Inside Job: Seven Questions About 9/11

Seven Questions about 9/11

by Jim Fetzer

As a former Marine Corps officer (1962-66), who spent his 35-year career offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to college students, it troubles me when my government appears to be lying to the American people. On this 4th of July, therefore, I want to share with you some of the questions that have arisen in my mind about the events of 9/11, which have been used to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at enormous cost in lives lost and resources expended. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, but here are some of my questions—seven for the 4th of July!

(1) The early explosions

In their study, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong (one an engineer, one a numerical analyst) present evidence that there were enormous explosions in the subbasements of both of the Twin Towers prior to the impacts of any planes on those buildings. They used extremely reliable data from a geological laboratory run by Columbia University and radar and FAA data to come to the conclusion that those explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds before those planes hit the towers:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

My first question, therefore, is how were those 19 Islamic terrorists able to arrange these explosions, which drained the water from sprinkler systems that would have otherwise extinguished the rather modest office fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs? I have given this a lot of thought and I can’t figure out how they did that.

(2) The impossible entry

We have all seen the footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower, which is the only reasonably distinct video coverage we have of any of the four plane crashes. There are plenty of copies of the Michael Hezarkhani video, which was taken more or less from the side, and still others of the Evan Fairbanks video, which was taken looking straight up the side of the South Tower. I have been puzzled, when I have taken a closer look, the plane actually enters the buildings without crumpling, without losing its wings or tail, and with no bodies, seats, or luggage falling to the ground. Here’s what I mean:

The problem I have is that, as a student of physics in high school and college, I learned that the impact of a moving plane impacting with a stationary building should create the same effects as those of a moving building impacting with a stationary plane. We would not expect a car crashing into an enormous tree to disappear into the tree. My question is, absent the suspension of the laws of physics on 9/11, how could this occur?

(3) The sizing problem

Perhaps because of my military background, I have found the Pentagon attack of special interest. The Department of Defense originally released five frames instead of any of the more than eighty (80) videos that would have captured exactly what happened. Although three of those videos have subsequently been released, none of them shows more about the crash than those original five, four of which show the spectacular fireball, the other the somewhat obscure image just above the gate mechanism that is conveniently labeled “plane”. It looked too small to me. So I asked a friend of mine—who is better at these things than am I—if he could size the image of a Boeing 757 to the tail shown in the frame that the Pentagon had released:

Imagine my surprise when it turned out that Flight 77 should have been more than twice the size of the plane in the Pentagon’s own frame. So my third question is, why isn’t the plane in the image the size of a Boeing 757?

(4) The lack of debris

Although many Americans are unaware, the hit point on the Pentagon is on the ground floor. There is a hole about 10’ high and 16-17’ wide, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence, two enormous spools of cable and a pair of cars, where there are unbroken windows beside and above the opening. What we do not see is an enormous pile of aluminum debris, broken wings or the tail, bodies, seats or luggage. Remarkably, not even the engines were recovered from the crash site—although a part of a compressor, which was too small to have come from a 757 and too large for a cruise missile—was later reported to have been found. Even more striking to me, however, is this photo of the civilian lime-green fire-trucks as they extinguish the fires:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Since these fire trucks arrived after the crash and spent fifteen minutes or so putting it out, I have been struck by the clear, green, unblemished Pentagon lawn. It looks so smooth, I expect Tiger to appear with his caddy to practice his game. My question, therefore, is, why is there no debris on the lawn?

(5) The planted fuselage

Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to think of real alternatives. One piece of debris has been used to cement the case for the crash of Flight 77:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

One of the oddities about this debris is that it shows no signs of having been exposed to those fireballs and includes a piece of vine. Another student of the Pentagon, James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. “It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact.” My question is, how did this piece of fuselage wind up on the Pentagon lawn?

(6) The dumpster fires

As though that were not disturbing enough, I was also puzzled why, later in the day, when rumors were circulating that the Capitol might be next and the members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the building, when they looked across the Potomac, they witnesses billowing black clouds of smoke. That struck me as rather odd, since the lime green fire trucks had put out the modest fires long ago. When I took a closer look, I discovered that these black clouds of smoke were not coming from the Pentagon itself but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building. See what I mean:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

When I was still living in Duluth before my retirement in June of 2006, another student of the Pentagon came by and showed me forty-four (44) more frames of the same thing, where you could actually see light between the dumpsters and the building. So my question is, why was it necessary to fake fires coming from the Pentagon if a plane had actually crashed there?

(7) The absence of interest

Since I have been unable to discover the answers to questions like these—where I actually have many more—it has dumbfounded me that nearly ten years after the fact, the mass media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN has shown no interest at all in addressing them. Here are three examples of why it seems to me these questions should be burning issues in every major media outlet in this country, where we are confronted only by silence:

(a) Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, have long since published WITHOUT PRECEDENT: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION (2006), in which they explain their frustration at the lack of cooperation from the administration, citing especially the fact that the Pentagon provided three different accounts of the events of 9/11, not a very reassuring indication that they got everything right. And this report is not from a “conspiracy theorist” but from the co-chairs of the 9/11 inquiry.

(b) A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in three administrations, Dr. Steve Pieczenik, has revealed not only that Osama bin Laden actually died on or about 15 December 2001 (as David Ray Griffin, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE (2009) explained), but that he had been told by a high-ranking general that 9/11 was a “false flag” attack, which was done by the government in order to arouse the American people to support wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. And this guy earned his Ph.D. at MIT.

(c) And Alan Sabrosky, who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and is a graduate of the US Army War College, has explained that 9/11 was conceived by neo-cons in and out of the Department of Defense who wanted to advance the proposals of Project for the New American Century by taking advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union to expand the power of the sole remaining superpower by creating an empire around the world, but worried that Americans would not support those wars absent “a new Pearl Harbor”.

Now I cannot claim to know for certain that what we are being told by Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean, Steve Pieczenik, and Alan Sabrosky is true. I can tell you that it is consistent with my own research and that of others with whom I have been in collaboration since founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In case you may think that I am one of those “conspiracy theorists” myself — where I have done a lot of research on JFK as well as on 9/11 — just ask yourself whether my six questions deserve answers and why the American media has been ignoring them in the land of the free and home of the brave!

“Seven Questions about 9/11″ (YouTube)

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Jim Fetzer is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and maintains a blog about issues of public interest at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on July 5, 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

71 Responses to "Inside Job: Seven Questions About 9/11"

  1. Ron Wieck  August 3, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Incidentally, Dave, although you may be the last twoofer to cling to Balsamo’s silly hoax, it is necessary to point out that Tony Holt, the guy with the caning video, lives in Gary Popkin’s zip code area, as do roughly 300,000 other people. He inverted two numbers in his P.O. box. There is no connection between him and ‘Hardfire.’
    Sorry to spoil a silly lie, but you’ve been conned by a very stupid fraud.

  2. Ron Wieck  August 3, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Sorry, Dave, but the bogus pilots are complete frauds. The deranged Cap’n Booby started posting as a woman after the final seconds of AA77’s FDR were decoded. None of the fantastic falsehoods concocted by these incompetent cretins humiliate anyone but themselves.

    The worthless seismic study shamelessly peddled by Fetzer was abandoned by Craig Furlong when his errors were demonstrated to him. The physics of the crashes explained by Mackey in his lecture stand unchallenged. Mackey invited conspiracy liars to show him where he went wrong, but the crickets continue to chirp.

    Everything I write on the subject of the jihadist attacks of 9/11 is incontrovertible fact. Your evil mindless cult can’t refute a word of it. There is a reason why you exist solely on the net.

  3. Ron Wieck  July 22, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Jim Fetzer was a guest four years ago on the cable TV talk show I host, ‘Hardfire.’ He debated a well-prepared rationalist who convincingly debunked his fantastic claims (you can see the shows by Googling Fetzer and Mark Roberts). Of late, Fetzer has exhibited clear signs of a mental illness. He continues to cite a thoroughly discredited seismic study, although he is well aware that Craig Furlong recanted and left the “truth” cult. NASA scientist Ryan Mackey, who debunked the study by Furlong and Ross delivered a three-part lecture on the physics of 9/11 on ‘Hardfire.” I urge you to watch it (just Google Ryan Mackey and the physics of 9/11). Absolutely NO physicists or engineers believe that the plane could have entered the building other than as it actually did. No aeronautical engineers agree with Fetzer’s uninformed assertion that there was something “impossible” about the sub-Mach speed achieved by a 767 coming out of a power dive. Sadly, Jim Fetzer’s errors have been brought to his attention many, many times. He can’t hope to refute the facts, so he simply tells outright lies.

  4. Shallel  July 11, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    What has the following got to do with a scientific discussion?
    Dr. Fetzer: “There is something about this issue that makes grown men pee in their pants.”

    If a scientist lacks the courage to consider important data, the scientific study will necessarily be flawed.

  5. Louise  July 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Coming up to the US November 2008 elections I asked my father who he hoped would win it. He was born in the 1920’s and is your typical white, Protestant, right wing conservative of his time (sexist, racist, homophobic) – his answer – he wanted Obama to win. McCann was too old and could die in office and he did not want Palin in charge of America. Basically, the Republicans threw the election.

    I remember Bush being quoted on an answer he gave about paying off of America’s deficit and he said “it won’t be our problem.”

    Obama reign was always going to be tough, as The Onion headline put it – African American gets worse job in America.

    I watched Admiral Mike Mullen on Charlie Rose the other day and he was critizing America’s allies because they are all cutting back on military spending and America was going to have to hold much of the can. None of America’s allies are OWNED by the US military machine and none of them are interested in being bankrupted the same way the US has been. I see this as a good thing.

    A false flag by Israel on American soil and nuclear ‘retaliation’ by Israel against Iran is most likely the next step because no one is interested in getting involved in another war, even Americans.

    I would like to see India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation because then, like the EU, they will sort out all of their problems themselves. They make even ask the US to help sort out military based problems. Also, if Iran is part of this grouping is could not use nuclear weapons even if it does ever get them, which is hugely unlikely. It would also mean that Israel could not start any wars with any country in this group because it risks taking on the whole group and as much as America guarantees Israel’s safety it does not mean taking on the world.

    From a corporate perspective, China and India needs lots of resources to keep producing goods and those resources would be in the countries who are members of the SCO. The downside would be that these countries, like the EU countries, would cut back on military spending because 1) they are not going to go to war with each other and 2) no one is going to start a war with this group, so the US would have a reduction in military sales.

  6. Jim Fetzer  July 10, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Anthony has gone overboard with his “special planes”. I have rebutted–actually, refuted, as I understand the term–his speculations many, many times over the extended exchanges we have had about it. He cites arguments like the Eric Salter study, that have long since been invalidated. Rick Rajter explained that Salter’s result–the detection of a partial deceleration of around 10%–was flawed by the use of two different frames of reference. Even if Salter had not committed a blunder, however, his argument would still be unavailing, since the velocity of (most of) the plane should have gone to zero. Morgan Reynold and Rick Rajter, “Explosing the Airliner Crash Myth”, http://nomoregames.net/2006/10/27/exploding-the-airliner-crash-myth/ , provide a nice contrast to Salter’s misleading work. Anthony really ought to take the time read it. Indeed, there are other excellent studies about these things on Morgan Reynold’s web site.

    Since we are witnessing a sequence of impossible events (the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air), something is clearly wrong. Since these videos are alleged to represent what happened to the South Tower on 9/11–Flight 175, a Boeing 767, hitting the building–if what we are viewing is not Flight 175, a Boeing 767, hitting the building, then videos are being used to convey false beliefs. Even if he were right about his “special plane”, since it would not be Flight 175, a Boeing 767, hitting the building, video fakery would still have occurred. Indeed, another kind of “special plane” would be a sophisticated hologram, where a hologram could fly at an impossible speed, make an impossible entry, and pass though its own length into the building in the same number of frame it passes through its own length in air.

    So even if he were right about his “special plane”, he would be wrong about video fakery. There are other arguments that make a difference here, including John Lear’s observation that there are no strobe lights on the image we are viewing. The use of a sophisticated hologram is one of three alternative explanations–along with CGIs and video compositing–that has serious advocates, where which was used here remains unresolved. Andrew Johnson has done an extensive study of the witness reports, 500 of which have been collated by The New York Times. While the witnesses are all over the place–no plane, small plane, large plane, military plane, commercial plane–it has struck me that the more seriously one takes reports of the observation of (what looked to them like) a plane, the greater the support for the hologram hypothesis.

    That is because NO REAL PLANE–not even one of Anthony’s “special planes”–could perform the feats that we observe in these videos. So Anthony ought to accept the fact that some form of video fakery took place in New York on 9/11. In fact, there are reasons to believe ALL FOUR CRASHES may have been faked, evidence for which may be found in the following studies. If the government has never been able to prove any of the hijackers were actually aboard any of those planes, if the phone calls were faked, if there are good reasons to suspect that the crash of Flight 11 was faked, that a Boeing may have flown over the Pentagon but not hit it and that no plane crashed in Shanksville, exposing the frauds involved may be the most powerful evidence we have to convince the American people 9/11 was an “inside job”:

    Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″

    David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

    Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”

    “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″

    “9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”

    Killtown on Shanksville,

    • Jim Fetzer  July 10, 2011 at 7:52 am

      In case this crucial point was missed, for Anthony, the use of a “special plane” by itself would not qualify as “video fakery”. For me, any use of video to convey a false impression about these events is a case of “video fakery”. But even his “special plane” could not perform the feats that we see in the videos, which violate laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics. What is crucial about witnessing apparent violations of laws of science is that, unless they are improperly understood, they cannot be violated and they cannot be changed. When we witness violations of scientific laws, therefore, something is wrong.

    • ben  July 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

      Space beams, “no-planes”, video fakery, are contrived theories meant to turn off the average person from 9/11 Truth, so they may dismiss it as kookery.

  7. Jim Fetzer  July 9, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    And as John Lear, among others, has observed, you cannot overcome the relative density argument by introducing a “special plane” that has depleted uranium added to the edges of its wings. The alteration in weight would alter the aerodynamics of flight, which would require a completely new design. If this was a 767, as the government claims, then it did not have depleted uranium added to its wings. And if it had, that would be a form of video fakery (by claiming that a special plane was merely a standard Boeing). So Anthony’s argument fails either way, since even if he were right (about the plane), he would be wrong (about video fakery). But as John Lear explained to Anthony during our interminable exchanges in the past, he is wrong about the plane. Anthony persists, even though he knows better.

  8. Jim Fetzer  July 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    “The Anti-Bush offers some fanciful theories in his attempt to discount the arguments I have made. As a professional scholar, I have done considerably more research than can be found in this article. Perhaps the most important recent development has been the realization of why they needed to resort to video fakery to account for the explosions in the subbasements, which I have explained in yet another study,

    “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”

    which was the necessity to coordinate the airplane “impacts” with those explosions to explain they away as the result of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. As I explain here, there were certain problems with that account, since the elevators were offset every thirty floors or so, but they could not run the risk that the planes would not impact the buildings at the right times, which is why they had to resort to fakery.

  9. FYI  July 8, 2011 at 5:00 am

    April Gallop Takes on well known shill here.


  10. The Anti-Bush  July 7, 2011 at 6:45 am

    I don’t believe in the official lie for a split second (best proof is probably the way the WTC towers, and especially WTC7, collapsed) – but some of the points made in this article can be explained:

    http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html does a great job at debunking the official story, while at the same time debunking some alternative theories that are wrong and could be used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

    Seismic spikes:

    Lack of debris on the lawn:

    Sizing problem:
    Your photo assumes that the plane was approaching at an angle where you see it pretty much completely from the side. It would obviously seem smaller it it was approaching at a different angle, towards or away from the camera at the same time as towards the building.

    The dumpster fires:
    While they MIGHT have been there to create more smoke, another explanation is that they moved easily inflammable materials to those dumpsters to prevent a further spread of the fires.

    Things that can NOT be explained with the official story:
    – The collapse of the WTC towers
    – The lack of attempts to intercept the planes
    – Bush’s behavior and proven lies, combined with the lack of a response from the Secret Service (their job would have been to rush in and make sure nothing bad happens to Bush — unless of course they knew he was not a target)
    – BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened
    – Larry Silverstein admitting they “pulled” WTC7
    – The coverup
    – The conveniently placed evidency (flight instruction manual in the car? Forgotten Quran?)
    – Alleged hijackers willing to die for their religion and assuming they’d meet their God the same day, at the same time doing things their religion forbids? Doesn’t really make sense.
    – Impossibility of the phone calls allegedly made from the planes
    – Molten steel found in WTC basements. A mix of kerosene and office furniture don’t burn hot enough to melt steel, and the steel frame would have acted like a giant heatsink (compare the steel frame to the heatsink on your CPU and you’ll see)
    – Photos of people touching the walls at the impact hole shortly after impact (if the official story were true, those walls would have been so hot that the people would have instantly burned up)

    • Jim Fetzer  July 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm

      I am confident there is nothing wrong with any of these arguments, which I have discussed in detail elsewhere. Let me illustrate in relation to the sizing problem. That the plane is approximately perpendicular to the building is evident from the shadow cast. I have encountered the perspective counter-argument before, but, like others directed at other of these points, it has no validity. I agree that there are other arguments that can be offered, where I have provided supporting links to many of them. But these are good as gold–in some cases, even better, since the laws of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Take a look at some of my other replies.

  11. luckybee  July 7, 2011 at 5:29 am


  12. luckybee  July 7, 2011 at 5:27 am

    G.W.Bush was just 3 month being the president of the USA.Do you think he has so much time to arrange a bubytrap in the Twintowers or the Pentagon? Was n’t it Bill Clinton the former president of the USA who was plenty of time to do that?He knew about Bin Laden; that treatened the USA. But he has no guts to attack them nor in Somalie , nor in Afghanistan, He send only some cruismissiles. war is always bad for the immage of a president of the USA.. G.W.Bush dont care very much of his immage he has done what was neccesary, to attack the purpeptrators in theyr own country,and to protect the cittycents of the USA May be Irak was the wrong country, remeber Sadam Hussein was the devil him self.he killed and massakres his own people.I have rather attacked Saudie Arabia the cause of all that is wrong in this world, and destroi the Kaaba to bits.That old Shiva Temple.

  13. Pantagruella  July 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    I love reading articles like this. I like the concepts of science and logic. But I think it shows us that Science is no use at all in establishing the Truth. It also shows that the Truth is not out there, to dredge up the X Files catch-phrase. The Truth will not out. These serious issues relating to terrifying crimes against humanity are not reolving themselves, they are receding. I have a lot of faith in US Veterans, but it’s clear that the mainstream media will never listen to you.

    • Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 9:16 pm

      That’s because the main stream media are COMPLICIT!

  14. Curmudgeon  July 6, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    I have no doubt something hit the Pentagon, but it had to be something smaller than a 757.

  15. Curmudgeon  July 6, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Brian and Smitty

    On September 11, 2001, I was on vacation, and doing morning errands. I saw a TV on and a burning building. I stopped to ask 2 women, who were watching, what was going on, and was told a plane had hit the WTC. I completed my errand, went back to my car, turned on the radio, and heard the “news flash” that eye witnesses reported an explosion at the Pentagon. During the approximate 10 block drive home, the explosion became a light plane crash, then a 757. I went inside, turned on the TV. I recall a number of people being interviewed in the Pentagon area, on September 11, 2001, saying that they saw a small plane, some saying a large plane, and some saying they saw no plane. Some may well have been plants for disinformation.

    I had already made up my mind, on that day, that the 2 towers being hit with no NORAD intervention was a set up, given Payne Stewart’s private jet had NORAD pilots reporting no visible sign of life within 15 minutes of loss of contact. The problem with the Pentagon site was how did they know it was a 757? How could it have gone from a small plane, not to a large plane, but a 757? Then I rememberd the El Al 747 crash in Amsterdam, and looked for photos. The devastation to the building was enormous comparatively. Bigger plane, less solid building, OK that is a factor, but not the massive difference in damage. If the Pentagon was more solid, that would mean more debris. Aluminum does not penetrate concrete and steel easily, and Arabs cannot suspend Newton’s First Law. There is not enough debris for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon.

    I have no doubt something hit the Pentagon,

  16. foo  July 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm


    Let’s focus for a moment on the Pentagon. You know, the issue that you consider so irrelevant that you refuse to watch the video. You know what you know, and you are not going to even consider any alternative.

    Has anyone expressed the opinion that the plane at the Pentagon was fake? No, what people want is to present evidence that the REAL plane at the Pentagon did not crash into the Pentagon — that it overflew the Pentagon.

    The reason that people are not responding to the issues of the false flag is that people here, years ago, already concluded that it was a false flag, involving, at least, the government of Israel and some elements in the government of the United States.

    Does the expression “flogging a dead horse” mean anything to you? How about “preaching to the choir?”

    The false flag issue is off topic.

  17. Smitty  July 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    It is impossible to take anybody seriously who insists on a straw man argument involving fake planes in favor of ignoring very real questions. The only rational conclusion is you are disinformation trolls or very gullible (and dumb). There is no other explanation. VT is a great website with great articles. This is not one of them.

    If you seriously believe that there were no planes involved then you might as well make the argument that we are living in a Matrix simulation and nothing is real. I am done here. This is all Zionist nonsense. You lose this straw man argument because intelligent people know better and no that doesn’t mean they support the official story. It was a false flag, it was being planned for at least 20 years, a shadow government within our own government was involved, and all signs point to Israel. All of them. Israel and their neoconservatives in Congress bought by AIPAC donors.

    You might as well say that space aliens killed JKF and the film was faked. It is exactly the same thing

    • pj  July 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm

      an aluminum aircraft CANNOT penetrate a steel building AND its 47-column steel core and have its nose cone emerge without a scratch, pristine out the other side. somebody needs to study the design of the Twin Towers’ ” tube within a tube design.” you’re still duped buddy. it’s ok it’s not your fault. it’s not your fault. it’s not your fault.

    • Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 9:15 pm

      Space Aliens killed JFK, and the film was edited. Welcome to the Matrix Smitty!

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:49 am


      Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Eshkol),

      It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

      You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel,s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister,s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel,s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.

      I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion,s May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

      I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government,s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel,s effort in the nuclear field.

      Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel,s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion,s letter was in accord with this, that our scientist have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination.

      Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.


      John F. Kennedy
      July 5, 1963

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:17 am

      3 days in the simulator and i’m lord of the skies
      fly a hundred ton aircraft
      500 miles per hour,
      3 inches off the ground!!
      pentagon blasted with a missile,
      some explosives already planted,
      both used for full effect and
      so they could play which one question games forever
      hell it worked better & looks nice for a great combo
      lots of smoke provided so all could be done in broad daylight
      when we were kids we called it a magic show or special effects
      now were “older & wiser” and so easily bullshitted
      big deal some plane flew over
      they spread a few plane parts around
      fox newz shows one clip of an engine turbine half the size of my trashcan,
      day after the Lawn only needed a little sod?
      day before big story broke about 2 trillion plus gone missing
      too bad the bombing blew up all the accounting records?

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:58 am

      what is that Video from the Israeli Art students who were given permission to stay at the twin towers?

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 10:15 am

      multiple Wars,
      borders aggressively not guarded or enforced
      tsa / dhs bs & sickos
      there,enjoy it America

    • Shallel  July 11, 2011 at 7:42 pm

      A Space Lizard by any other name is still a Space Lizard.

  18. Smitty  July 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Professor Fetzer, with all due respect I have been following the 9/11 movement for over seven years. I used to believe in the Pentagon missile. I even thought the now antiquated ‘September Clues’ was intriguing at the time.

    I am sorry for blaming you for my deleted post, but somebody removed it for whatever reason.

    If you continue to support the no plane theory you have to do better to convince me or anybody. There is just no way. An airplane makes sense. A controlled demolition makes sense. A CGI/hologram airplane make no sense no matter how you try to rationalize it. You have to dismiss evidence to believe this.

    • Greg Bacon  July 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      When we invaded Iraq the second time, the Pentagon had toyed with the idea of using a hologram projection of Allah, floating over Baghdad, urging Iraqi’s to put down their weapons and welcome the invaders.

      For whatever reason, they chose no to.

  19. Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 10:45 am

    “Not one witness saw it fly away.”
    It isn’t hard to make a plane disappear, just make the bottom a big LED or LCD screen and have a camera on top pointing at the sky. Optical cloaking. As I recall there were people who reported seeing a fly-over plane.

  20. John Taylor  July 6, 2011 at 10:40 am

    I sent a similar 9/11 writeup to a friend about a year ago. His response. “this is old news-time to move on”. This singular event has had a bigger impact in shaping American Policy over the past hundred years with the possible exception of two world wars. It took a year and plenty of public pressure to set up a kangaroo Court to investigate this event with a budget of only $3 million. Even Ken Starr got $50 mil to investigate Bill Clintions sexual improprieties. The result of this action has been over $3 trillion spent on military incursions (we don’t have wars anymore). Thousands of young americans have been killed or scarred for life. Perhaps a million Iraqi’s. This is at a time when America is bankrupt and even more military engagements are underway. I respect Prof. Feltzer, but he is rubbing Americans’ noses in something they are too lazy to think about anymore. The entertainment value of 9/11 has been overplayed and eyes grow glassy when the topic re-surfaces. People need to realize that 9/11 allowed the camel to get it’s nose under the tent. It is now all the way inside.
    Industry has left the US and it is no longer the dominant economic power thanks to GATT and WTO. Most middle aged unemployed workers will never see gainful employment again in their lives. Young college grads look to fulfilling careers at McDonalds, Wendy’s Burger King or gov’t. There will be millions of unemployed in a workforce that has no use for them. These folks are wasting oxygen that could be used for lawnmowers or BBQ’s. This is what Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting referred to when he coined the phrase useless eaters. They simply serve no useful economic function. They have to be eliminated before their frustration can cause civil unrest.
    For those of you who have IQ’s higher than a tabletop, consider that these events are all inter-connected like the dots in a child’s coloring book. Think what the next phase in the plan might be. Here are a few clues.



    Impossible, what if it is part of a plan crafted by the 9/11 plotters. Still think it can’t happen?

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:21 am

      People need to realize that 9/11 allowed the camel to get it’s nose under the tent. It is now all the way inside.

  21. Brian  July 6, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Hello Jim,

    I strongly believe a plane hit the Pentagon. Smitty makes some good comments. A missile hit the Pentagon theory has become popular due to the Mossad agents and Sayanim who control the 911 truth movement. 911 was a Mossad operation.

    I suggest you look at these links which indicate a plane hit the Pentagon:

    Photographs supporting the large plane hit the Pentagon analysis. The first one includes insightful comments by Michael Rivero:




    757 aerobatics:


    Eyewitnesses that saw a large plane near the Pentagon and hit the Pentagon:



    The first one has an extensive list of witnesses.

    Flight controllers watched the plane make its maneuvers at the Pentagon and none of them said it flew away from the Pentagon.

    The sagacious Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com sent me this in an email:

    Hundreds of people saw the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?

    An organized group of people picked up a large number of small pieces of the plane. This is on video tape. It’s hard to beleive the 911 culprits either before or after the hit at the Pentagon dragged out a bunch of trash bags full of plane pieces and threw them all over the ground and nobody saw them do it. What a terrible plan.

    Also nobody reported seeing a missile.

    For those that don’t think a 757 could have made the maneuvers they ought to consider a plane swap.

    The round hole in the Pentagon was either made by one of the engines or by a shaped charge put in the wall by the Mossad during the renovation which occurred shortly before the 911 attacks.

    The government says it identified all the passengers except one with forensics. That’s a big lie to try to get a way with. Too many witnesses involved.

    Perhaps the reason that the Pentagon hasn’t released the videos is because either the Mossad found a way to disable the cameras or Jewish Zionists in the Pentagon found a way to destroy the videos. Why would they do this? Because I believe the Mossad put explosives in the Pentagon during the renovation and the videos would indicate that explosives create a lot of the damage and the explosives may have ignited slightly before impact of the plane. Another possible reason is the Mossad did a plane swap.

    From a planing perspective trying to fool the world that a plane hit the Pentagon and actually using missile is a horrible plan. It wound not of been accepted at Mossad headquarters; it’s way too easy to get caught.

    FOX News and other television stations could destroy the 911 truth movement by bringing out the Pentagon photographs, the eyewitnesses, the people who picked up the plane parts at the Pentagon and Jamie McIntyre.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 6, 2011 at 11:30 am


      Not to make the obvious points, but how are you responding to (a) the sizing
      problem, (b) the Pentagon lawn, (c) the planted debris, and (d) the faked fires?
      A few comments about the plane entering the building before turning to your
      issues about the Pentagon, where I shall be glad to add more by and by.

      A sure sign that we are viewing video fakery of one kind or another is the
      occurrence of impossible events, such as a plane traveling at an impossible
      speed, a plane making an impossible entry into a massive building, and a
      plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number
      of frames it passes through its own length in air. THINK ABOUT IT. That
      would be possibly only if a 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance
      to the flight of an aircraft than air, which is physical impossibility. So unless
      Newton’s three laws were suspended on 9/11, we are viewing faked videos.

      I presented six arguments–about the early explosions, about the impossible
      entry, about the sizing problem, about the clear Pentagon lawn, about the
      planted debris, and about the fires coming from the dumpsters. If you can’t
      see that we are dealing with a staged event–where the principal reason for
      falling back on video fakery appears to have been to coordinate the “impacts”
      with the explosions in the subbasements, as I have explained in this piece,

      “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”

      But there is a huge body of evidence that demonstrates that the whole thing
      was staged (from the hijackers to the faked phone calls to the flights to the
      demolitions to the Pentagon to Shanksville: THE WHOLE OF 9/11 WAS
      ONE KIND OF FAKERY AFTER ANOTHER. Either we are willing to confront
      the evidence or we are not. Here’s more about 9/11 fakery of various kinds:


      “What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon”

      “Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2″

      Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77


      Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″

      David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

      Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”

      “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″

      “9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”

      Killtown on Shanksville,


    • Brian  July 6, 2011 at 4:14 pm

      Hi Jim,

      Regarding the twin towers, photographs of the plane parts in the vicinity of the WTC were taken by firefighters and others and are available on the Internet. Dimitri Khalezov tried to convince me airplane parts were thrown around by the 911 culprits. I DON’T BELIEVE IT!

      From an article titled

      A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories

      By Eric Salter

      Here is an excerpt:

      What we do know of eyewitness testimony so far supports the scenario of 767s hitting the towers. In addition to accounts from civilians like Evan Fairbanks, the oral histories released by the New York Times show that at least 50 FDNY firemen saw planes or plane debris in the streets. The no-planer treatment of eyewitnesses is as weak as their physical evidence analysis. The second plane was not visible from some vantage points because downtown buildings or the WTC themselves were in the way. Therefore, some people only saw the explosion. Not surprisingly, the no-planers have tried to present these accounts as no-plane testimony. Morgan Reynolds told MSNBC that he doesn’t “believe anyone in Lower Manhattan” and implies that anyone who saw a plane was an actor on the government payroll.

      Brian: I’ve read the compelling testimony of the firefighters at the WTC.

      Government employees and volunteers were video taped while picking up airplane pieces from the Pentagon lawn. Also, the lawn is not flat and people didn’t get a good view with the photographs taken from a distance.

      I posted this earlier but look at the photographs taken by Jamie McIntyre of CNN:


      All those little pieces are what you would expect to find when a plane made of lightweight material slams into a very stout building.

      The holes discrepancies can be explained by the explosives the Mossad put in the Pentagon during the renovation. That’s probably why they had a renovation of that area of the Pentagon.
      Also heavy items such as an airplane engine can penetrate the walls.

      I don’t get wrapped up in the science I concentrate on the evidence. This is one of my favorite comments about the Pentagon attack: The sagacious Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com sent me this in an email:

      Hundreds of people saw the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?

      Nobody has given me an adequate explanation.

      Also as I mentioned, the air traffic controllers that watched the high skilled maneuvers of the plane at the Pentagon did not say they saw the plane leave the Pentagon. How do you explain that?

      Perhaps we can call Mossad headquarters and find out how they did it. :-)



    • Jim Fetzer  July 6, 2011 at 7:17 pm

      Mike Sparks and I spend three two-hour interviews on “The Real Deal” going through the reports of the alleged Pentagon witnesses. There were around 90, but by the time we were done, not more than three could have been where they claimed to be or had reports that were significant. There are orders of precedence in evaluating evidence, where we know the description of an event did not occur if it violates laws of aerodynamics, engineering, or physics. Go back and look at the proofs I have presented instead of offering an argument that was not drafted as a response to my research. Look at (3) the sizing problem, (4) the Pentagon lawn, (5), the planted fuselage, and (6) the dumpster fires. The follow up the links I provided for Elias Davidsson’s study showing that the government has never proven the “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes, David Ray Griffin’s study showing that all of the alleged phone calls were faked, Leslie Raphael’s study of the Naudet Brothers video, and Killtown’s study of Shanksville. Combined with what Pilots for 9/11 Truth have already proven and you have a set of stunning clues about 9/11. Study them.

    • Brian  July 6, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      Well, to me the eyewitness testimony is very powerful, so we disagree. Perhaps a few of them made something up to be part of history.

      When I have time I will look at your articles. I work from my home office and I take a few minutes here and there to see what is going on at this website. A lot of the stuff I post I already have in my computer and I make some changes to it.

      I think Elias Davidsson’s article is excellent. I don’t think any Muslims were on the planes. They were flown by remote control and some of Israel’s Sayeret Matkal agents were probably on the planes impersonating Muslims just in case stewardesses used air phones to make calls, which seemed to have occurred.

      To me the eyewitnesses, the photographs of Jamie McIntyre and others, the clean up group and the fact the air traffic controllers did not say the plane left the Pentagon are compelling reasons to believe a plane hit the Pentagon. Not one witness stated they saw a missile; this is typically ignored by the missile crowd. One witness did say the plane acted like a missile.

      Well, I think its alright if people disagree about the Pentagon, my main focus is on the culprits, the Mossad and the Jewish Zionists traitors in our government. There may have been a few Gentiles in the cabal.

      Here is the evidence:


      Get a free download of the book.

      Also Jim, obviously you know who Richard Gage is. Let see what he has to say about a plane flyover and eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon:

      From the highly respected Richard Gage:

      After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

      I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

      Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

      Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

    • jdwoo  July 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm

      (I wasn’t able to respond directly to Brian’s post for some reason, but I think this of mine post should appear right above or below it.)

      Brian, you quoted a statement supposedly written by Richard Gage as though it somehow discredits CIT or disproves the flyover.

      #1 Richard Gage is not a Pentagon researcher at all.

      #2 Have you read the following response published by CIT shorty after the statement you quote was published?


      Seems doubtful Gage even wrote the words you quote. He never even called Craig Ranke of CIT or responded to that letter at all! This was months ago. Go to that link and read it.

  22. Anthony Clifton  July 6, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Please don’t forget the Emet Group…One minor point. What makes you think that the criminally insane JEWISH TERRORISTS are “YOUR GOVERNMENT” ? I took a logic class once, too. Is it logical to repeat jewish lies to yourself…verbatim ? For What purpose ? The Synagogue of Satan “JEWISH” Zionazi Terrorists are not Hebrew, Not Semitic, and NOT FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. Currency printing ECONOMIC TERRORISTS {Jewish assholes} are not “Gods’ Chosen People”, the “JEWISH MEDIA” LIES!!. If anyone on Earth has evidence to prove that the ashkenazim proselytes to talmudic Judaism are all 12 Tribes of the Children of Israel….PUHLEASE show me the evidence…PROOF. Signed affidavits…something other than CHUTZPAH and “JEWISH” lies…[http://www.unfriendlyskies.com] … 90% of so-called “JEWS” don’t have to be..!!! GIVE THAT SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT = [http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=137725]. I AM SEMITIC, the so-called “JEWS” are Not….and “THEY” {jews} have to hate TRUTH to be “JEWISH”. ..otherwise best of luck with removing the Jewish lies from your emerging narrative of what happened on 11 Sept. 01. …[See apfn, emet]

  23. NadePaulKuciGravMcKi  July 6, 2011 at 9:23 am

    11 SEP 01 False Flag
    Government & Media

    government criminals
    controlled media
    federal reserve
    911 cover-up

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:25 am

      year after year IDF vets fly to America with tourist visas,
      thousands & thousands never fly back,where are they now??

    • theBorgHasBeenHereHowLong?  July 10, 2011 at 9:34 am

      John Boy Walton & cousins are spread out over the World and the IDF has been flying
      in casually year after year to fill the ranks of the DHS/TSA Cheka ??
      The American knesset in D.C. is openly selling weapons to Mexican Cartels and at the same time are sweating over the goyim having any arms and always pushing for gun control “goyim control” .
      The USA is being converted into one big Company town ,
      if you had and ancestors tell you about the Company towns,
      ask the W. Virginia Miners, Ohio, etc.

  24. foo  July 6, 2011 at 4:35 am

    You wrote, “…The Pentagon is irrelevant…”

    If Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, then the Pentagon is relevant. What if nothing — no plane, no missile, no anything — hit the Pentagon? Wouldn’t that make the events at the Pentagon relevant?

    I posted this URL:


    Click on the Evidence tab for the link to watch the full-length, 81-minute video, “National Security Alert.”

    It’s obvious, from your comments, that you didn’t watch it. The video makes a strong case that nothing hit the Pentagon — that the plane overflew the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon is relevant, just as Shanksville is relevant. When a plane crashes, there is a torn-asunder plane on the ground. There are seats and suitcases, littering the site. Human limbs hang from tree limbs. It’s a stomach-wrenching sight. And all we saw was a smoking hole.

    Yet the official story is that the plane sank into the soft earth. BS — no dirt is that soft!

    9/11 was an elaborate, well-constructed and well-executed psyop.

    Nothing was real.

    • Smitty  July 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm

      LOL! I’m sorry but the evidence says otherwise and this doesn’t mean I support the official story. It just makes me very questionable about anybody who believes such things. Sure it is more interesting than reality but otherwise what is the point?

      The whole thing was a lie and a false flag. There is no good case for fake planes unless you are retarded. Seriously. If that offends you, good. You are either a liar or a moron. Sorry to be rude but I’m just being honest.

      REAL questions to ask. Why was a massive number of Israelis arrested in conjunction to intelligence operations posing as “Art Students” involved in selling counterfeit art? Why were they in close proximity to the terrorist cells? Why does nobody seem to care about the vans caught with traces of explosives and box cutters and maps of NYC and Bedouin costumes when they were driven by Israelis? What about building 7? What about molten metal. If the evidence wasn’t planted than how come Atta’s will says to clean his body (which he knew would burn to a crisp)? How did a passport survive? Why would Atta leave a Quran at a bar after drinking the night away (forbidden to his religion)? Why leave a list of the hijackers in the luggage that somehow never made it on the flight? Why leave a ‘how to fly’ book in his rental car? Was he learning on his way to the airport? Why were so many planes reported hijacked that day? How could Atta pronounce “P” being a native Arabic speaker? Why did he sound like a native Hebrew speaker? Does nobody care that Larry Silverstein and Netanyahu are best buds? When the FAA grounded all flights, the only flight that left went to Israel. Why?

      Why is nobody asking rational questions? Are you all ‘in on it’ or just dumb? Seriously

  25. Jim Fetzer  July 6, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Dick Fojut sent me a copy of what he had posted here, which seems to be missing. His comments are especially appropriate, since “the sizing problem” comparison was done for me by Jack White and, as Dick remarks, Jack also discusses the Pentagon lawn photo! He is “the friend of mine” who is far better at doing these things than am I. And I agree with Dick that his work deserves more recognition:

    “Smitty, you’re overly upset about “anti-semitic” statements by some. Over many years I have repeatedly emailed hundreds in Congress, the media and websites asking: Why haven’t 9/11 Truthers emphasized “Jack White’s 911 Photostudies?” Since 1995 White’s VOLUMINOUS collection of photos (with his expert commentary) BEST contradict the DOD’s tale about the Pentagon! It is on White’s photostudies that the two green firetrucks are shown. The Firemen offered their photos to the DOD – but the DOD was NOT interested.

    “The firemen photographed the Pristine lawn in front of the initial small hole in the Pentagon, the lawn is unmarked except by their tire tracks, NO debris – and NO people except the firemen! Long after the 2 fire trucks had left after successfully putting out the small fire in the hole and a vehicle, the DOD produced many (hastily, poorly photoshopped) photos of MANY “dramatic” people and pieces of debris. “New” fires “breakout,” the wall above the hole collapses.

    “ONLY Fetzer has drawn attention to White’s (Pentagon) Photostudies! Open this URL: http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm — and judge for yourselves! HOURS of photos to examine! White does not give his own opinion of WHAT hit the Pentagon – but does demolish the DOD’s fiction and DOD’s mass of (badly) “photoshopped” pictures!”

    • Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 10:39 am

      Posts with links often take a bit longer to post here, as they are moderated. I too highly recommend the work of Jack White. He is a true photo analysis expert.

  26. rachel  July 6, 2011 at 3:55 am

    9/11 the mother of all false flags. this year is the 10th anniversery. I dread the thought of even watching the MSM for thier so called report.

  27. Dick Fojut  July 6, 2011 at 2:58 am

    Correction to my above post… Jac White produced his 911 Photostudies in 2005! Sorry!

  28. Dick Fojut  July 6, 2011 at 1:09 am

    Smitty, you’re overly upset about “anti-semitic” statements by some. Over many years I have repeatedly emailed hundreds in Congress, the media and websites asking: Why haven’t 9/11 Truthers emphasized “Jack White’s 911 Photostudies?” Since 1995 White’s VOLUMNOUS collection of photos (with his expert commentary) BEST contradict the DOD’s tale about the Pentagon! It is on White’s photostudies that the two green firetrucks are shown. The Firemen offered their photos to the DOD – but the DOD was NOT interested. The firemen photographed the Pristine lawn in front of the initial small hole in the Pentagon, the lawn is unmarked except by their tire tracks, NO debris – and NO people except the firemen! Long after the 2 fire trucks had left after successfully putting out the small fire in the hole and a vehicle, the DOD produced many (hastily, poorly photoshopped) photos of MANY “dramatic” people and pieces of debris. “New” fires “breakout,” the wall above the hole collapses. ONLY Fetzer has drawn attention to White’s (Pentagon) Photostudies!
    Open this URL: http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
    – and judge for yourselves! HOURS of photos to examine! White does not give his own opinion of WHAT hit the Pentagon – but does demolish the DOD’s fiction and DOD’s mass of (badly) “photoshopped” pictures!

    • Smitty  July 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm

      I’m not upset about antisemitic anything. The “A” card is meaningless to me as it should to anybody. I was merely saying I disagreed with the author and my comment was removed despite the fact that people resort to being antisemitic here OR pro-Zionist. No reason to censor me.

      The Pentagon is a straw man. A plane makes sense, a missile does not. The photographic anomalies can be explained by Photoshop stitching (because the fence doesn’t match up. but the media ALWAYS stitches photos) and secondary explosions. There were a ton of van bombs around the WTC complex nobody seems to care about.

      My point is there are far more important questions than focusing on irrelevancy. If it was a missile, then they lied. They obviously lied about flight 93 being shot down. Our leaders are lawyers.

      But lets focus on relevant things like the fact that all the evidence points to a Maryland-sized nation in the Middle East controlled by Zionists who run all the banks and have infiltrated our government. Ignoring this makes no sense when all the evidence points to it.

    • Enver  July 8, 2011 at 6:45 pm

      How does 10 ton steel engine just disappear. No bodies, luggage. Never happened before in the history of plane crashes. I think Im gonna go with no plane in pentagon right now.

  29. Smitty  July 5, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    I’ve never had a comment deleted on VT before. I guess professor Fetzer didn’t like what I had to say.

    I am a truth-seeker. I do not believe the official story

    But when Zionists and antisemitic comments remain uncensored, I am quite disturbed that my comment was removed just because of my OPINION.

    Jim, the reason why the plane ‘disappeared’ is because it was traveling hundreds of miles per hour and crashed into mostly glass and hollow office space. You are supporting (as your website does) the no-plane theories. You are stating the the planes were CGI or holograms. This is ridiculous!

    Half of these questions deal with the Pentagon. The Pentagon is irrelevant. Even if there was a missile, it’s irrelevant. There was most certainly no missile. Shanksville would also be irrelevent. So that plane was shot down, of course they denied it (just like TWA 800). Why would they admit it? A 757 hit the Pentagon as Brian says above. The websites that say it was a missile take photos and quotes out of context to support a false narrative. This makes REAL truth seekers (like me) look like FOOLS when trying to discuss 9/11. You are making us look bad!

    Flying a plane near the Pentagon really low, then flying a military plane that shoots a missile at it, faking eyewitness testimony, and somehow disposing of the real plane and passengers… This is pretty risky stuff. It’s a lot easier to CRASH A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON!!! You have to suspend rational thought and dismiss FACTS to support this nonsense.

    Here are some REAL 9/11 questions

    Whats up with building 7? What’s with all the Israeli vans with explosives and box cutters arrested blaming Palestinians? Why did the MSM show fake celebrating Palestinians and then retract it. Who gave it to them? Why were the Israelis deported along with others arrested as part of an art student sting that was in close proximity to the hijacker ‘cells’? Is it a coincidence that the airport security was Israeli at the airports with departing hijacked aircraft? Why were multiple planes reported as hijacked on 9/11? Why did Israel think 9/11 was good for them? Why was there molten steel at ground zero? Why did the buildings collapse event though the firemen said the fire was containable? How did a passport survive the blast? Why did Mohamed Atta get wasted, leave a Quran (which is forbidden for devote Muslims) at a strip club, leave a how-to-fly book in his rental car, and have his luggage left behind with a list of the hijackers?

    Ask rational questions, not ridiculous ones. Mr. Fetzer, the very fact my comment was removed indicates you must have had an issue with it. This no-plane garbage has no place on VT or in the truth movement. Your censorship has made me inclined to believe you are a Zionist misinformation shill. VT can do much better without such contributions.

    • Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 10:34 am

      “was traveling hundreds of miles per hour”

      Guess Smitty isn’t one of the advanced students…

    • Smitty  July 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm

      @Shallel 236-590mph (based on conflicting evidence and I have no opinion either way) is hundred of miles per hour

      I have no idea what you are trying to say but I imagine you worship YHWH just like the majority of the people involved in 9/11

    • Shallel  July 6, 2011 at 9:06 pm

      You couldn’t be more wrong. Absolutely astounding how you could just exactly nail the opposite of my view of the Devil WAR GOD™ YHWH. Brilliant! Have a Guinness!

    • Greg Bacon  July 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm

      I had nothing to do with any deletion of any post of yours

      From time to time, I have trouble getting VT to accept my comments. I think there’s some kind of ‘bug’ on my computer that my AV software let slip by, but I don’t get bent out of shape about it, there’s too many other things to deal with.

      Like I’m still wondering what happened to that 2.3 TRILLION dollars that then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said was ‘missing’ from the Pentagon…. He made that announcement on September 10, 2001 and it should have generated quite a bit of interest the next day, but that story, along with the Army auditors who were hot on the trail, trying to find the people with ‘sticky fingers,’ that stole the money, they, along with the story about the missing money, got buried in the Pentagon rubble.

      Is that Rummy lucky or what!!

      Whatever hit the Pentagon smacked it right where the Army auditors were working.

    • joe  July 7, 2011 at 10:06 am

      probably the dollar amount of stuff that ended up in the shitty entity.

      like your blog, greg. want to make comments. just dont want to sign in.

  30. foo  July 5, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Slight correction: It is Citizen Investigation Team.

    This is their Web site:


    Click on the Evidence tab for the link to watch the full-length, 81-minute video, “National Security Alert.”

  31. Jim Fetzer  July 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the NTSB, which claimed it came from Flight 77. When they checked it, they discovered that the data corresponded to a plane on a different trajectory, flying due east and 300 feet too high to have hit any lampposts. (When you think about it, a plane flying into those lampposts would have had the fuel in its wings burst into flames and been thrown off its trajectory.) It was still 100 feet too high to have hit the building and appears to have flown over it. A friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, had a trucker buddy, Dave Ball, who was in front of the Pentagon at the time and told him that he watched a large plane fly toward the building and then swerve over it. Another group of investigators, CIT (Citizens Investigative Team), realized that if the official account were true, then the plane had to have come in south of the Citgo station (in between the conflicting trajectories), but if the NTSB data were correct, north of the Citgo station. They found multiple witnesses who confirmed that the plane approached north of the Citgo station, which by itself falsfies the official account. See, for example, “Pandora’s Black Box, Part 2″ (from Pilots) and “National Security Alert” (from CIT). There is more to be said about the Pentagon, but it refutes the official account. No Boeing 757 crashed there, no doubt.

  32. foo  July 5, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    There’s another problem with the “five frames.” When they were originally released, they had a date/time stamp of September 12, in the afternoon.

    When they were re-released in late April-early May of 2005(?), the date/time stamps had been removed.

    I’m sure that there’s an innocent explanation.

    Yeah, right.

    • The Anti-Bush  July 7, 2011 at 6:12 am

      I don’t believe the official lies for a second – but for this, there actually is an innocent explanation.

      Look at how many VCRs are blinking 12:00 all the time, look at how many watches are constantly showing the wrong time. Cameras (including security cameras) typically don’t include the most reliable clocks, and if nobody bothers to do maintenance and set the clocks correctly, they can easily run fast, and after a while their date/time will actually be on the next day.

      As for the later removal of the date/time stamps, they probably did that because they got sick and tired of having to explain over and over again why the date was incorrect.

      Let’s focus on the things that actually prove the official story wrong – not those that can easily be explained away.

  33. Shallel  July 5, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Thank-you VT, for fearlessly posting this article! These are some of the top points that devastate the official myth, eloquently assembled for those with even a modicum of scientific knowledge. Bravo!

    Thank-you Jim, for your tenacity, for your wisdom, and for your courage.

    For the more advanced students, I challenge you to look at the flight envelopes of Boeing Turbofan Jumbos, and tell me how any of the “planes” of that day were able to appear to exceed said flight envelopes by 30 to 40% and remain in controlled flight. Hitting light posts and not veering off course or bursting into flame? Get real! Hitting the FIRST FLOOR in level flight without contacting the ground? Really easy one there; the B757 is over four stories tall, with 7′ engine diameters. If those engines were two feet off the ground (which is impossible at stated speed) the nose would hit midway up the second floor.

    Did someone say Inside Job?

  34. Doug  July 5, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    So many questions…..April Gallop can tell you about the pentagon as she was working inside near the hole on 911,
    with her son. She crawled out of the hole with her son in her arms and did not see any debris from a large aircraft.
    Recently, her civil suit was turned down by a judge in New Haven, Conn. We know that the courts have been packed with shills for the Israeli and U.S. storyline. She is very brave to have confronted the ‘conspiracy’. We will continue to ask questions and expose the lies and inconsistencies in the so called, “official story”. We have no choice but to expose the tyranny now running this country and world. I do think we must use the ‘kiss principle’, keep it simple…..most dont have the time to listen to in depth analysis of the events of 911. The evidence is available and if we can get a public hearing with subpoena power and the force of law, we will find the culprits unable to defend themselves. Tower 7, is the most obvious link. It was not hit by a plane and fell at near free fall into its own footprint, classic demolition. When we look at the operations of the building prior to 911 we can understand why it had to be demolished as part of the overall scheme. So, we keep speaking truth to power. Eventually it will change the world as we know it. Half of the population know that 911 was an inside job and want a new investigation.

  35. Nate  July 5, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Jim , I ve been a frequent reader on this subject for many years now. especially since I worked near the pentagon at the time, the last many years in northern Va. were colored by the 911 attack, the “DC sniper” and the anthrax mail attacks. there have been a few subsequent incidents, namely the foiling of a plot to bomb the DC metro which led to the setup of a much increased police prescence and their random bag searches not too long ago. probably more that I’m forgetting.  however, knowing what one of my close colleagues told me when we all finally resumed work that week, I find it hard to question at least the pentagon attack. this is because he was driving to the pentagon that morning on 395, where he then gets off, turns around, and drives down Columbia pike.  well, the plane did fly over his suv that morning. If I remember correctly he mentioned that it also clipped some poles on approach or he said it looked like it would, cant remember exactly. like other coworkers of mine, he immediately turned around and drove home (due to insane traffic in the metro area, we all came in either really early, or later after rush hour. I always got to the pentagon at 9:45.) because of this I’ve always felt that the question of what happened at the pentagon was a wrong one to focus on. it seems clear anyway that if you are going to use a missile or bomb and say it was a plane, the worst place to do it would be in a building filled with military VIPs and DoD contractors, as they could probably tell the difference. besides, we all saw the towers hit by planes. the simplest answer is that a plane also hit the pentagon. I believe over time you may see more video evidence, however, knowing the area, it’s probably going to be similar or worse to what they’ve already put out. 

  36. Greg Bacon  July 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    : Even more striking to me, however, is this photo of the civilian lime-green fire-trucks as they extinguish the fires

    At least one, maybe both of the fire trucks are for airport crash rescue. They have an enormous amount of AFFF, a foam that mixes with water to ‘smother’ the fire by putting a blanket over the flames.

    There’s so much black, nasty looking carbon type smoke coming from those dumpsters, my guess is that someone tossed in some gasoline, mixed with kerosene and lit them.

    200,000 pounds of a Boeing jetliner slam into the Pentagon and a number of Pentagon employees, like April Gallop, was astonished to find no debris???

    Lee Hamilton has been a ‘fetch and carry’ gofer for decades.

  37. Brian  July 5, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    From his article: Google “Jamie McIntyre” and “9/11” and this firsthand account from 2001 will pop up, in which I utter the fateful words, “I can tell you from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere NEAR the Pentagon.”

    That phrasing – taken out on context – has fueled internet conspiracies for years, and a fresh crop has popped up ahead of the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

    What the 9/11 deniers intentionally misrepresent, is that I was answering a question about an earlier report that the plane crashed SHORT of the Pentagon, nearby. I was explaining there was no sign of a crash anywhere BUT at the Pentagon.

    But I was there. I saw the thousands of pieces of the plane scattered over the heliport outside the Pentagon. I photographed pieces of the wreckage, photos you can see here.

    One of the photographs shows some of the small pieces of the plane scattered all over on the ground and one looks like part of a cockpit window.


    • Jean  July 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      That statement by Jamie McIntyre was not taken out of context. That was just another lie to cover the lie
      he was required to make at a later date when he said, “I even took photo’s of the fuselage.” He was lieing
      through his teeth and I called him on that with an email because I personally watched him via TV and he
      was on scene minutes after the false flag attack and witnessed the the secretive box of debri being carried
      out of the Pentagon by 8 guys. The contents is unknown but may have been computers that held information concerning the missing billions of dollars from the pentagon which was under audit.

    • Brian  July 6, 2011 at 4:26 pm

      I strongly disagree with you, Also look at his photographs. Other witnesses also have photographs. I don’t believe all the photographs were made up. What a horrible plan. What an outrageous idea, tell the world the Pentagon was hit by a plane but hit it with a missile. NOBODY SAID THEY SAW A MISSILE. I think it’s a hoax, probably iniciated by the Mossad and their friends to get the conspiracy crowd to blame the US government. Read all the compelling eyewitness testimony.

      From Jamie McIntyre. More strong comments:

      A short — a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that’s in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

      had a camera with me. I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene.

      I saw thousands of shards of metal, of pieces of the plane all over the driveway. I didn’t pick up any of them or touch any of them, but I saw them everywhere. And again, took some pictures of them.

      MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I — myself — appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon

    • grandma caesar  July 7, 2011 at 11:22 am

      i see pix of the pentagon, but no plane parts in the picture. i see pix of what may be plane parts, but no pentagon in the picture. i have yet to see a picture or a video that shows a plane or plane debris—wings, tail, landing gear, engines, wiring, seats, luggage, bodies—at the pentagon. according to the specifications on the boeing website, the plane is over 1/2 a football field long, 44′ tall with a 124′ wingspan. HALF A FOOTBALL FIELD LONG—VAPORIZED. allow me to state the impossible again: HALF A FOOTBALL FIELD LONG—VAPORIZED. you are certainly welcome to believe anything anyone tells you, whether it’s some stranger on your tv, or some stranger on the street, or whoever. listen to their words. believe every thing you are told. you have the GOD-given right to be gullible and naive. however, i choose to believe the eyes that GOD gave me over the unsubstantiated words of someone i don’t know. (btw, mr mcintyre shows a picture of a supposed airliner windshield supposedly taken at the pentagon…did the intact windshield get blown back out of the pentagon onto the lawn where it broke on contact with the ground? c’mon…fluoride and prozac eating up your critical thinking?)

  38. Alan  July 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Nice to see Jim Fetzer on here. He has some interesting interviews on his radio show.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login