In Prague on Saturday January 8 I attended the founding meeting of the Club of reformy.cz which is the Czech branch of Edward Griffin's The Freedom Force International.

The prominent quest there was "the hunter of the Bilderbergers" Daniel Estulin. He had the principal speech at the meeting and he also had been interviewed by the Czech state TV (27 minutes video in english here or at Youtube).

After the meeting we went for a dinner and then he directed me to his webpage. Among other interesting informations there were links to claims of certain Dimitri Khalezov, who besides believing there were no planes at WTC was confusing Uranium-235 with Depleted Uranium and at the same time asserting he's former soviet nuclear intelligence directorate man.

His major claim throughout his books, articles and videos is that:
The WTC was brought down by 3 (three) 150kt thermonuclear bombs, positioned exactly 77 meters below the three demolished buildings and when exploded they pulverized the steel&concrete most of the way up by shock-wave, so then the buildings fell with only resistance of the mere pile of dust below in exact shape of that buildings at freefall speed into a 100 meters in diameter cavity created by the nuclear blast vaporizing the granite there...and that the buildings were in fact so demolished by the US govt. operatives but not for sinister reasons but by the in seventies prepositioned devices our guy knew about already in 1984, because there were unexploded 500kt nuclear charges in the WTC high floors put there (and to Pentagon too) by the al-Qaeda or whatever and the US govt. intelligence heroes in charge pushed the buton and pulled and saved so the NY from the total destruction using the timely demolition by the almost unharmful underground nukes...and main and seems to me only his direct proof for all this is for him the definition in english dictionaries where the "ground zero" notion is explained as the place where a nuke exploded -so that the Americans though wouldn't call the WTC site after the attacks the "ground zero" if there in fact would not been exploded a nuke...

I was asking Daniel Estulin via email then, why he is linking this crazy ideas which could by association seriously undermine his credibility by the (imaginary) 150kt nukes, and he directed me to D. Khalezov's article "11th of September - the third truth".

So I took the article and made a commented version of its text, where I commented on the most scandalously false claims, and sent it then to Daniel Estulin.

Now I think the outcome of my effort should be shared with the 9/11 Truth community to help others to refute this disinformations. So I decided to briefly show, that D. Khalezov simply makes many of his figures up, his credibility is so negligible and he is either an utter moron or a paid disinfo guy.

I'll cite the excerpts from D. Khlaezov's article where the most scandalous false claims are made and comment on them:

When ordinary people saw how two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how the Twins Towers then collapsed in clouds of dust during 9/11 events, they were too shocked by the incidents to subject the events to any level of scrutiny. Since then, the strange notion has been embedded into the people’s minds: that hollow aluminum planes could allegedly penetrate thick steel buildings in their entirety, (page 2.)

Even a liquid water is able to penetrate steel when having a sufficient kinetic energy. See: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm ://http://science.howstuffworks.com/en...uestion553.htm

That is why quite a few “conspiracy theories” appeared that range from claims that the WTC was allegedly “wired with explosives” to claims that it was allegedly demolished by so-called “nano-thermite” (a mystic substance hitherto unheard of) (page 3.)

Nanothermite is of course existing military grade thermite, and what was scientifically proven to be extensively present in the WTC dust along with its residues in form of the iron rich microspheres was actually a substance called Superthermite – a nano-size particles thermite mixed into sol-gel with a hydrocarbone to enhance the explosive properties with released energy way above the conventional thermite an in some cases significantly higher than conventionl high explosives. See fig 30 here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

So who tryies to convince readers the nanothermite is „a mystic substance“ and that the scientific finds published in the peer-reviewed journal is a „conspiracy theory“ and the renowned scientists who published the finds are „conspiracy theorists“ clearly spreads a disinfo.

The actual nuclear demolition scheme was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges about 150 kiloton in TNT yield) that were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers. (page 8)

Such multiple 150kt charges on lower Manhattan is absolutely ridiculous claim, because such charges so shalowly positioned and so inevitably resulting in uncontained nuclear explosion of such a yield would inevitably destroy vast surroundings of the buildings (– for comparison see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_%28nuclear_test%29) and create long lasting radiation hazzard.

Here is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Towers perimeter columns during their construction: (a picture of the perimeter columns in the original article) These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). (page 11-12)

The steel thickness of the core columns varied largely floor-by-floor – see: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data. The steel of the columns was really considerably thinner at the upper floors – like 0.7 inch at last floor of e.g. CC1001, but some lower floor columns had the wall as much as 6,75 inches thick. Considering the perimeter columns Khalezov is writing about the steel thickness was 0.25 inch at upper floors and 0.875 inch at lower floors. See:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
The Khalezov's „information“ again shows his lack of knowledge about the WTC structure, he clearly simply makes the numbers up – this his numbers above prove it and they are clearly no „typos“ - so this confirms behind reasonable doubt his credibility is zero.

You can have an idea on how much rock could disappear during an underground nuclear explosion from the below table - where quantities of evaporated and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on "per kiloton of yield" basis:

Rock type | Specific mass of vaporized material | Specific mass of the melted material

Dry granite | 69 | 300 (±100)
Moist tuff (18-20% of water) | 72 | 500 (± 150)
Dry tuff | 73 | 200 - 300
Alluvium | 107 | 650 (±50)
Rock salt | 150 | 800

Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in
granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter (page 13)

This is completely ridiculous claim which shows Khalezov is not even able to interpret the above table he cites.
- the numbers in the table clearly show 1kt of yield can evaporate 69 ton of granite – this means the 150 kt can evaporate 150x69=10350 ton of granite according to the table. Granite has the density of <2800 g/dm3 so the volume of the 10350 ton of granite is 10350/2.8 means 3696m3 of granite, which if it would be in a shape of ball would have the diameter of ~19.1 meters. The ball of 100 meters diameter would have the volume of 523598 m3 (five hundred twenty three thousand five hundred ninety eight cubic meters!!). So the claim about the 100 meter in diameter cavity in granite created by 150kt nuke is in terms of the cavity volume more than 2! orders of magnitude out of the actual physical possibility -just acording the above by Khalezov cited table. This alone shows Khalezov is unable even of a basic math or to read the table and it again shows clearly his „nuclear intelligence“ is a mere idiocy.

"Damaged" and "crushed" zones will not be exactly round in the latter case. They would be rather elliptic - with their longer ends directed upwards - comparable with an egg facing upwards (emphasis added) with its sharper end, or possibly even more ellipsoidal and sharper upwards (emphasis added) than a typical egg. (page 15)

Yeah, but actually the egg shape would be upside down, because the cavity after the blast will expand almost only upwards, because a rock – either solid or liquid - is almost incompressible and only way where the cavity could expand - if we respect the laws of physics - is in the direction of the lowest resistance – so the cavity will expand upwards/sidewards, eventually reaching the surface and blow all the rock in its way aside. I made a sketch:

The picture Khalezov is drawing by the „egg shape facing upwards with its sharper end' defies basic physics. Every shallow underground blast -either conventional or nuclear, big or small - shows the same. And this again shows clearly the Khalezov doesn't have a slightest understanding of a basic physics...

The picture above shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was "complete" dust – but mainly pulverized steel. (page 17)

To my knowledge no „pulverized steel“ was found in the WTC dust. There was found only almost pure iron which went through the boiling point - in form of microspheres - which is consistent with the use of vast amounts of thermite, and definitely not with a "pulverized steel". Again, Khalezov is inventing the stuff up.

Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. (page 17)

This is ridiculous, in fact there were vast amounts of concrete in WTC towers, mainly in the floor slabs, which were indeed relatively thin but still 10 cm thick (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html) which means only in this floor slabs there was an amount of concrete in order of many tens of thousands cubic meters of concrete in each of the towers.

Yes, intuitively, it seems that a large fast moving aircraft represents a lot of energy, and one would think it reasonable for an aircraft to do a lot of damage to a building on impact. But what do you think would happen - hypothetically - if the aircraft were stationary in the air, and someone picked up one of the enormously massive WTC Tower, swung it violently, and hit the aircraft at an impact speed of 500 mph ? Would it flatten the aircraft do you think, or would the aircraft go clean through the moving building without even the slightest part of the aircraft remaining outside of the outer skin of the Tower (that was twice as thick as the front armor of a tank)? (page 20)

No, it definitely wasn't thick as "the front armor of the tank". Actually throughout the floors where the planes have hit the towers the thickness of the walls of the steel perimeter columns facing outwards was just a quarter of inch and even in the lowest parts of the towers it was just 0,875 inch. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
If a tank would be armored by quarter inch thick structural steel it would be penetrable by a sniper rifle....
This again shows Khalezov has no clue about the actual facts about the WTC structure.

Does anyone seriously believe that the aluminum-made “Boeing” could really break in its entirety (including its tail, wings and large turbofan engines) through the above-shown steel perimeter columns? (page 21 and the picture shows clearly not the perimeter, but the core columns)

There actually are not shown the perimeter columns, but the core columns from below 30th floor of the WTC. See: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data. And t again shows how Khalezov is playing with the reader showing him picture of the core columns and drawing the conclusions about much thinner perimeter columns..

Along with the old English dictionaries for the same reason could also be used these photographs showing molten rock after the underground cavities left by the nuclear explosions under the three buildings of the World Trade Center eventually cooled down and were, at last, cleared of all remaining radioactive materials (page 24)

This is ultimately ridiculous. I don't see a "molten rock after the underground cavities left by the nuclear explosions". The photos in fact show intact, unpulverized rock in the depth which is clearly much more shallower than the Khalezov's “77 meters below the ground” (like ~30 meters below the street level), so the photos - if we consider the actual result of the 140kt Chagan experiment - not confirm, but directly disprove all his claims about the 150kt nuclear explosions under the WTC.

Note: some numbers corrected after I was allerted about a mistake, but it doesn't significantly change the outcome.