Dimitri Khalezov' Urgent Address November 18, 2012

[turiya]

part 1

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xxRW4KozRG0

part 2

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iep-7HYX5NY

part 3

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q-S8olizoo8

part 4

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mBQuoPi_grw

part 5

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6jPW3E0JBz4

Dr Deagle Show 100628 4/4 - Dimitri A. Khalezov (Re: Ground Zero used as Proper Noun after 9/11):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7unm...feature=relmfu

[WyoSeeker]

A description of the material would be helpful...

[write4change]

I agree. There is so much information bombarding us that unless the poster can state why a video is worth clicking on, I am not going to do it. I also have no idea who this person is on the video. I come here for information not time consumption.

[modwiz]

More agreement. 5 videos and nary a word of description. Poor manners.

[marielle]

From the Youtube page:

Dimitri Khalezov, the author of 911thology - about nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center - addresses public for the first time. This recording split into 5 parts. 1. Good news. 2. Bad news. 3. Updated Dimitri Khalezov's contact details and websites. 4. "Ground Zero" in dictionaries (first half). 5. "Ground Zero" in dictionaries (second half).

[Selene]

Okay. Skip to parts 4 and 5, then back-track to the first three.

Dimitri needs original pre-9-11 (2001) copies of specific Webster, etc dictionaries that can now only be found in private collections: that's your old college textbooks sitting there, bud!

He says that all copies of these old dictionaries in libraries, on e-Bay, etc, have been systematically removed and replaced with fakes (and he shows some good examples) containing misleading definitions of the term “ground zero”. All the dictionaries you can now find in public collections or online are a psyop.

He says that prior to 2001 the only academically acceptable definition of the term “ground zero” described in an authentic Webster’s related to a nuclear explosion. That’s it. But when whistleblowers started asking: Why did you dub the Twin Towers as “ground zero”? The PTB needed to backtrack and cavil: Oh yeah, whatever….could mean anything else. And they have systematically scooped up the existing dictionaries and replaced them with fake post-2004 “reprints” of “anything else”. Exceedingly weird. (Who knew? But the arms of the octopus are long…..)

But the most interesting part is that he shows authentic examples of this kind of forgery.

And this says to me that’s there’s something real going on here.

And it wasn’t just the literati media blathering on, and “ground zero” accidentally snuck into the terminology; it was actually part of a prearranged 9-11 “media script”. And they goofed.

Very, very weird.

Check out those old dictionaries in your garage, friends. You might have a winner. And then look to Dimitri’s first three vids to see how to communicate with him safely. Don’t discuss any findings online here – or in any other manner.

And if you actually have something to convey to Dimitri, then take careful notes from his first three vids: how to encrypt your message. Very useful. Pay attention.

Cheers,

Selene

[kikidoll]

I did a look up for ground zero on dictionary.com and this is what it says:


ground zero
 

noun
1.
the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

Isn't this the same as 'nuclear'?

[Hervé]

Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition © 1994

ground zero (Americanism):

1 the land or water surface area directly below or above the point of detonation of a nuclear bomb

2 [slang]

a) nothing
b) the beginning; starting point
c) the most basic condition or level

[Selene]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition © 1994

ground zero (Americanism):

1 the land or water surface area directly below or above the point of detonation of a nuclear bomb

2 [slang]

a) nothing
b) the beginning; starting point
c) the most basic condition or level

That's precisely Dimitri's issue: the definition of "ground zero" has been post-facto artificially expanded online and in hard print copy to prior 2001 (including online and printed 1994 editions) to include a whole lot of definitions or slang that 9-11 "scriptwriters" in 2001 would not have used (see slang, part 2 above). At the actual time in 2001 "ground zero" correctly referred to a nuclear explosion, none other. There were no further "additional' dictionary definitions.

And if the term "ground zero" honestly referred to something more in slang, then why would the PTB go to such extraordinary lengths to retroactively "ensure" that same "fuzzy" conclusion among researchers in defiance of the actually historically accurate dictionary description? Only if you want to confuse researchers.

Very, very interesting indeed. Check your book stash, you may have a winner.

Cheers,

Selene

[ThePythonicCow]

I have four dictionaries - two desk top, and two unabridged. None of these are the specific ones that Dimitri is looking for. One of the unabridged dictionaries is pre-World War II, and does not have "ground zero" defined. The other three dictionaries were all published between 1970 and 1990, and all have the same definition, give or take a minor nit that I didn't notice:

The point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb

From this, I agree that the dictionary definition of "ground zero" referred only to nuclear bombs in that time period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by kikidoll (here)

the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

Isn't this the same as 'nuclear'?

Yes - nuclear is a reasonable synonym for atomic or hydrogen when describing bombs.

"Atomic" was initially used to refer to fission bombs, such as used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Hydrogen" was then used to refer to the more powerful fusion bombs. In the case that someone is not attempting to distinguish between the two types, "nuclear" is used (or sometimes "atomic" is re-used.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My take on all this: The above five videos by Dimitri Khalezov work hard to present him as a bona fide whistleblower of information that the bastards in power are hiding.

The first three of the videos focus entirely on presenting details that lead to the conclusion that Khalezov's life is in danger (hence the encrypted "retaliation" files), that communication with him must be in secret, and that one must be aware of the risk of imposters.

The last two videos focus on continuing to build the case that the dictionary definition of "ground zero" was changed, after 9/11 of 2001, when the site of the World Trade Center in New York became known as "Ground Zero. The explicit implication (stated elsewhere in earlier work by Khalezov) is that this change is part of a cover-up of the real mechanism used to destroy the WTC twin towers.

Trying to determine what was the real mechanism(s) used to destroy the towers is a bit like playing Three Card Monte in a dark alley with strangers. We are playing the role of the sucker, of course. The dealer has enough tricks up their sleeve, and enough shills and thugs in the audience, that even if you win, you lose.

If I had to play the role of that sucker right now, I'd wager on directed energy, as evidenced by Judy Wood's work. I notice that these new video's by Khalezov appeared shortly after Jesse Ventura's latest Conspiracy Theory, which was surprisingly supportive of Judy Wood and John Hutchinson and the "directed energy" mechanism. Khalezov has been a major proponent of the "nuclear bombs placed deep under the towers" mechanism.

My rough recollection is that Khalezov previously showed up on my "9/11 radar" shortly after Judy Wood had gained some traction earlier.

My hunch is that Khalezov is the mouth piece for one of the layers of this onion ... but not the inner most layer.

Khalezov tries something a bit different in these videos. He doesn't actually discuss 9/11 in any detail, and never states his previous claims that nuclear bombs were used, that this is evidenced by the use of the phrase "ground zero", and that the changes in subsequent dictionaries is part of the cover-up (supposedly) evidencing the truth of this theory.

Rather Khalezov involves the viewer, to download the encrypted retaliation files (which we may never get to decrypt), to actively communicate with him via reliable and secure means, and to search for specific versions of some dictionaries. A bit clever, if I do say so. People tend to believe more in that which they have worked, even a minor bit, to actively support.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My tin-foil-hat conclusion: Judy Wood and John Hutchinson are on to something here, and these videos by Khalezov are one part (likely not the only part) of a smoke screen to counter Ventura's recent show on Wood and Hutchinson.

[Selene]

Superb analysis as always, Paul. Outstanding.

My only question/comment is: could the solution/problem not include both directed energy weapons and mini-nukes or thermite?

I don't see why we necessarily need to choose one option and to exclude the others. A lot of very good researchers could each hold pieces of the puzzle. Heck, if I were truly paranoid (and not merely crazy...) I might imagine that the keepers of the rabbit hole would have deliberately laid down (or done separately in conflict) a number of trails in the hope that pursuers (us!) would automatically tend to eliminate certain possibilities in favor of "the One True Answer" . But, in fact, the reality is much more complex. And they hope to leave us all in the dust, arguing over trivia...

Cheers,

Selene (p.s. bedtime....)

[Hervé]

Posted by Selene (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition © 1994

ground zero (Americanism):

1 the land or water surface area directly below or above the point of detonation of a nuclear bomb

2 [slang]

a) nothing
b) the beginning; starting point
c) the most basic condition or level

That's precisely Dimitri's issue: the definition of "ground zero" has been post-facto artificially expanded online and in hard print copy to prior 2001 (including online and printed 1994 editions) to include a whole lot of definitions or slang that 9-11 "scriptwriters" in 2001 would not have used (see slang, part 2 above). At the actual time in 2001 "ground zero" correctly referred to a nuclear explosion, none other. There were no further "additional' dictionary definitions.

[...]

Selene

Well... you're wrong!

The definitions I posted come from a dictionary I purchased in 1995 for personal use and have been using ever since!

The slang definitions can be found in such editions.

However, notice that it is a "College Edition."

The definitions I posted stand.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Selene (here)
My only question/comment is: could the solution/problem not include both directed energy weapons and mini-nukes or thermite?

It sure could .

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The definitions I posted come from a dictionary I purchased in 1995 for personal use and have been using ever since

(Thumbs up for the evidence; hopefully Selene will not take offense.)

[Hervé]

One could also check in "Used Books" stores... real treasures in there!

[The Truth Is In There]

wtc nuked makes no sense at all imo. was anybody radiated? i believe dr. judy wood explained in detail that it could only have been an energy weapon so the whole discussion about the definition of THE "ground zero" in dictionaries as it relates to nukes is pretty pointless.