity for you, because you appeared to me a sincere person cheated by some crooks. Trust me, I have more than enough people who believed my presentation at once and they would not accept anything else, and this number includes such prominent 9/11 scholar as Jeff King, for example. So, it does not actually change anything in principle if this number will be more or less by one person only.

          Still, it is a pity for me that you so stubbornly refuse to believe the obvious. I will not write to you anything more, because I do not engage in discussions -- it is useless in any case, according to my experience: people either believe this presentation of mine at once, or they disbelieve it at once and there is no way to convince them even if you answer all their questions. I think it has something to do with brainwashing these people had undergone prior to watching my movie and damages became irreparable. So, it is just to explain why I usually do not argue with them. It is only a loss of precious time. However, not to leave your letter without answer, I will answer all your points mentioned below -- I am pretty sure that it will not change your mind anyway and it is a loss of my time and yours, but still, you will get your answers which are below:

          Unfortunately after watching these many hours of video, my mind is still confused as to how you draw the conclusions you do.
          this I can't help, unfortunately.

          You shared very little evidence with us in the movie which supports your theory of nuclear demolition.
          you must be laughing at me. If an eye-witness steps forward and testifies (even under oath if necessary) that he knew about existence of an emergency nuclear demolition even back in the 80s from his former service in the Soviet nuclear intelligence and you still claim that this is a 'little evidence', I have nothing to comment. It is just a mockery of justice from your side. A testimony of an eye-witness (especially of a cool-blooded professional, not of a lay passer-by) is the first and foremost evidence in a list of all evidences possible. Besides, you can not treat an eye-witness in the manner you attempted. As you probably know, an eye-witness technically can not be 'right or wrong'. He could only be a truthful witness or a false witness. If he is a truthful witness then you have no choice -- you have to believe him, because he saw something which you did not see. If he is a false witness -- he is a criminal then. He must be placed behind bars for his false testimony. To re-phrase it, I could put it this way: if Dr Judy Wood could be technically 'right or wrong' in her bizarre presumptions, I can't be 'right or wrong'. I could only say truth or lie intentionally and maliciously. By claiming such a thing you simply call me a false eye-witness and therefore you call me a criminal. Thanks for it.

          Yes, you provided lots of video testimonies and evidence about various things, like why planes did not hit the buildings, and that the definition of 'ground zero' used to be related to nuclear devices, and other such things, but in terms of hard evidence which suggests that precisely placed underground nuclear weapons were used to turn the towers into dust, there was very little if any presented in the film series.
          again, you must be laughing at me. I spent like an hour explaining physical properties of deep underground nuclear explosions and the way a nuclear explosion's energy is transformed into a 'crushing wave' directed upwards and you would still call it 'very little' and even 'if any'? Just to let you know, that while the movie was still on YouTube I had feedbacks from many professionals in technical field -- like structural engineers, architects and even doctors of physics - who expressed their gratitude for my explanation because I made it so clear for them. Therefore what you say about 'very little' and 'if any' sounds nothing less than a mockery for me. But it is OK for me, I have quite a few critics anyway, so it will not change anything if one more person joined their ranks.

          For example, you did not provide documents which reveal that the WTC buildings were prepared with nuclear demolition in mind.
          this is a ridiculous demand. I have no way to obtain this kind of document and definitely I have no obligation whatsoever to show it to you. And even if by any chance (perhaps by a miracle of The Most High only) I would have such a document in my hands you and your kind would not believe me anyway: now you accuse me of being a false eye-witness, but if I would have such a document you would accuse me further - of being a document forger. It is clear to me.

          These documents should be easy for someone with your credentials to acquire, because they would be part of the normal building plans.
          I have no 'credentials' to obtain any thing like this. I am a Russian, not an American, I live in Thailand, not in America, and so I am not covered by your 'Freedom of Information Act'. You could (perhaps) demand such a thing from the US authorities as being a citizen, but I could not. But in any case you must be insane if you believe that such a thing would be given to you (or to me) simply because you want it. The US government did not even want to release the Pentagon strike videos and list of alleged 'passengers' of concerned flights and now you sincerely believe that they would give you a nuclear demolition plan of the WTC? You must be insane, man. I begin to fear you.

          Instead, you expect the reader to simply 'take your word' for it because of your military experience.
          I do not expect anything at all. I provided my eye-witness testimony which you MUST believe ('take my word') because this is a property of eye-witnesses in general -- to be believed. If an eye witness (like janitor Rodriguez who claim to hear and see explosions in the WTC basement, for example) says something you don't have doubt whether to believe him or not -- you simply believe him. Why then you doubt what I say? I repeat it one more time -- I am not an expert in this capacity, I am an EYE-WITNESS who MUST be believed, because otherwise I must be arrested for the false testimony. Do you realize this, at last, that you accuse me of being a criminal now?

          Another great example of the lack of hard evidence you provide, is the lack of evidence that Controlled Demolition, Inc. has done any such "underground nuclear demolitions" of any buildings,
          I provided more than hard evidence, because I put forward a testimony of an eye-witness who testified (and is ready to testify under oath in front of judges) that there was the in-built nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC prior to the 9/11. This is the hardest of the hardest -- first degree evidence -- a testimony of a live eye-witness who is ready to swear by the Name of The Most High that what he says is truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth. What evidence could be harder than this?

          nor have you provided any proof that any building has ever been demolished in the history of controlled demolitions using 'underground nuclear explosions'.
          I can't provide such evidence you demanded simply because no building has ever been demolished prior to the 9/11 by underground nuclear explosion. The WTC South Tower was the very first in history to be demolished in such a manner, and the WTC-7 was the last (really the last, because you could be certain that they would never demolish any other building by nuclear explosion after the realized how awful their miscalculation was). Therefore you demand is ridiculous.

          If other buildings, military or not, have been brought down do to controlled demolition with underground nuclear weapons, surely you could at least provide some videos, photos, and documents, which show enormous steel and concrete buildings being turned into fine, microscopic dust, using underground nuclear weapons as you describe.
          see my answer above. No building has ever been demolished in this way prior to the 9/11 and I am sure it would never ever happen again.

          Furthermore, in your video series, you fail to explain things like why steel and concrete were turned to dust, while aluminum was only bent or bunt, and paper was completely unharmed.
          I have no obligation to explain any and every minor detail First of all, I have no such an obligation because I am primarily an eye-witness, and my secondary capacity -- i.e. that of a technical expert - was nothing but my voluntarily self-assignment which I could withdraw in any moment together with all my alleged 'obligations' that might arise from such a position. I can easily retire as an expert leaving myself a position of an eye-witness only. Meaning if you don't like my version of nuclear demolition mechanics -- I retire and you are welcome to offer you own version of nuclear demolition mechanics, instead. Secondly, I can assure you that I could explain (or at least attempt to explain) even these minor details you have mentioned above, however, if I indulge in this addressing any and every minor details, my movie would not last 4+ hours, but would last like 30 hours. Hope you a reasonable enough to realize that this was not an option. Therefore I addressed only the major points, skipping minor details. But it does not mean that I have no explanations for these minor details. I have the explanations and you don't have to doubt it.

          Certainly, a nuclear blast would have turned all these building materials to dust, not just some of them. You fail to even mention this important piece of evidence.
          see my answer above. Moreover, I could easily explain why paper was not pulverized and indeed I explained it to many people who asked me this question after watching my video and they were satisfied with my answer. However, it is useless to spend my precious time to explain it to you, since even if I do so you would not believe me anyway; therefore I skip this explanation here.

          You also fail to explain other large portions of evidence, such as the intact PATH trains
          I could easily explain it and indeed I explained it to many people.

          and the WTC bathtubs,
          again, I could easily explain it and I indeed explained it to many people.

          the presence and lack of reporting of Hurricane Erin,
          I believe that this is the most ridiculous piece of alleged 'evidence' absolutely irrelevant to the 9/11 (if true at all). I would not even bother spending my precious time trying to find any explanation to this most ridiculous argument. If you disagree with this I could also demand from Dr Judy Wood to find a satisfactorily explanation to the alleged fact that all crocodiles in Africa allegedly stop mating at the moment of the WTC collapses. Would she bother to address this 'most important' point of mine regarding the crocodiles? I seriously doubt it.

          the Alaskan Magnometer readings at all 5 stations which indicate a huge disturbance in the magnetosphere just as the /11 attacks happened,
          this is not valid evidence for me but merely a hearsay. I would not believe ANY official data that comes from the US Government controlled sources and the so-called 'Alaska Magnometer' and its alleged 'readings' have definitely something to do with the United States officials. This fact alone devaluates this alleged 'evidence'. I would prefer to ignore it completely as potential lie, and even if it were true it does not mean at all that these alleged 'readings' had anything to do with the WTC demolition. They (if only this is not lie) perhaps, could be relevant, as you say, to the 'attacks', but definitely not to demolitions. I could even try to think about it and try to find some explanation to these alleged 'readings' if these three conditions are met: 1) if I see the actual papers; 2) if I know for sure the time they were recorded; 3) if I know for sure that this is not bogus stuff, concocted to distract attention of researchers from real things dangerous to the US Government. However, because I have none of these three conditions met, I would not even bother to find any explanation to this definitely minor point.

          and more. I have only listed a small portion of the evidence which you have failed to explain,
          I would like to repeat myself by stating as follows:

          1) My being an eye-witness who could testify under oath that he knew about existence of the WTC in-built nuclear demolition scheme is more than enough. I don't need to bother explaining technical details of actual nuclear demolition, and, moreover, I have no obligation to do so. An eye-witness definitely has no obligation to act as a technical expert, in addition. It is enough for him to act as an eye-witness. Therefore it is more than ingratitude to blame me for 'failing to explain' or 'failing to explain satisfactorily' anything at all. Be grateful that I attempted to explain to you at least something, while definitely having no obligation to do so. Don't like my explanation of nuclear demolition mechanics?

          Well. Offer your own explanation of nuclear demolition mechanics. You seem not to realize difference between me and Dr Judy Wood. In her case she has definite obligation to prove and to defend her bizarre claims about alleged 'directed energy weapons'. And you and I have our undeniable rights to demand from her to explain to us every minor technical detail -- which she is obliged to explain to us indeed in order to defend her theory. Unlike her I don't have such obligations whatsoever. It is enough to me to state that I am a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence (don't even doubt that I could prove it without any problem) and that during time of my service there I got to know about existence of the in-built WTC nuclear demolition scheme, exact details of which I don't know.

          That's it. Period. You could ask me why the Towers were pulverized? My answer is: I don't know, I am not a demolition expert. And I will answer to any and every your question in the same manner: I am not a demolition expert and I don't know and don't want to know why the Towers were actually pulverized and why the bathtub's wall was not damaged. I don't even know what is the 'bathtub'. I only know that the WTC nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC existed and that is it. See the difference between me and Dr Judy Wood? While she can not refuse to provide technical explanations to defend her theory I definitely have all rights to refuse to provide technical explanations to defend my witness testimony. Because a witness testimony does not need to be defended.

          [ac31: Dimitri eventually found proof that the "bathtub" was indeed damaged:

          Workers Rush To Repair Huge Hole In WTC 'Bathtub' - NY1.com
          ‪The Fetzer - Khalezov Interview 8/10‬‏ - YouTube
          ‪The Fetzer - Khalezov Interview 9/10‬‏ - YouTube


          2) Irrespectively of what is said in Clause 1) I could say that I indeed could provide more than satisfactorily explanations to variety of minor details not addressed in my video presentation. Even though I have no obligation to provide these explanations due to the considerations mentioned in Clause 1) I still could still explain many things. However, as I have said my presentation is now already more than 4 hours and I can't afford making it any longer by adding more and more explanations to multiple minor details. But it does not mean that I can't explain them. I definitely can do it. Despite of having no obligation of explaining due to my being a humble eye-witness, but not a self-proclaimed technical expert like Dr Judy Wood or Steven Jones.

          while also bringing up the very concerning lack of evidence which you have provided us viewers.
          as I have mentioned at least twice above a testimony of an eye-witness under oath is the hardest kind of evidence that ever existed in jurisprudence. I could provide THIS kind. While Dr Judy Wood can not testify under oath to her claims. And neither any other conspiracy theorist would ever dare to invoke the Name of The Most High to defend his particular conspiracy theory. Unlike them I could testify under oath that the WTC nuclear demolition scheme indeed existed. Is it not 'evidence' in your opinion? Therefore your demand concerning alleged 'lack of evidence' is ridiculous.

          In conclusion, not only does your theory
          mine is not a 'theory'. Dr Judy Wood's one -- is a 'theory'. Steven Jones' one -- is a theory. But mine is an eye-witness testimony. See the difference?

          fail at explaining a large amount of evidence observed at Ground Zero,
          as I have already mentioned that as an eye-witness (rather than a technical expert) I do not have any obligation to explain anything at all. An eye-witness' obligation is not to explain, but to testify.

          but you have failed to share an enormous amount of technical information and proof, such as building plans, nuclear demolition videos, etc., with us as well.
          I have never had them in my hands so I had nothing to share. And in any case if it would be definitely beneficial to a trial if an eye-witness would bring some written document in addition to his oral testimony, it can't be consider a 'failure' if an eye-witness does not possess such a document. It by no means devaluates his actual oral testimony. So your demand is totally wrongful.

          So, not only is your theory less-than-optimal in comparison to Dr. Wood's conclusions,
          I have no comment. Only laugh.

          but furthermore, your theory is far less evidence-based than hers.

          I see no reason to support your work
          I don't need your support and have never asked for it. I only thought you were a sincere person cheated by crooks and I attempted to bring you to the right path by explaining the very truth to you. I have never asked for any thing in return.

          and your criticism of Dr. Wood considering the extreme lack of evidence you have shared with me.
          I have never requested you to support me in criticizing Dr Wood either, because I don't even consider her theory worthy enough to criticize it myself, not to say to involve others into this process. I simply don't care about her theory and would not even bother to spend time criticizing it. Perhaps, you got me wrong.

          Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
          Thanks for you respect (if it is only respectful to accuse a genuine eye-witness of being a false eye-witness). But thanks anyway, if you sincerely believe that you show any respect. And apparently you have no obligation to agree with my conclusions. It is entirely up to you, so you don't even need to apologize.

          Thanks anyway for your time.
          thank you too for your time.

          You don't need to answer to this letter, but, please, confirm that you received it.


          [ac31: Source ]