NIST does not consider any explosives/incendiary;
nothing more powerful/hotter than jet fuel.

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation
Here is an excerpt from the actual NIST report.







These are still frames from CBS News footage:20140904_171717


Underground thermonuclear detonations do not have a destructive air blast wave, no searing heat, no penetrating ionizing radiation, no electromagnetic pulse, and no mushroom cloud.
There is a big difference between underground nuclear detonations and above ground (atmospheric). Anything solid connected to the sudden ball of plasma instantly turns into dust at the speed of light. The amount of material crushed depends on the size of the nuke.
Above ground detonations look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can’t see anything happen during an underground nuke.detonations


Nuclear engineer Dimitri Khalezov’s job as a commissioned officer in the secret 12th Chief Directorate, was to detect, measure, and report, all nuclear detonations found anywhere in the world, up until the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.

Dimitri Khalezov was made aware of the built in thermonuclear demolition scheme, engineered by Controlled Demolition Inc.

The Sears Tower, the United Nations Building, and the World Trade Center, all have/had built-in demolition schemes, and possibly others.

Khalezov knew about the associated U.S.A./U.S.S.R. treaty, governing the size limit to be 150 kilotons, for any nuclear device, to be detonated during peacetime use.

Building 7 instantly crushed into microscopic fluffy dust, entirely. It fell down as a sandcastle would, once it’s dried out of moisture, only much more fine than coarse sand.

Note how it leaves dust in the air as it goes down.

Nothing bigger than a 5 micron spec of steel, glass, carpet, concrete, telephone, or anything else, it was ALL microscopic fluffy dust.

The crushing blast wave at the speed of light, was not strong enough to reach the top of the twin towers.

The undamaged tops of both twin towers, plowed down through the pile of microscopic fluffy dust. Building 7 WAS microscopic fluffy dust.

According to the author of 911thology Dimitri Khalezov, the Port Authority wouldn’t allow, by building code, the construction of a steel skyscraper without a built in engineered demolition scheme. A steel skyscraper cannot be removed by conventional means without collateral damage, was the reasoning behind this.

John Walcott raised concerns that certain ground zero workers from FEMA and the FBI had lunar looking hazmat suits, while he and almost everyone else were given less substantial safety equipment. Dimitri Khalezov says meeting John Walcott who got a bone marrow transplant, by reason of staying too long at Ground Zero, is the reason he wrote the book 911thology.

So whodunit? Khalezov was befriended by of one of the perpetrators, prior to September 11, 2001! Freemason Michael Harrari, the longest serving Mossad intelligence officer, was an international thug, who also ran drugs for the CIA, was one of the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attack on America. He asked Dimitri Khalezov if he was certain the WTC had a built-in thermonuclear demolition scheme.

Above is a video interview of this material. I read this “book” that Dimitri Khalezov wrote, that you download from the internet, all 1096 pages, from


It’s a PDF you can download to your computer or phone. I read through all the footnotes, studied all the charts, graphs, and pictures.

The FBI removed the missile from the Pentagon promptly.

Our officials believed there were mini nukes in the twin towers, and used the built in demolition scheme to get rid of the thermonuclear suitcase bomb threat.


They did it to save lives, from an atmospheric detonation, that includes the destructive air blast wave, heat, radiation, and EMP.

The Hollywood style pyrotechnics did not display the turbulence that would be present from jet engines that spin up the air. It was impossible to provide any aluminum to slide down the outside of the skyscraper to the street below, so the CGI plane disappeared completely through the perimeter of steel into the skyscraper.

Unlike an underground detonation, above ground detonations exhibit a mushroom cloud. Conventional explosives are incapable of producing craters and a mushroom cloud.


Instead of being honest, our government decided to hide the built in demolition scheme, at the end of the day, and pulled Building 7 at 1720 hours EST, creating a 3rd ball of plasma underground. The crime of our government isn’t perpetrating 9/11, but rather the cover-up, and even worse, sending in workers unprotected from the radiological hazards of the cleanup afterward.

The author of “911thology”, Dimitri Khalezov, presents himself as a witness providing testimony and documentation, in contrast to conspiracy theorists we find on the Internet, like Richard Gage and Judy Woods.

I will say Dimitri appears legit. He asks that you pay for his book, on the honor system. He is exiled in Bangkok.

There were three underground thermonuclear detonations under Ground Zero, September 11, 2001.


Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “09/11/2001”

  1. David Lango says:

    Controlled Demolition Inc designed the built-in demolition scheme required to satisfy building code. The Port Authority demanded it because steel skyscrapers built like the WTC are unable to be removed by conventional means without collateral damage.

    The engineers negotiated for the size, but fell short, and the US/USSR Treaty set the size limit to be 150 kiloton for a nuclear device detonated during peacetime.

    Freemason Michael Harrari was an international thug, who ran drugs for the CIA, and was the longest serving intelligence officer for the Mossad. Harrari asked Dimitri Khalezov if he was certain about the built-in thermonuclear demolition scheme at the World Trade Center.

    The 150 kiloton thermonuclear devices were set 77 meters below the ground.

    After the FBI retrieved the missile the Freemasons stole from the Kursk, out of the Pentagon, our officials believed the lie that there were thermonuclear suitcase bombs in the twin towers. Though they understood the charges weren’t big enough to reach the top of the twin towers, they decided the risk of an atmospheric detonation so great, they used the built-in demolition scheme to remove the threat of killing everyone in New York like Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    Underground nuclear detonations are invisible. There is no destructive air blast wave, no searing heat, no penetrating ionizing radiation, and no electromagnetic pulse. However the ball of plasma that instantly forms under the Earth, crushes everything into microscopic fluffy dust at the speed of light.

    The undamaged tops of the twin towers fell down through the microscopic fluffy dust. Steel, concrete, glass, carpet, desks, telephones, nothing has a piece larger than five microns. As well as any supposed thermonuclear suitcase bomb.

    Our government was not the perpetrators, but what our officials did wrong, was at the end of the day, decide to cover up the, largely secret, highly controversial, built-in demolition scheme by pulling Building 7. (the Russians ridiculed the Americans who sought the Treaty for what they thought was crazy) Worse, Ground Zero workers were sent in without being briefed properly about the radiological hazard.

    Underground detonations may not be visible, but the radiation will leach up through the rock and dirt, and the dust becomes contaminated. Everyone the complicit doctors lie about being ill or dying, is afflicted with not ‘acute’ but ‘chronic’ radiation poisoning.

    That’s the facts of what happened, sad as it all is. Not to mention the lies about Muslims on airplanes to foment all our modern illicit war and tyranny at home.

    Sorry to break it to you, but you won’t find this in the news or on tell lie vision, as these media entities are all complicit in providing the CGI images of the aluminum airplanes completely disappearing inside the steel perimeter of the skyscraper. Everyone fails to question the puffy fireballs that exhibit absolutely no turbulence from a turbofan jet engine. Also, the shock factor invites the mind to cling to the explanation given.

    Some of the intricate details of the operation include at least six crowd coaches yelling in the streets “DID YOU SEE THAT PLANE?!?”. This psyop worked, as there are some folks that just want to be a ‘good witness’ too.

    Alison Geyh was in charge of the health physics of checking dosimeters, to rotate workers to the landfill, to keep the exposure down, died of cancer from chronic radiation poisoning 10 years later.

    I digress.

    Bring it you trolls paid to defend the official narrative! Perhaps you should read all 1096 pages to gather your ammo to refute? Here’s the download link:


    Also, if you’re short on time for research, I made a short book report here: http://lango.us

    You’re welcome, and I truly am sorry. God bless the Ground Zero workers who have died, or are in the process. None of them will live to a rich full age, unless they worked for the FBI or FEMA, and wore the suits and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus. John Walcott raised his concern, why they had suits, but he and the rest didn’t. Dimitri Khalezov wasn’t sure he should write 911thology, but after meeting Detective Walcott, who had a bone marrow transplant, he felt obligated.

    God bless you, and God save America from this path to WWIII.

  2. David Lango says:

    President and the Press” Speech (April 27, 1961)
    John F. Kennedy

    Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
    I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
    You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
    You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
    We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
    But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the Cold War.
    If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper.
    I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.
    It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
    Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
    Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
    If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
    On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.
    It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
    I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future—for reducing this threat or living with it—there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security—a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
    This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President—two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
    The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
    But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
    Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
    If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
    It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
    Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
    Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security—and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
    For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
    The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
    That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
    On many earlier occasions, I have said—and your newspapers have constantly said—that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
    I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
    Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America—unions and businessmen and public officials at every level—will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.
    And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
    Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
    It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation—an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people—to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well—the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
    No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
    I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers—I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
    Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed—and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment—the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution—not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”—but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
    This means greater coverage and analysis of international news—for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security—and we intend to do it.
    It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
    And so it is to the printing press—to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news—that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

  3. My letters to the President and Obama's response says:

    (always put your name and address at the top of your letter, and the date)

    This is my first letter to President Obama in print form. I wrote the first one by hand with pen and paper and made a copy of it. Here is a transcript:

    David Lango
    2448 Barry Avenue
    Los Angeles, California 90064
    May 3, 2012

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington DC 20500

    “President Obama,

    The foreign policy of the United States of America has been bad for a long time.

    Unconstitutional foreign entanglements are the cause of events like 09-11-2001. Good job hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.

    It is important to now repair our bad foreign policy. Bring all of our troops home to defend our country, protect our territorial waters, and secure our borders.

    Reopen our military bases, and close all military bases abroad.

    Stop all foreign aid. End foreign entanglements!

    Return any attack on our country with such force as to end it quickly.

    (sign your name)


    Right after I sent this letter, “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue” added me as a contact on YouTube.

    Some time went by after that, and then President Obama wrote me back!

    It’s an official letter with the Seal of the U.S. pressed into the paper at the top, and it appears to be personally signed, but I seriously doubt Barry took any time from his golfing, and is more likely computer generated.

    Picture of the letter

    “Dear David:

    Thank you for writing. I have heard from many Americans about our Nation’s foreign policy, and I appreciate your perspective. As President, my highest priority is the safety of the American people. My Administration is using every element of our national power to keep our country secure, prosperous, and free. We have renewed our leadership in the world by strengthening old alliances and forging new partnerships to meet common challenges-from preventing terrorist attacks, reversing the global economic crisis, and responding to pandemic disease to confronting climate change, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and providing relief from natural crises. After more than a decade of sacrifice, the tide of war is finally turning. The war in Iraq is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will soon be coming home. In Afghanistan, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security, and we have a clear path to fulfill our mission. That is why, on May 2, 2012, I signed a historic Strategic Partnership Agreement between our countries as the war comes to an end. As in Iraq, we are building an enduring partnership to strengthen Afghan sovereignty and stability while advancing our shared goal of delivering justice to al-Qa’ida’s leadership-taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders, including Osama bin Laden. The goal I set to defeat al-Qa’ida and deny it the chance to rebuild is now within our reach. The courage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea and enabled democracy to take hold in places like Libya. Our commitment to global security will never waver, but in a world in which threats are more diffuse and missions are more complex, America cannot act alone. We will continue to align our policies with those with whom we share common values and interests. That is why NATO remains indispensable to our security. At the NATO Summit I hosted in May 2012, we took steps to ensure the Alliance has the capabilities it needs to meet 21st-century threats. At the same time, we must also strengthen the United Nations and regional peacekeeping capabilities. America will remain committed to governments that reflect the will of their people. I have an unyielding belief that all people share some basic aspirations: to support our families, to maintain the freedom to choose our leaders, to worship as we please, and to live in peace and security. These are not just American ideas: they are human rights-and we will support them everywhere. I know the challenges faced by the international community can be met if we commit ourselves to a sustained effort to secure the universal human rights of freedom and dignity for all our children. To learn more about our foreign policy, please visit http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Issues/Foreign-Policy . Thank you, again, for writing.

    Sincerely, Barack Obama”


    It’s worse than I thought! “United Nations and regional peacekeeping capabilities”… would this be the DHS? BLM?

    I wrote another letter that I have yet to hear back from to Obama:


    David Joseph Lango

    2448 Barry Avenue

    Los Angeles, California 90064-2948

    July 15, 2012

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington DC 20500

    Dear President Obama,

    Thank you for establishing a correspondence by writing me back. I addressed our bad foreign policy in my first letter. In your reply, you indicated support for the United Nations. I am inspired to be more specific in detailing why our foreign policy is bad. I was alarmed to read your idea is to continue our bad foreign policy.

    We the people do not want “to live in peace and security”, if I may quote you out of context. If you would replace the word “security”, with the word “liberty”, I could calm down more easily, and trust we are heading in the right direction.

    There is a current public worry that our Republic is heading in the wrong direction!

    Our U.S. Constitution that you are to uphold, does not share your effort toward worldwide poverty and war, with the United Nations in charge of it all.

    The very existence of the United Nations is an affront to the sovereignty of the United States of America. It should be dismantled, not “strengthened”.

    In the United States of America, the Korean war was initially described by President Harry S. Truman as a “police action” as it was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. That was WHEN our foreign policy became bad. Since then our economy became bad because of globalization. I am pleading a case for LIBERTY.

    We need a non-interventionist foreign policy.

    We need to shrink Uncle Sam.

    If Congress only passed balanced budgets, wealth would build in the U.S. Treasury. Free markets could establish interest rates, instead of the Fed. The States can compete in improving education by eliminating the Department of Education.

    I recommend taking advice from Representative Dr. Ron Paul, from Texas. He has a good plan for Uncle Sam, a LOT of good ideas.

    Sound money.


    That’s the kind of freedom I hope our government defends.

    Reopening all of the military bases that we have closed here in the U.S. and bringing our troops home, would boost local economies. Just that right there, closing our military bases abroad, and stopping all foreign aid, would help Congress more easily pass a balanced budget.

    Your greatest achievement could be strength, peace, and liberty for the United States, instead of helping the U.S. “globally” fall off of a fiscal cliff, trying to fund warfare and welfare, for the entire planet, succumbing to the United Nations.

    It’s common knowledge that big banks fund both sides of war throughout history, and that the United Nations is rife with agenda from rich powerful secret societies.

    You, Barack, are at the helm.

    You can take your foot off the gas, ease on the brakes, and steer us back in the right direction.

    Thank you.
    You are welcome.
    sincerely yours,

    David Lango

    Obama has yet to reply a second time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.