Nuclear "Granit" missiles and that Russian interview.

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, but I wanted to enter my comments into the record.

This story. . .

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=625029

"Is this really what happened? Arms Trafficking, Stolen Missiles, Soviet Submarines, Nuclear Detonations and 9/11: Interview with Dimitri Khalezov in Bangkok"

That interview got my blood up, which I know isn't a good thing, so when it cooled down I wrote and posted the following response. However, the story has left the front-page and consequently, the viewing public, and I am a little concerned the ideas presented by the interview were not properly dissected before doing so.

So here's what I wrote. . .

---

Looking just at the Pentagon angle, this story oh-so-conveniently spins the damage favorably for the state. REALLY favorably. It neatly answers nearly all of the questions brought up by the Pentagon Strike video and the indirect implications of those questions. That's pretty amazing, especially coming from a Russian who ostensibly considers the American government his enemy. (But such a great story couldn't possibly come from the U.S. government itself. Who would buy it otherwise?)

Please consider. . .

1. All of the observable problems with the official story at the Pentagon are explained by this handy little interview. (Though, many of the important points are delivered as meta-data, as it were). This includes that mysterious single circular engine part, the immaculate lawn, the witness testimonies, missing passenger corpses, that big, tarp-covered doo-dad they hauled out of the park and the confiscated camera footage. The whole bit. Heck, the deed probably was accomplished with something like a "Granit" missile/airplane combo attack. But we already knew that, thanks to deductive reasoning.

However. . .

2. This story also gives the State a really good reason for lying to us. After all, we can't have people panicking over Washington DC nearly being incinerated in a nuclear mushroom cloud, now can we? So the LIES told to us by the 9/11 Commission are suddenly GOOD lies, (or at least excusable lies), and the denial and stonewalling was GOOD denial and GOOD stonewalling.

How wonderfully convenient.

3. The idea that elements of the secret government were trying to use a false-flag self-inflicted (but NON-LETHAL) wound to convince us to go to war is countered by the nuclear warhead idea. -That it was only a freak chance that all of Washington DC wasn't obliterated by 500 kilotons of nuclear fury. Would the Pentagon do THAT to itself? Surely not! Therefore the conspiracy people are all nuts and the politicians and military gents were all innocent.

And so we can see that this interview neatly exonerates the state by offering us a really compelling reason for all that secrecy and manipulation in the official story. (They really couldn't tell us what was actually going on! See? We should have trusted our benevolent knows-best government all along.)

It also gives the 9/11 truthers a reason to feel proud of being smart enough to see, but foolish to press the issue. It gives them a reason to settle down and let the Government do its job. It ALSO establishes that the villains of this little fiction are even MORE evil than we first realized, having nukes and all, and that they must REALLY be stopped. Fear cubed! And last but not least, it ALSO makes the whole escapade appear so bloody complicated that any person of sound mind ought to feel compelled to let Papa-Government do all of our thinking for us from now on without complaint.

And, of course, the whole thing is a fantastic pile of bull****


--Now, I may be incorrect in this opinion, but I can't help but wonder about the following points. . .

1. The state has been caught lying so many, many times, caught in so many inexcusable acts of corruption that to take this new item at face value is simply foolhardy. -To be very clear, the story that crazy Islamic fundamentalists were trying to set off a 500 kiloton nuke is quite simply NOT more plausible than the idea that a cadre of psychopaths was trying to pitch a false-flag psyops media blitz on the nation.

2. Where was the missing nuclear fallout at the towers? You simply do not need nukes to bring down a building in a controlled manner. It's overkill, it's radioactive, it's totally unnecessary. And even IF the Oklahoma bombing was nuclear, it is notable that the two demolitions look nothing alike.

3. The recently seeded idea in the media that Russians are Bad (look at the last six months of TV, film and news stories), fit neatly into this little fiction. That is, people were provided with plenty of subconscious cues to refer to when trying to validate the idea of rogue Russian nuclear bad guys. -We saw that bit of media weirdness a few months back and I wondered where it was all going. I think we have an answer.

4. The secret government has had *nine* years to concoct this little fiction and make it as perfect as they could. That one single interview could so perfectly answer all nagging questions is just too good to be true. It's also true to form; how many times while studying the actions of psychopathic governments and secret operations has a mysterious stranger shown up the very next morning with a perfect story and a perfectly concocted alibi, almost as though privately aired concerns were being eavesdropped on?

5. And actually, in classic psychopathic short-term myopic thinking, this story actually fails to address the MANY other problems with the larger official story, including Cheney's, "Have you heard anything to the contrary?!?" bark, the cell phone call problems, the missing flight 77 (if not into the Pentagon then where?), and just a host of other little issues which all point to heavy collusion with the U.S. government/military.

So I'm terribly sorry, but we already have a very strong working theory as to what took place on 9/11. It covers all the bases and it doesn't require rabbits pulled out of the hat and questionable single-source blogs in order to ring true.

This interview has the distinct odor of Damage Control psy-ops nonsense.

Oh, but thank-you for the Granit missile. It's useful to know that some missiles have jet-engine parts.

~~~~

Thank-you, and if I have mis-filed this post or if all of these points have been duly covered, please forgive me.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Yeah, I had questions too, but on the bright side, I was happy to see a new perspective which I viewed as potentially valuable for breaking up the old rigid viewpoints related to 'conspiracy nut' vs 'U.S. official version' that the general public seems to be currently polarized around.
 

AusKiwi

A Disturbance in the Force
I'm not entirely sure that Dimitri Khalezov isn't right. Just because it paints the US government in a slightly better light, doesn't mean it isn't true (although given that this whole thing happened under Bush's watch I don't see that he or any of his administration are in any way exonerated given the extensive coverup that has happened since then).

Rather than analyze 9/11 by analyzing the motives of the parties involved, or how it might make them look, we need to look at the science. And I believe that Dimitri is right in saying that, among a handful of these "superskyscrapers" built in the late '60's - early '70's, the WTC towers are extremely difficult if not impossible to demolish using convential explosives. They were just too well built - that massive steel central score along with the outer steel girders would have required immense quantities of explosives, and given that 9/11 was done covertly as opposed to a legitimate controlled demolition, it really would not have been possible to hide that quantity of explosives, particularly the really big ones around the central core. So they only used conventional explosives at strategic points- at the so-called plane impact point where some damage had to be done to validate the impossible "hijacked plane punctured the building" theory, and, it seems from the evidence, in the basement as well, as eyewitnesses have reported explosions that happened just before the impact of the planes which can't have been the critical nuclear explosions that triggered the final collapse, as the eyewitness would not have escaped the scene alive to tell the tale. Don't forget that a huge truck bomb set off in the basement in '93 didn't even put a dent in one of those towers - they just cleaned up the mess and reconstructed interior walls but the tower itself was considered safe enough to remain standing for the next 8 years. Plan A didn't work so they went to Plan B.

But in all fairness to your comment, it should be noted that the "government reacting to the Pentagon nuke" explanation for the WTC demolition, was not part of Dimitri's first draft of his book, but was tacked on as a final chapter after he sent the draft to the FBI for comment. An FBI agent came back with the above explanation and Dimitri added the last chapter to his book, so it is possible that this aspect of Dimitri's theory may be part of the coverup as it was supplied by the FBI to cover themselves and their government - but I would think that the no-planes and nuclear aspects would still remain defensible. If one takes that approach, then one can surmise that Bush and his administration knew everything - that there were demolition nukes in the building from the time of its construction, that there was a plot to take down the towers, and that the airplanes were fake digitized images used to justify the Al-Qaeda hijackers theory and the subsequent reaction of the administration to it, the war on terror.
 

thevenusian

Dagobah Resident
Hi AusKiwi,

Welcome to our forum. :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.
 
Top Bottom