Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

by Jim Fetzer


My 4th of July article, “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”, raised questions about the events of 9/11 and whether more may have been involved than the official account of nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial carriers, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrating these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB. An FBI official, when asked why not, replied, “It wasn’t necessary because we saw them on television.” But we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville “on television”—and what we have seen on TV does not look right.

We have no videos of the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville and only the five frames from the Pentagon of Flight 77. We have familiar footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower and less familiar footage of Flight 11 impacting with the North Tower. Since it was not broadcast that day, that footage raises interesting questions about George W. Bush’s public remarks that, when he watched the plane hit the North Tower, he thought to himself, “There’s one terrible pilot!”

His comment, after all, only makes sense assuming it occurred before the second hit, after which anyone should have realized this was no accident but a deliberate occurrence. Bush added that “the TV was obviously on”, but since the public broadcasts did not show it at that time, the thought has crossed my mind that he may have actually seen it “live” on a closed Secret Service channel, which would be stunning evidence that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

Since I’ve made several observations about the Pentagon, I want to discuss some troubling aspects of the other crash sites. For those who want more on the Pentagon, I recommend “Pandora’s Black Box”, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as well as “National Security Alter” from Citizens Investigation Team, both of which support the existence of a large plane—presumably, a Boeing 757—that flew toward the Pentagon but did not crash into it, consistent with my earlier study.

(1) Flight 11 hitting the North Tower

(a) Remarkably Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”. As Leslie Raphael has explained, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, it’s improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(b) While the image is too blurry and indistinct to be identifiable as a 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—prepared by Rosalee Grable—does not bear even a faint resemblance:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(c) And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. So the question arises, why not?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(2) Flight 175 hitting the South Tower

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns. They were filled with 4-8” of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18” wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane should have entered via them. But as Jack White shows here, that is not what the videos display:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine found at Church & Murray, it did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack’s studies reveals:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

So how can a Boeing 767 travel at am impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than Flight 175 fakery.

(3) Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is the most errie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(b) The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview:

FOX News reporter: It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that’s right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn’t much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces…” – FOX (09/11/01)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(c) An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from detonation explosions more than it does fires from crash sites–and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

Planes or No-Planes?

Serious students of 9/11 are therefore placed in a dilemma. If they are committed to truth, as the name “9/11 Truth” implies, then they have to confront the evidence that supports the conclusion that all four of the plane crashes–one way or another–appear to have been faked. To put it more precisely, there is no credible evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville nor at the Pentagon, while the evidence for the New York events appears to support video fakery. In a circumstance like this, the best move may be to take a step back and ask yourself if there is any circumstantial evidence that might help to resolve the question in your own mind. Here I would observe that the following considerations be borne in mind, namely:

(i) Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″, has shown that the government has never actually proven that the hijackers were aboard any of those planes;

(ii) David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”, has shown that the evidence shows that all of the alleged phone calls from all four of the airplanes were faked;

(iii) Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifable component parts from those four airplanes, the government has yet to produce even one;

(iv) John Lear, among our nation’s most distinguished pilots, has observed that, before a pilot can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an envelope (with a flight plan, check list, and passenger data), yet none of those envelopes has ever been produced; and,

(v) FAA Registry data shows that, for the four planes allegedly involved in crashed on 9/11, the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 01/14/2002 and those for Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005, which suggests that at least two of those planes were still in the air long after 9/11.

What this suggests to me (and others more expert than I in matters of this kind) is that 9/11 was a staged event designed as a psy-op that was intended to instill fear in the American people to manipulate us to support political policies–including wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq–that we otherwise would never have considered. Since that is the objective of terrorism, the weight of the evidence that students of 9/11 have discovered supports the conclusion that the Bush/Cheney administration has been practicing terrorism on the American people. So take your time and sort this out for yourself. We are talking about the pivotal event of the 21st Century, whose effects–for better or for worse–are enduring to this day.

Jim Fetzer founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and maintains its web site at http://911scholars.org.


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. Notices

Posted by on July 11, 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

67 Responses to "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"

  1. Marcus M.  September 2, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Howdy! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this page to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

  2. Jim Fetzer  July 17, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Anthony is right (that he raised the Salter argument on the other thread). What he is not telling you is that I also rebutted it (on that other thread). To quote the man, “Not accepting the validity of someone else’s answers to your questions is one thing, stating that your questions have never been answered is quite another.” Yet he insists that I am the one who is “dishonest”. This post of his confirms the fact that the dishonest one, Anthony, is you. Here is my reply to Anthony on the other thread, as anyone can confirm for themselves. As I have observed many times, the man is a broken record. He will never give up. Check it out.

    Jim Fetzer
    July 10, 2011 – 7:21 am(Edit)

    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,


  3. Jim Fetzer  July 15, 2011 at 6:12 am

    Anyone who finds themselves at all in doubt may want to consider reasons
    why the conspirators must have found video fakery the only solution to the
    problems they confronted in this complex situation may want to read these
    additional studies, which explain why they could not rely upon real planes to
    accomplish the objectives of this aspect of this very carefully-planned psy-op.

    An excellent discussion of why they used video fakery instead of real planes,
    which included making sure that the planes would actually hit the towers and
    enter them in order to create the illusion that powerful explosions actually took
    place INSIDE THE BUILDINGS which could be used to explain their “collapse”:

    In addition, they had to be precisely timed to correspond to the explosions in the
    subbasements that Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong confirmed in “Seismic Proof:
    9/11 was an inside job”, so they could appeal to “falling jet fuel” through elevator
    shafts to account for them, even though their explanation had no basis in reality:

    • Jim Fetzer  July 16, 2011 at 8:14 pm

      Anthony surpasses the boundaries of the absurd with these massively ignorant rebuttals. EVERYONE WHO HAS STUDIED PHYSICS KNOWS. Look at the diagram of the angle at which this fantasy plane was “entering” the South Tower. Each of those floors represents a steel truss filled with an acre — roughly, 208′ x 208′ — of 4-8″ thick concrete. If you can’t imagine what would happen if a plane were to intersect with eight (8) of them, try ONE. What do you think would happen, Anthony? Tell us.

      We all know what happens when a plane hits a tiny bird weighing a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen it if hit an acre of concrete on a steel truss suspended in space in flight. What do you think, Anthony? IT’S A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. I cannot be held responsible for your massive ignorance. We don’t need a “peer reviewed study by a crash expert”, Anthony. Your average 10th grade physics student can answer this one for you. But if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself here, be my guest. No one is more deserving of the recognition!

      And, not to belabor the obvious, but you have never responded to my challenge to declare yourself and have not even acknowledged the devastating argument that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air–which is absurd, unless a massive steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air! Is that your position? Give me an answer: “Yes!” or “No!”

  4. Rosalee Grable  July 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    They didn’t really use planes. There is no plane in the first hit Naudet footage. The alleged second hit planes look all different from one another, and feature duplicate frames as they hippityhop toward the building.
    No Planes is excellent arguement, based upon video forensics and natural laws governing the behavior of matter.
    Socialized “Truth” – the notion that whatever the majority believes is “true” is the real enemy here, and there is no shortage of people who want everyone to keep believing what everyone else believes, as a form of social comfort.
    The “TV Fakery” crowd is always calling the first hit “fake,” which keeps people from taking seriously this magnificent actual evidence of how they actually accomplished the plane shape holes. The scene shows much electromagnetic interference which ceases after the fireball erupts.
    There is a laser weapon either out the window or hanging from the roof of the Tribeca Grand Hotel. It makes sparks and visable light while the fireball is exploding.
    We know there was no particular heat because less than 10 minutes after the blast a brave woman named Edna Cintron has made her way to the base of the plane shaped hole, standing on a melted looking beam, waving. She gets called “fake” too, because she does not fit the preconvieved notions of the fake hollerers.
    There is footage from half a dozen different cameras showing Edna Cintron, which came to light through the efforts of 911datasets.org freedom of information requests.
    The footage that appeared first was called “fake” because it was in short segments. It turned out that the professional documentarian’s high power camera was located on the north side of Canal Street, at the foot of Church Street. Canal Street is a truck route, and the camera’s view was blocked every time a semi truck passed. The version from 911datasets.org is a single long take, showing the business at the corner of Church and Canal and the parade of trucks (absolutely normal traffic on Canal Street) passing by.
    People decide what is fake and what is real by consulting their own imaginations. This is unfortunate, because the imagination of terrorists ramming planes into buildings has doomed us to being herded about by the TSA, who thinks crippled old ladies and preschoolers might be terrorists next.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 15, 2011 at 5:26 am

      It is as though you had a personal commitment to the integrity of these videos, Anthony. Is there something you are not telling us? Because your extreme irrationality given the evidence is not only disappointing but bizarre.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

      You are very good at begging the question by taking for granted the answers to the questions that are at issue. You have ignored my proof that the entry was impossible, given the eight (8) floors of steel trusses and 4-8″ of concrete, which poses enormous horizontal resistance; and have not even acknowledged the devastating argument that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air–which is absurd, unless a massive steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air! Is that your position? Give me an answer: “Yes!” or “No!”

      As for moving a tower one way or another, any explosives expert with elementary knowledge of classical physics could move the building in any E/W or N/S direction they preferred by planting explosives in accordance with Newton laws, which would entail placing them on the east side to move the building west, on the south side to move it north, and so on. Indeed, it is the core columns that controlled the motion of the structure as a whole, where these explosives would be internal to the external columns but external to the core columns. What you describe would not have been difficult to arrange, however difficult it turns out to be for you to understand.

      More interesting is that the cut outs in the sides of the buildings have a cartoonish quality that is difficult to miss. I have explained before that Wile E. Coyote could not create outlines of the shape of his body passing through a boulder any more than two aluminum aircraft could create outlines of their shapes entering into a Twin Tower. Notice, in particular, that the image of the plane entering the South Tower (featured in “Seven Questions”), as the presumptive cause of such a cut out, is present yet its cut-out effects are not. On the North, check out “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, found at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621, and tell me what I explain there.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 15, 2011 at 9:10 pm

      You are an endless recycling machine, Anthony. You can’t handle the proofs that I have already provided. Go back to all of my responses to you and, if you don’t understand, read them again.

  5. ben  July 14, 2011 at 8:47 am

    “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” Friedrich Nietzsche

    No planes, space beams, video fakery are faulty arguments used to discredit and kookify 911 Truth.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 14, 2011 at 11:30 am

      Having an opinion is one thing. Having good reasons for it is another. I have presented many arguments for no planes having crashed in Shanksville or the Pentagon. I have also explained why the weight of the evidence supports video fakery in New York. While I have encouraged research on “space beams”, the use of nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids, that is because we do not yet know how it was done. If you have any grounds that would warrant regarding my arguments as “faulty”, present them. Denying a position is not the same thing as defeating it. As I see it, you are making claims that you cannot justify.

    • ben  July 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm

      Proponents of no-planes, video fakery, mini-nukes and space beams are not mistaken, they are lying.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Your ignorance is showing. For someone to be lying, they must (a) be making an assertion, (b) where that assertion is false, (c) they know that what they are asserting is false, but (d) they do it anyway with the intention of misleading their audience. You have done nothing to establish (b), much less (c) or (d). So I suggest you give this matter more thought and, if you have arguments that support your position, then present them. This kind of bashing is immature, unwarranted and irresponsible.

    • ben  July 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm

      With 3,000 Americans dead, espousing disinformation would be about the lowest an American man could stoop, wouldn’t you agree?

  6. Vote for Pedro  July 14, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Jim, you’ve raised some interesting questions, and defended your premise admirably. However, you have to concede some ground to the suspicions of those who accuse you of stalling progress by putting out hypotheses which will lead to nothing more than the dog chasing its tail for a while longer. This is the 10 year anniversary, and if we can’t unite behind a single irrefutable reason to open a new 9/11 investigation this year, I don’t see anything positive coming of all the more technical info.
    I think your most compelling point was in the second paragraph leading in to the article: George Bush’s infamous statement of having seen the first plane go into the tower. This requires a very simple line of questioning: A) Did you say that?; B) Was it true?; C) If you were somehow caused to see it before going into the classroom, how could you not have suspected prior knowledge as proven by cameras being in place?
    For the truth movement to gain traction (and I do think it’s now or never), we need a New Pearl Harbor in the info war. It’s got to be simple enough and dramatic enough that MSM can’t spin it, confuse it, or “And now here’s Tom with the weather!” it. Cognitive dissidance is a powerful foe. We need millions of people to become truthers. You all know what we’re up against; average Joes and Jo’s don’t WANT to open that can of worms, and if you present them with an alternative explanation, they sieze it.
    Look at the missed opportunity with Charlie Sheen. Do you think that even 1% of the population remembers his 20 minutes with the President? He is so marginalized that it doesn’t matter if his questions demanded answers or not. The truth movement has so many zealots doing remarkable work, but uncovering that exact means, or the real perpetrators, or the individual roles played, is not going to change a thing.
    It’s election season, it’s the 10th anniversary, the economy is in crisis, we are in X number of wars; the moment is now. Of all the evidence that I toss out there to the few friends who have humored me long enough to know that I’m probably right about this stuff, Bush’s indicting comments and behavior seems to be one thing that swings them emotionally into a moment of clarity. You can almost hear the wheels spinning as they look for an alternative explanation, but there is none. If he saw a plane hit while he was waiting outside the classroom, then someone knew it was going to happen. Whether Bush was in on it in advance is not even important at this point. From that starting point, the options trading, the dancing Israelis, the stand-down, the anti-physics of the official report, the efforts to block or stall or underfund and investigation all come into play.
    But nothing important happens until we get the “American Idol” crowd talking about it, and texting about it, and tweeting about it, and most importantly, VOTING about it.
    You do great work, Jim, but anything that muddies the water right now is not working in our favor.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 14, 2011 at 7:38 am

      You are talking about the politics of 9/11, while I am dealing with the science. My background is in the history and the philosophy of science, where I have published extensively on the nature of science and offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years. Many here are well-positioned to address the politics of 9/11, but very few the science. The movement has been conflicted over issues like these, where I am attempting to resolve them. Should I be successful in my efforts, then (a) we will all have a better understanding of what happened, (b) there will be many fewer and less intense conflicts between us, and (c) we will become more effective in advancing our cause.

      Both are important. When I organized and moderated the first conference for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society I founded, it was focused upon, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″. I also address the who and why of 9/11, moreover, in books like THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and public presentations and hundreds of radio and TV interviews, such as “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”,
      http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html Watch “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 I make a point of doing everything I can to explain the politics of 9/11 as well as the science. But the politics of 9/11 has to be grounded in responsible science, where I am well-positioned to deal with it.

      So, far from “muddying the water”, I am processing it to make it more pure and potable. The science of 9/11 also offers clues about the politics, because the sophisticated techniques that were employed on 9/11 to deceive and mislead the American people and the world not only shatters the official theory of 9/11 but also implicates those in the CIA, the military, the media, and the Mossad who were in the position to implement them. I cannot imagine more powerful proof of government complicity than the forms of fakery I am exposing. For the 9/11 Truth movement to be successful, it must be founded on the truth about 9/11, where scientific reasoning is our most reliable method for discovering that truth. Like others here, therefore, I am doing what I can–given my professional background and abilities–to advance our shared objectives and goals.

    • JD  July 14, 2011 at 10:47 pm

      Charlie Sheen subscribes to the Kosher 9/11 Truth movement which omits and excludes all of the major incriminating details of Israel’s involvement in 9/11. Sheen has certainly done some great work getting the message out, but he’s totally oblivious to the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is Israel. Recently, Sheen even hired Israeli military to be his personal body guards! Somebody needs to tip of him off. I wonder if he knows anything about the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11. Maybe he really doesn’t know and is totally blind. Anyways, check out Mike Delaney’s Youtube video below to learn more about this story.

      Charlie Sheen, 9/11, and Israel – Mike Delaney

      Also, if you ever run into anybody who still turns a blind eye to the indisputable evidence of controlled demolition, tell them this. If you’re so sure that fire is an efficient steel framed skyscraper destroyer then why don’t you go out and start your own company called Fire Demolition Inc. Just set fire to a couple floors, wait and hour or two, and then it will drop the building straight down into the path of greatest resistance at the speed of gravity. You could put all the regular demolition companies out of business!

      There have been over 100 large towering inferno fires that have occurred in steel framed high rise buildings all over the world and none of those steel framed buildings collapsed! No steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed completely due to fire in the entire history of civil engineering construction! This is because office fires and jet fuel CANNOT burn hot enough to melt and destroy steel! Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2800 degrees Fahrenheit and the fires in the World Trade Center couldn’t have been hotter than 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. You can leave your blue flame stove burner on all day long (blue is the hottest flame, orange is much cooler) and it will NOT melt or damage your steel frying pan, try it sometime and see for yourself. The ONLY buildings that have been reported to have collapsed due to fire were the three buildings that fell at free-fall speed just like controlled demolitions on 9/11. And these were not weak buildings, the WTC towers were over-engineered to support five times their weight. They were specifically designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into them and remain standing (see the Frank DeMartini Youtube video) But on 9/11 the buildings collapsed at the speed of gravity and buildings never do this, except when they are professionally demolished.

      I’m completely convinced with the technical evidence, naturally I’ve now moved on to the most important question of all, “who did it?” As Dr. Alan Sabrosky former Director of Studies at the US Army War College said, the Mossad did 9/11, it is 100% certain, period. I can already hear it coming, people will say Israel is our ally and they would never do something like that to us (Oh really? Have you ever heard of what they did to the USS Liberty?) The US and Israel both have a long history of false flag style attacks: Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the King David Hotel Bombing, the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty, etc etc. The most shocking truth is that the buildings were hit by Israeli controlled airplanes and demolished with Israeli explosives, this was made crystal clear with the videotaped confession of Larry Silverstein when he admitted on PBS back in 2002 that he’d ordered the demolition of WTC Building 7 “maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” Many 9/11 truthers are uneasy discussing Silverstein’s J-gaffe, it is too shocking for words. This Jewish/Israeli conspiracy obviously has much much more evidence (an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence) backing it up than the official conspiracy theory fairytale promoted by the government that 19 Arab hijackers with box-cutters pulled off 9/11. It was not done by Al Qaeda, which is an organization that doesn’t even exist (the term Al Qaeda is Arabic for “The Base” because it was the CIA’s base of operations in Afghanistan)

      Israel has their fingerprints all over 9/11 and this should be completely obvious to anyone who has studied 9/11. They staged 9/11 as a “false flag” operation to turn the United States military against their enemy in the Middle East (the Muslim Palestinians). Israel wants complete control of the entire Middle East, so they planted military grade explosives in the three World Trade Center towers, brought these buildings down in a controlled demolition, promoted the erroneous planes/office fires/pancake collapse theory in the Zionist controlled mainstream media, and basically tricked the United States into fighting their war for them. Why should one Israeli Jew have to die to protect Israel when they can just make the Christians and Muslims kill each other off? It all makes perfect sense. Even Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as saying that 9/11 was “very good” for Israel and that it will “generate sympathy for Israel, we are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” Larry “pull it” Silverstein is also a staunch Jewish Zionist and is best friends with Benjamin Netanyahu. The fact is most people who investigate 9/11 soon realize that it was 100% a Zionist crime. At every link of the chain Zionists were in charge, Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon, Michael Chertoff as head of the Justice Department, etc. etc. Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy bought the entire World Trade Center very cheap a few months before the attacks. Why? Because their buddy Louis Eisenberg was in charge of the New York Port Authority and he flogged it to them at a discount, this despite other companies having made higher bids. The reason the New York Port Authority wanted to sell the WTC was because it was filled with asbestos and would have cost billions of dollars to decontaminate, the bids to remove the asbestos exceeded the economic value of the buildings! Of course Silverstein and Lowy had no intention to decontaminate, they just demolished the whole lot, much cheaper. Silverstein insured each building against terrorism before 9/11 and after the attacks he was awarded a 3.5 billion dollar insurance payout!

      Then there’s the Dancing Israeli’s, but this post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to wait and discuss the Dancing Israeli’s in another post on here this weekend.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 15, 2011 at 7:51 am

      This is a very fine post, where I agree overwhelmingly with most of it. Alan Sabrosky has modified his position somewhat to acknowledge the role of the neo-cons, especially those in the Department of Defense, as having been in collusion with elements of the Israeli government and the Mossad. I think that is the right move, especially because, as I see it, the “stand down” of the US Air Force and the attack on the Pentagon itself could not have taken place without complicity at the highest levels of the American military, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So the claim that it was “100% an Israeli operation” does not appear to be defensible, when all of the evidence is taken into account.

      If I am wrong about this, I would be glad to be corrected, but it seems to me that the positions I outlined in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , and elaborated upon in “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html, are compatible with Alan Sabrosky’s most recent statements, “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/28/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/ and “Israel’s Hidden Faces”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/06/israels-hidden-faces-a-long-days-night-for-us-all/, both of which I greatly admire.

  7. Smitty  July 13, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Gordon Duff, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.

    But I have absolutely no respect for Jim Fetzer. The Zionist and Neoconservative connection to 9/11 is all anybody needs to know. Commercial airlines were used in the attacks. Secondary explosions, demolition, military shoot-down of Flight 93, this is obvious. Dwelling on it protects the perpetrators. Fetzer and his shills are going after a straw man and ignoring the guilty perpetrators. I know Mr. Duff doesn’t believe a 757 hit the Pentagon thanks to you people. I just hope he realizes that this missile/drone thing is bogus sooner rather than later. People like Fetzer and his supporters are either useful idiots or in on the scheme, poisoning the well.

    I’m more convinced that Fetzer&co are Ziocon-approved shills. Mr. Fetzer, Israel has no right to exist and Jews are Khazars and anti-Christs. You deserve the rockets fired upon you. Long live Hamas and Hezbollah. Checkmate

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 10:40 pm

      Smitty has his head where the sun does not shine. By attacking me on this basis, he reveals he doesn’t know what he is talking about. On who did it, check out my “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html Watch “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 I really dislike phonies and frauds who act as though they know the score when they haven’t a clue. I have already dismantled his arguments, so he attacks me. That is rather pathetic. I agree that one of us is a shill, but it ain’t me. Either the truth is too complex for him to understand or he is not searching for it. He’s a waste of time, either way.

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 10:59 pm

      You guys have to watch CIT’s interview with cab driver Lloyd England and look at the photos of his cab that was allegedly speared by a light pole hit by Flight 77 as it crossed the highway flying toward the Pentagon on 9/11. The CIT investigators determine that the cab/light pole scene had to have been staged because the witnesses saw the plane fly in from the North side. Lloyd England is caught lying by the CIT investigators and he indirectly admits that he was involved with “powerful people” in the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Lloyd England KNOWS who the perpetrators are, you have to watch this.

      Lloyd England and His Taxi Cab: The Eye of the Storm

  8. Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    In response to JD July 13, 2011 – 4:43 pm, who wrote:

    “Jim, consider the possibility that the planes in New York were actually beefed up remote controlled military aircraft disguised as commercial aircraft (with the United Airlines paint job, etc.)”, where you mention the structure beneath the plane that appears to be a remote control mechanism, which Boeing employees said, when contacted, that they could identify but were not allowed to discuss. One reason, I believe, is that it would have been possible to take control of planes so equipped from any hijackers!

    Now I agree that the plane shown in the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks’ videos has that feature. I therefore agree on that basis that it is not a standard Boeing 767. Nevertheless, the videos have been promoted as supporting the official account that Flight 175, a standard Boeing 767, hit the South Tower. So this is yet one more argument that video fakery was used on 9/11. THE 9/11 REPORT, for example, claims that:

    FLIGHT 11: “At 8:46:40, the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 flew into the upper portion of the North Tower, cutting through floors 93 to 99.” (page 285) Since American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER, which had registration number N334AA, this sentence falsely claims that the it was hit by a standard Boeing.

    FLIGHT 175: “At 9:03:11, the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 77th to 85th floors.” (page 293) Since United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222 with registration number N612UA, this sentence falsely alleges that the building was hit by a standard Boeing.

    Since the videos have been used to support that account, but the planes shown in the videos do not appear to be standard Boeing 767s, we know that the official account is false. We know that because of physical features in the case of Flight 175, such as the remote control pod you have mentioned, but also because the plane is flying at an impossible speed, makes an impossible entry, and passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, which is not physically possible.

    Now suppose that this was a military plane, which would make it one or another version of Anthony’s “special plane” hypothesis. While I doubt it very much, suppose that was possible to fly faster than a standard Boeing 767. It STILL could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground–which, of course, is also true of Flight 11. And it could not have collided with the building without its velocity (for most of its components) dropping to zero. It could not have passed its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air.

    I therefore conclude that, EVEN IF FLIGHT 175 WAS A “SPECIAL PLANE”, that cannot explain away the fact that it made an impossible entry into the building or that this massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete edifice posed no more resistance to its flight trajectory than air. Since we are witnessing impossible events, it is not possible that the film is authentic. Either the planes that were being recorded were faked (which is one way in which it could have been done) or the video was a fabrication (using CGIs or video compositing). Those appear to be the only reasonable alternative hypotheses. If CGIs or video compositing were not used, then the only available alternative appears to be that the planes themselves were fake.

    We have already ruled out the use of a real “special plane”, as I have explained. One kind of fake plane is a holographic projection. Those who know more than I about the state of technology in this area suggest that we have the capacity to deploy a realistic hologram that could be projected to fly at speeds faster than a standard Boeing 767, to enter a building in violation of Newton’s laws, and to pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. The more strongly we accept witness reports of seeing a plane hit the building, therefore, the more strongly the evidence supports the hologram hypothesis. If there is a viable alternative, then I would like to know.

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm

      I’m busy this week, so I don’t have time to get into this now, but I will respond with my counter-argument in a few days.

  9. zachary w  July 13, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    There are so many facts that have come to light in 2011. The likelihood is extremely high that mini nukes were placed at the based on WTC 1 and WTC 2 and their columns were laced with mini nukes so that they would simply melt into their foundations. Nanothermite was used on the exteriors. This explains so much of how they turned to dust in pyroclastic plumes, just like the remnants of a volcano. The same occurred to Building 7. Then for months at the base of the buildings, there were pools of toxic molten material that sickened so many first responders with radiation poisoning. Sadly, some of those people are no longer with us. The nuclear radiation was limited due to the low yield of the multiple mini nukes and nukes buried at the base. The strange damage done to cars and other vehicles occurred from multiple EMP pulses. Seismological readings correlate with nukes going off at the base.

    The Pentagon was most likely penetrated with a Russian Granit missile (the only type of device that could go Mach 4 and had the strength to penetrate granite. We need an international investigation with teeth. The Zionist hand in these operations was very strong and planned out to the nth degree. It was a classic military stand down operation. Anyone in the Air Force with knowledge knows this. Time to put the perpetrators on trial. The event was done so precisely to shock Americans and the world and give many people a collective case of a new form of PTSD.. Meanwhile, the orders to invade Afghanistan were sitting on George Bush’s desk days before. New Pearl Harbor? Not quite.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm

      You raise good questions. I am convinced that the Twin Towers could not have been blown into large fragments and millions of cubic yards of very fine dust without the use of some extraordinary source(s) of energy, which went far beyond what conventional explosives (with or without nanothermite) could have provided. I am for that reason open to the possibilities that mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), plasmoids, lasers, masers, or other forms of directed energy may have been used.

      There are significant differences between the modes of destruction of WTC-7, which appears to have been a classic controlled demolition (from the bottom up with a characteristic kink, where all of the floors fall at the same time at the approximate speed of free fall and a pile of debris about 12% of the original height of the building remains as debris. There is some odd fuming from one side of WTC-7, but, as Barry Jennings reported, there were explosions within the building during the early morning.

      The Twin Towers, by comparison, were demolished from the top down. All of the floors remained in place until their turn came to be “blown to kingdom come”, as Morgan Reynolds has phrased it. They also come down at the approximate speed of free fall, but when it was over, they had been destroyed below ground level, as Fr. Frank Morales, a first responder, explained to me during two interviews on my radio program at the time, which was call “The Dynamic Duo”. Now it’s “The Real Deal”.

      I am intrigued by the DEW hypothesis advanced by Judy Wood, but not quite convinced. I have been featuring Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high school physics, chemistry, and math instructor, going through the 43 points about the evidence that she outlines on pages 480-483 of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, which is a very good question. My interviews with Chuck–and there have been at least six two-hour discussions of her book, are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

      Chuck favors some combination of mini-nukes with thermite (not necessarily nanothermite) and has been doing a good job of defending that combination, even if, once again, I am not yet convinced. I interviewed Dimitri Khalezov on Friday, January 21, 2011, about his theory of 150kt nukes having been used to destroy each of the three towers, but they would have had similar patterns of destruction and the use of nukes on the Twin Towers would have shattered the bathtub, which convinced me that he is wrong. But some variation on the mini-nuke theory might fare better.

      For those who are unaware, the Twin Towers were built within a foundational wall–a kind of dike to keep out Hudson River water–that, had it been breached, would have allowed water to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, and flood the subway and PATH train tunnels. That did not happen, which appears to be the reason for using a novel form of demolition from the top down–to insure no significant mass caused it to shatter–a very considerate act by those “terrorists”.

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm

      The big problem with Dimitri Khalezov’s nuke only theory is the top down demolition sequence that we all saw in the many videos of the twin tower’s collapse. The explosion did NOT initially blow out the base of the building which is what would’ve happened if a nuke had gone off in the basement. The explosions started high up in the towers near the plane impacts and the demolition wave went down building, not up from the base of the building. A nuke in the basement would’ve blown out the base of the towers first, but this clearly did not happen. Also, I highly doubt that there were mini nukes placed above ground in the upper floors of the towers, because mini nukes create a very bright flash when they go off, and these bright flashes would’ve been visible to the many cameras that were filming the tower’s collapse. Dimitri has to concede that there were other explosives used besides the nuke in the basement. Take a look at these videos,


      They show dozens of firefighters standing at the base of the towers right before the collapse started. They begin to hear explosions, then they look up and see the TOP DOWN demolition sequence being initiated. These explosions started very high in the building and you can clearly see the explosions moving DOWN the building. A nuke in the basement would NOT have caused the initial explosions we all saw very high in towers near the plane impacts when the buildings started to come down. A nuke at the bottom of the towers would have completely obliterated the base of the towers causing them to topple over. Therefore, there had to have been other explosives used that were placed high up in the buildings.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm

      These are excellent points, JD. Except they would have shattered the bathtub. You are obviously a very smart guy. So face up to the fact that your favored theory (of remotely controlled planes) was mistaken. At least you are thinking things through. But I have explained why you are wrong. Simply accept it and move on. Many thanks!

    • ronisrael  August 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Dear Prof’ Fetzer.

      I have admired you for facing the SNT nonesense, your fantastic scholarly work exposing NP as the truth, and for interviewing Khalezov on your show (I was the one who posted it on youtube).

      But may I suggest you have a second look at his work.

      The bathtub was indeed damaged

      And one very simple demonstartion – proves it was not mini nukes detonating down the tower

      And this is only a 0.1 kiloton single nuke explosion

      Where was that boom (at least 1 mini nuke) in the wtc demolition ?
      Where was that huge light flash?
      Where was that ball of fire?

      not to mention no EMP .

      All who watched his entire presentation – will know perfectly well why WTC 7 fell down differently to WTC 1 &2 – even though same method was used.

    • ronisrael  August 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      This a good summery in 7 points why Khalezov explanation of WTC demolition fits the bill :


      Further more Khalezov has first hand knowledge of two fundamental realities :
      1. As an Officer he had knowledge that there were underground nukes placed under the towers in advance (as part of the 1970s USSR-USA nuclear disclosure treaties) .
      2. he was approached by ex(?) Mossad Mike Harri in Thailand for that reason exactly – Harari wanted to know if the Russians are aware that these devises are indeed under the towers

      Khalezov has photos of Harri and court cases numbers sued by US government against Harari

      In short:
      The apparent big confusion in the 911 gets settled with Khalezov testimony :
      The initial attack was not initiated by the Us government.
      but the detonation of the nukes and the whole cover up is the US governments work

  10. Pantagruella  July 13, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    It’s too late to bring anyone to justice. The New York police should have investigated the crash site but they chose not to. Every government agency including the armed forces was complicit in what happened. Ordinary people have no power whatsoever to bring this old crime to light. The time to speak up is past.

    If you had say, five hundred veterans, ready to work together, that would be something. But I doubt you could get fifty veterans to work together on 9/11.

  11. Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 7:29 am

    My best guess is because it would have revealed that the flying something was not a Boeing 767. If you view the first ten minutes of my London symposium presentation, “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, you will see what a Boeing 767 should have looked like compared to what we see. My presentation–as well as those of Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon–is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ and also on my personal blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/08/debunking-war-on-terror-symposium.html It’s a good question.

  12. peter  July 13, 2011 at 4:55 am

    -“The two planes that crashed into the WTC towers were remote controlled with equipment from Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation”.

    JD you dont know that – that is pure supposition even if its reasonable supposition – as to amateur videos, how do we know that they were amateur videos and did all videos or even some show the planes flying into the towers – how could these amateurs be filming such as the event was a surprise? the videos that show actual jets going into the towers would need to be suspect – as Lawson says,”how come the Frenchie couldnt focus in and get sharp pictures”? Was he there or was he not there and what was he waiting for with the camera pointing in the right direction – I too was skeptic about no planes but the evidence is getting considerably strong and conclusive. It is abundantly clear that there was no aircraft of the size a 767 that hit the pentagon…the dynamics are not there…the same with flt77 that was not a crash site…ALL crash sites yield copious amounts of wreckage that is identifiable and in all cases tailplanes are the most visual…they shear off under impacts.

    Establishing what didnt happen is the other half of that which did happen. Jim Fetzer has produced observable evidence.

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm

      There’s ample photographic and video evidence to back up my statement that the planes were remote controlled by Dov Zakheim’s Flight Termination System. I talked about this in my post to Jim Fetzer above, read it, I’ve copied and pasted it below,

      Jim, consider the possibility that the planes in New York were actually beefed up remote controlled military aircraft disguised as commercial aircraft (with the United Airlines paintjob, etc.) This is why they were able to execute those difficult maneuvers at very high speeds. But, the conspirators messed up one major detail on flight 175 which completely gave them away, the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 that you can see in all of the many videos and photographs. This object looks very similar to Dov Zakheim’s remote control Flight Termination System found on military aircraft. Those photographs and videos of the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 are MAJOR evidence implicating Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation. Watch the video in my post below titled “9/11 Suspects – Dov Zakheim – Remote Controlled Airplanes” In the video, Maj Glen MacDonald states “One of the things that jumped out at me when I looked at the footage of flight 175 as it went into the World Trade Center is it appeared to me that there was something on the under fuselage of that aircraft that did not belong there, at least not with a commercial airliner. Now, I’ll tell you where I have seen attachments that look like that, on military aircraft. So the question you have to answer now is was that a commercial airliner that hit the World Trade Center, or possibly was it an aircraft that looked very similar but was a military type airplane.”

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 10:53 pm

      Egad, JD! You can’t simply ignore my rebuttal to your argument and claim to be rational in this exchange. How many times to I have to point out that NO REAL PLANE could perform these feats? Do I really have to explain it all over again? You obviously have a pet theory, which you cherish, and you are dismayed at the prospect that you might be wrong and have to give it up. But you are becoming completely unreasonable, JD! Just give it up!

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm

      Jim I have a really good counter-argument to present to you about the plane impacts, but I’m busy this week, I’ll find time in a few days to write it up with links and citations.

  13. JD  July 13, 2011 at 4:26 am

    A much more plausible explanation is that the planes were remote controlled. I’ve done a lot of research on this, here’s the proof below,

    9/11 Suspects – Dov Zakheim: Pentagon Comptroller, Remote Controlled Airplanes

    Dov Zakheim: 9/11 Mastermind

    Dov Zakheim and 9/11, From Freedom of Information Act Request

    From the above artice, “Ok folks, this is where it gets good. What most people don’t know is that most commercial jetliners are already capable of flying and landing themselves. Chances are you’ve already been on a plane that was on auto-pilot when you landed. You enter flight path and it works with GPS. It’s very accurate, and the GPS could be programmed to hit a target like the towers. It becomes much more accurate if a homing beacon is installed as a bullseye. There is also well-known technology which allows ground controllers to seize a plane’s controls from a hijacker and to land it remotely. It is based on off-the-shelf technology which you now see hundreds of times a day in the skies of Afghanistan, in unmanned drones. The pilot is actually sitting in an air-conditioned trailer on Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. The largest unmanned jet flying is the Global Hawk, about the size of a Lear Jet.”

    Donald Rumsfeld – 2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing from the Pentagon 1 DAY Before 9/11

    Following Zakheim and Pentagon Trillions to Israel and 9/11

    Cheney Said What? Bin Laden not involved with 9/11?!?!

    The Long Kiss Goodnight movie scene – 9/11 plot revealed in 1996

    Fox’s “The Lone Gunmen” TV Show Predicts 9/11 Six Months Before It Happened

    The story in The Lone Gunmen episode above may sound far-fetched but this remote control commercial airliner technology has actually existed for several decades, it existed decades before the 9/11 attacks. The guidance system on the market that best meets the requirements of guiding a multiple plane attack from a single source is provided by the defense contracting company System Planning Corporation, where Rabbi Dov Zakheim is Chief Executive Officer. Zakheim is on record as having “an abiding commitment to the People and the State of Israel.” He is a dual citizen of the US and Israel. Zakheim was also in charge at the Pentagon as the comptroller when Donald Rumsfeld announced on the 10th of September 2001, one day before the attacks, that $2.3 trillion dollars had disappeared from the Pentagon’s accounting books, and the area of the Pentagon that was destroyed on 9/11 contained all of the accounting records of this missing money! So Rumsfeld admits to losing 2.3 trillion dollars, then this story is completely forgotten and never mentioned again after the attacks the next day. The office of the Resource Services Washington in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack and they were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. Also it is possible that the planes on 9/11 didn’t have any pilots. The evidence is overwhelming. The passengers on flight 93 discovered this and there is evidence on the internet that confirms this. The QRS11 Gyro Chip was installed in all Boeings prior to 9/11 and it allows ground control of a Boeing commercial jet in the event of a hijacking. A ground station can take control of the plane, lock out the pilot and land the plane safely. The NASA Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration had numerous taxis, flight approaches and flight controls, and that was way back in 1984. As you can see, just like Larry “pull it” Silverstein, Dov Zakheim is up to his neck in circumstantial evidence. These facts presented in the videos below should be carefully examined in any new and independent investigation into what actually took place on September 11, 2001.

    NASA/Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration

    Christopher Bollyn – Solving 9/11: The Deception that Changed the World. A must read. He is one of the best 9/11 investigators.

    9/11 Solved In 2 Minutes – Mike Delaney

    Missing Links: The Definitive Truth About 9/11 – Mike Delaney’s underground classic, delves into Jewish terrorism and 9/11
    Part 1
    Part 2

    Charlie Sheen, 9/11, and Israel – Mike Delaney

    The Dancing Israelis Who Were Arrested on 9/11

    The Dancing Israelis – News Clip Footage – Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11

    “We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event”

    Michael Chertoff’s cousin Benjamin Chertoff was the head researcher who put together the 9/11 truth hit piece for Popular Mechanics Magazine back in 2006. Both of them are dual citizens for the United States and Israel, but you can’t be loyal to one country while at the same time be loyal to a foreign government, you can’t have it both ways. There’s a word for that, it’s called treason. “Shirt Off” wrote the deceptively misnamed Patriot Act which took away many of our constitutional rights, his family is closely connected to the Mossad and he was somehow able to acquire a high position in our government (as the director of homeland security) and now he has a huge financial stake in the companies selling the airport body scanners! He let all the Israelis who were arrested on 9/11 go quietly back to Israel on ‘minor visa violations’? Michael Chertoff’s family was not only involved in the Bolshevik Revolution that killed over 40 million Russian Christians, but some other very close family members like his sister and Rabbi uncles helped found Israel as a nation.

    Fox News Carl Cameron Report on Israeli 9/11 Links – November 2001

    How Khazarian Ashkenazi “Jews” Invented Modern Terrorism Before 9/11

    Brother Nathanael Kapner: 9/11’s Unanswered Questions

    Original Savage Chick: Those Evil Mooslims (Banned Video, This Will Be Taken Down Soon)

    History They Don’t Teach You in School Part 1

    History They Don’t Teach Part 2 – Jewish Bolshevism

    There was 37,000 gallons of jet fuel on flight 93, but they found no jet fuel on the ground at the crash site. According to the Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agency, none of the 37,000 gallons of jet fuel or any part of it, in any form, was found at the supposed crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Flight 93 was shot down. If it had landed the cover-up would have been found out and they couldn’t let that happen. According to the FBI evidence in the Moussaoui trial, cell phone calls were impossible. Barbara Olsen’s call never connected. The entire story rests on several cell phone calls, Beamers and Olsens. But these cell phone calls were impossible at that time in 2001, cell phone calling capability wasn’t developed for high altitude commercial airliners until years later.

    Flight 93 – Evidence On The Ground

    Proof that 9/11 flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville

    Donald Rumsfeld says flight 93 was shot down

    9/11: The Top Scientific Arguments

    AE 9/11 Truth: Tom Sullivan – Explosives Loader Technician

    911: NIST Engineer John Gross Denies WTC Molten Steel

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 6:25 am

      Plausibility is a matter of psychology and of what we find believable given our background, the evidence at our disposal, and our reasoning ability. If this were a question of plausibility, I would agree with you. I certainly found the hypothesis of remote control far more plausible than that video fakery occurred and that no Boeing 767s may have crashed in New York, even if Boeing 757s had not crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville, too. This is not a question of plausibility but of scientific reasoning based upon logic using (what is known as) inference to the best explanation when it is applied to the available evidence, where these videos show the occurrence of events that violate laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics.

      The measure of empirical support for an hypothesis h given evidence e is equal to the probability of e if h were true. In other words, suppose the hypothesis were true. What is the probability of the evidence based on that assumption? Compare the video fakery hypothesis with the real plane hypothesis, given the impossible speed, impossible entry, and so forth. If the planes were real, the probability that they could fly faster than a real plane (make an impossible entry into the building, and so forth), would be zero, since impossible events cannot occur. If the planes were fake, however, the probability that they could fly faster than a real plane (make an impossible entry, and so forth) is far greater than zero.

      Consider a simple case. Police discover a body, which has some bruising around the neck, but no bullet holes or knife wounds. The probability that the victim was shot or stabbed, given the evidence is zero, while the probability that he was strangled, given the evidence, is clearly greater than zero. It is not therefore certain, however, since additional investigation–during an autopsy examination, for example–might turn up evidence that, while there were abrasions on the victim’s neck, the actual cause of death was poisoning, where the effects were not apparent from external observation but required an internal examination. Scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available evidence, which can change.

      Strictly speaking, this measure of support is known as the likelihood of hypothesis h, given evidence e, where an hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to an hypothesis with lower likelihood; and, when the evidence has “settled down” and points in the same direction, the hypothesis with the highest likelihood is also acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Which means that, even in science, the best supported hypothesis is not always true, since new alternatives and new evidence may require revising our prior conclusions, accepting hypotheses we previously rejected and rejecting ones we previously accepted, while others may have to remain in suspense. And that is the situation here.

      Were I considering only the evidence that DJ has cited, I would be inclined to agree with him that the remote control hypothesis has the highest likelihood. But when we take a closer look and discover that these videos include events whose occurrence would violate laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics, we have to recalculate the probabilities and likelihoods, where the situation is no longer the same. So conclusions that were reasonable BEFORE the discovery of new evidence of the kind that I have been emphasizing here may no longer remain reasonable AFTER that new evidence is taken into consideration, which is the case here. So I hope that DJ will reconsider given these considerations.

  14. JD  July 13, 2011 at 3:29 am

    The crashes of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Shanksville were most likely faked, but the two planes that hit the World Trade Center? Those planes were real! It would have been much too difficult to fake that many videos, including all the amateur videos that captured the second plane impact. What conspirator would presume that everyone with a video camera in New York wouldn’t be pointing it at WTC 1 and 2 once the first plane impact happened? To suggest that video fakery was used is such pure nonsense. Why would they devise such a dumb strategy. In a city of 8 million people, there would easily be a hundred videos of a second explosion with no plane whatsoever appear online (if this BS about no planes were true), because people who trained cameras on the first burning building would be compelled to put the second explosion online should it mysteriously not involve a plane as the “video fakery media” proclaimed. The two planes that crashed into the WTC towers were remote controlled with equipment from Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 5:15 am

      That video fakery occurred is not a speculation but a conclusion that follows from the discovery that the videos show us physically impossible events: an impossible speed (confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth); an impossible entry (which violates Newton’s laws of motion); and a plane that passes into a 500,000 ton steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. I would agree that remote controlled aircraft is the most plausible alternative explanation, but it won’t do for the reason that even remotely controlled airplanes are real airplanes and could not have performed these feats. Bear in mind that laws of aerodynamics, of engineering, and of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Remote control is a means for controlling the flight of an aircraft. It does not turn a real plane into a superplane.

      Think about the comparison with super heroes, who have capabilities no real human possesses: Superman and Spiderman are good examples, where Batman is not quite as striking, since his special abilities are more dependent on his equipment than on bona fide superpowers. Surely when Superman flies through the air or Spiderman swoops through the city, you do not mistake what they are doing for the actual events of actual persons. So why are you willing to attribute to real planes capabilities that no real plane can possess? If a real plane could fly at 560 mph at 700-1,000′ altitude, then you might have a point in that regard. But Pilots for 9/11 Truth has studied the question and concluded that a Boeing 767 could not fly that fast at that altitude, would be unmanageable in flight and would physically come apart. Not even the best pilot, autopilot, or remote control could overcome those problems.

      After all I have provided here about the structure of the Twin Towers, I would hope it would be obvious that for aluminum airplanes to enter those buildings without crumpling–where their velocities would drop to zero, their wings and tails would break off and bodies, seats, and luggage would fall to the ground, while their engines and some parts would pass into those buildings, but most would have not (where the windows were only 18″ wide and set between support columns that were one meter apart)–but that did not happen. Look at the diagram I have provided of Flight 175 intersecting with eight (8) massive floors, each of which consisted of a steel truss connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete. At 208’x208′, each floor represented about an acre of concrete, where Flight 11 would have intersected with seven (7). Those would have posed enormous horizontal resistance. We know the damage that tiny birds do to airplanes in flight. Imagine what would happen to one of these planes were it to collide with just one of those floors suspended in space in the course of normal flight!

      I am not thrilled psychologically with the conclusion that these videos are displaying impossible events, where I resisted even considering the question for at least a year and a half because I thought it was preposterous. But that conclusion is reinforced by the cut-outs on the sides of the buildings, which I have shown in the case of Flight 11. Because parts would have broken off–especially most of the wings–it is a fantasy to suppose that the damage to the sides of the buildings would have resembled the outline of the planes so perfectly. Think of those Roadrunner cartoons of our youth–of mine, at least, if not of yours–where Wile E. Coyote runs through a boulder, for example, and leaves a perfect cut-out of his shape. Those cartoons were amusing, not because they depicted possible events, but because what they depicted was impossible!

      These videos are more serious, needless to add, but the events they depict are not therefore any more possible than what we see in those Roadrunner cartoons. I know you have given this question a lot of thought, but there is a precedence in the weight of evidence. Any video or film that shows impossible events–from Superman to Wile E. Coyote–has to have been faked in one way or another. Similarly for these of Flights 11 and 175, which also show impossible events, have to have been faked in one way or another. Although it is counterintuitive and difficult to accept psychologically, the planes in those images cannot have been real Boeing 767s. And the number of videos that show impossible events does not make those events possible. One way or another, both videos were faked.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 13, 2011 at 1:48 pm

      Anthony should know better by now, since I have explained it to him multiple times, but in order to commit a lie, you must (a) be making an assertion, (b) which is false, (c) where you know it is false, yet (d) you do so anyway in an effort to mislead your audience. Since (b), (c), and (d)–or at least (c) and (d), since he wants to assert (b)–are not true of me, Anthony is simply committing a semantic blunder in his ongoing efforts to smear me. I will illustrate here by addressing the three or four most important issues.

      (1) “… but we have footage of agents in FBI vests unloading it from a van” is supposed to be a “bald faced lie”. But Jack took those frames from FOX News footage, so the footage obviously exists. They are moving something heavy from the van and they are wearing FBI vests. Since the engine component remained at that location later in the day, it cannot be a “pick up” but has to be a “delivery”. I can’t imaging a reasonable person disputing this. But then, as should be clear by now, Anthony is not a reasonable man.

      (2) He acknowledges that, “it will be seen that the engine almost certainly did not come from a United Airlines Boeing 767″, which, of course, supports my claim. It did not come from a Boeing 767. It was also found under an undamaged scaffolding on a sidewalk that showed no signs of damage from being hit by a heavy object at high speed. Even a small child could figure this out. Apparently, unless we were there filming while it was being done, he would not be convinced. But FOX News WAS there, and he is STILL not convinced!

      (3) He also asserts, “which is not the same thing as stating that it did not come from a 767, as you have done”. But OBVIOUSLY I was talking about a standard Boeing 767, which is what we have been told by our government. As Anthony does not seem to grasp, if it was anything else than A STANDARD BOEING 767, then we are dealing with VIDEO FAKERY, because the video has been presented AS IF IT WERE a standard Boeing 767. And that is one form of video fakery.

      (4) Let me also observe that, as I have repeatedly pointed out, NO 767, STANDARD OR NOT, could pass through its own length into this massive steel and concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air. That is an obvious absurdity. So Anthony only gains the least degree of plausibility for his fantastic claims by ignoring the proof I have presented of video fakery. And nothing that he has to say about a “special plane” can change that.

    • JD  July 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      Jim, consider the possibility that the planes in New York were actually beefed up remote controlled military aircraft disguised as commercial aircraft (with the United Airlines paintjob, etc.) This is why they were able to execute those difficult maneuvers at very high speeds. But, the conspirators messed up one major detail on flight 175 which completely gave them away, the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 that you can see in all of the many videos and photographs. This object looks very similar to Dov Zakheim’s remote control Flight Termination System found on military aircraft. Those photographs and videos of the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 are MAJOR evidence implicating Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation. Watch the video in my post below titled “9/11 Suspects – Dov Zakheim – Remote Controlled Airplanes” In the video, Maj Glen MacDonald states “One of the things that jumped out at me when I looked at the footage of flight 175 as it went into the World Trade Center is it appeared to me that there was something on the under fuselage of that aircraft that did not belong there, at least not with a commercial airliner. Now, I’ll tell you where I have seen attachments that look like that, on military aircraft. So the question you have to answer now is was that a commercial airliner that hit the World Trade Center, or possibly was it an aircraft that looked very similar but was a military type airplane.”

  15. Charlotte NC Bill  July 12, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Of course fm a mile away that could have been a missile ( it was )….no wreckage fm a 767 but plenty of planted “witnesses”….And some real witnesses…this false flag is going to continue to unravel..

  16. Charlotte NC Bill  July 12, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    I’m more hopeful all the time…Judging by the comments a lot of people know what’s up….I’ve accepted the fact that many of the people who still support the ridiculous and mendacious official version of 9-11 are consciously protecting the actual perpetrators ( Mossad and their assets in country )…The Muslims didn’t plant the thermite/RDX ( or even more ) in the WTC complex…didn’t make Flt 77 disappear ( it’s not our job to explain what really happened to flt 77, just to show that it obviouly didn’t hit the Pentagon..) A Steve Patterson who lived in Pentagon City sd “it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington Nat Cemetary and headed for the Pentagon…the plane which appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people…” That was fm the Washington Post…

  17. Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Truthman, thanks for this post. I have done that long since. On 15 April 2008, for example, on the grass of the Capitol itself during a Ron Paul “Freedom Rally”, I explained that 9/11 was motivated by oil, Israel, and ideology, where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Pearle and others are identified by name and where I call upon those with dual citizenship to resign from office, since we cannot know that their loyalty to the United States is not outweighed by their loyalty to the other country. It appeared in OpEdNews, but an interesting illustrated version also appears in americafirstbooks.com, at http://tinyurl.com/45ltba A subsequent article in OpEdNews reinforced my position about all of this, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html Since these were published on 22 April 2008 and on 17 June 2009, respectively, I cannot be tailoring my views for this audience.

    I do a large number of intereviews and typically rattle off those names and others, including Gen. Richard Myers, Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein–with a little help from their friends in the Mossad! Another way to evaluate my position is by watching the presentation I gave during the symposium, “Debunking the War on Terror”, which I organized in London on 14 July 2010 with Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon, and Ken O’Keefe, the hero of the Freedom Flotilla, who served as our master of ceremonies. You can find our presentations–where mine is entitled, “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”–at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 but also at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/08/debunking-war-on-terror-symposium.html So check ‘em out and tell me whether or not I have a clean bill of health based upon publications and presentations spanning 2008-10. And I don’t mind your asking! I am very proud to be here and appreciate VT!

  18. Rehmat  July 12, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Some of the ones’ who did 9/11 were saved by the devil.


  19. Savyindallas  July 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    It’s hard for anyone to ascertain exact details of what happened, when the government has been so meticulous about concerning everything up and suppressing the evidence. What we do know for sure is that 911 was an inside job, the Mossad, neocons and traitors within our government and CIA were involved – the mainstream media has clearly been reigned in and restrained from reporting the truth -and our politicians and just about everyone else with something to lose are petrified to even discuss the possibility of an insider job. The Republic is dead – unless we can somehow awaken the american sheeple from their slumber -from their comfort of the matrix.

  20. Rehmat  July 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    I am sick of people who keep on reminding their fellow Americans that 9/11 was an inside job – while keep on electing the same Ziocon gangster wh pulled the 9/11. People has to realize that the damage is done. Muslims have been slaughtered in millions; tens of millions of other Muslims’ lives have destroyed; several Muslim countries have been occupied by the Anti-Christs; one is being under attack for the last four months and several more are beng threatened every day for the next Jewish Purim.

    Muslims have become the modern day Jews and communists. So tell me, please, what is use of showing your remorse now!

    • Savyindallas  July 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm

      Listen [friend] -911 truthers didn’t elect Neocons -or Neolibs like Obama. so go take your venomous insults somewhere else.

    • Rehmat  July 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm

      Listen [friend] – tell me who voted for Obama and 450 US lawmakers – Iranians or Lebanes?

      I have never met a professional Israeli filth being insulted.

  21. min egan  July 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Great piece prof. Do you think the public is ready to consider that 9/11 NY was actually nothing more than the demolition of two empty white elephants, some ancillary buildings and a modern skyscraper holding vital evidence of several major corporate crimes, with minimal casualties.

  22. Gary Walker  July 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm


    I also thought that the “no planers” were no brainers, but I have changed my opinion since reading what Jim Fetzer has observed. I also listened to Jim on Keven Barret’s radio program. I think that all avenues of investigation should be followed. If they lead to a dead end, then discard them. What Jim has pointed out seems very plausible to me. Keep on truckin.


  23. Ken Rechtstein  July 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Regarding 9/11, the most important issue to be addressed is not “how they did it” but “Who did it” and make the whole gang accountable for such a horrendous crime and its subsequent consequences, i.e. invasion-destruction of Afghanistan-Iraq, millions of innocent people slain and maimed for life.

    Anything else is diversion. Once again, what we need is a STRATEGY to make those men and women responsible for the slaughter accountable and a good starting point to look is the PNAC GANG.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      According to your reasoning, establishing that a crime was committed is a “diversion”, which reveals the indefensibility of your position. We have to establish what was done and how it was done to be in the position to pursue and prosecute those who were responsible. I agree–and have argued as much in several articles, including “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”–that PNAC partisans were involved, but that does not obviate the obligation to establish what and how as we pursue who and why. So it is clearly false that “anything else is diversion”. You are putting the cart before the horse, logically speaking.

  24. Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 8:32 am


    Read related story
    ‘I’m not dead’: Social Security agency makes grave mistake for thousands

    WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans.

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said her staff started making inquiries after the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected by Scripps Howard News Service. The file is a public record intended to protect families of the deceased from identity theft and other types of fraud.

    “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said. “A sampling of those names did not yield any matches in the DMF and confirms their apparent absence.”

    She said her staff has contacted the Social Security Administration, the New York State Department of Health and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, only to receive “conflicting answers as to why there is a lack of reporting on this matter.”

    So Maloney is asking Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and the public health commissioners for the state of New York and New York City, jointly, to account for the reporting error.

    “Would you explain why individuals killed on 9/11 would be missing from the DMF?” Maloney asked in her letters.

    __ Contact reporter Thomas Hargrove at hargrovet@shns.com.

  25. Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 8:18 am

    An excellent discussion of why they used video fakery instead of real planes,
    which included making sure that the planes would actually hit the towers and
    enter them in order to create the illusion that powerful explosions actually took
    place INSIDE THE BUILDINGS which could be used to explain their “collapse”:

    In addition, they had to be precisely timed to correspond to the explosions in the
    subbasements that Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong confirmed in “Seismic Proof:
    9/11 was an inside job”, so they could appeal to “falling jet fuel” through elevator
    shafts to account for them, even though their explanation had no basis in reality:

  26. Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Smitty also argues for “compression artifacts” as explaining the disappearance of a Boeing 767 into a massive steel-and-concrete building. But that is being highly selective about the evidence, since Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the impossible speed, the plane should have gone to zero velocity, where most of its fuselage should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. None of that happened. And anyone can use a frame-by-frame advance to verify that the plane passes though its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is the argument that ultimately convinced me–and it involves no compression artifacts.

    I find it interesting that you want to preserve the illusion of a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon, when there is no credible evidence to support it and a mountain that disproves it, and that you want to discount the multiple indications of video fakery in the Hezarkhani and Evan Fairbanks videos, both of which can be used to verify the equal-frames-into-the-building-and-in-air proof, which I regard as conclusive. (John Lear has also observed that there are no stroble lights in evidence, even though a commercial carrier is required to have them.) So there is nothing phony about the argument for fakery of one kind or another.

    My take is that we are such a visually-oriented society that if the public were to discover that video fakery and other forms of fakery were used on 9/11–especially that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, which, after all, is the command center for the US military, but including the Naudet and Hezarkhani footage–that the case for governmental complicity would become widely understood. So, far from being a distraction from (what you regard as) the real issue–who was responsible–proof of duplicity of these kinds seems to me to have the greatest potential to awaken the public to the realization it has been played for saps using 9/11.

  27. Smitty  July 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Jim, that flash isn’t odd at all. It also happens when the plane hits WTC2 and if you watch closely it also happens in the Pentagon surveillance footage (although that footage is pretty bad and choppy).

    Again, you are ignoring the real issue here. The Israel connection. The Van stopped at the George Washington Bridge full of explosives and Israelis. The Dancing Israelis with a van that had box cutters, traces of explosions, maps of NYC, and Israelis documenting the event (and blamed Palestinians upon arrest). The moving company they worked for registered to Dominick Suter who was on the terrorist list with other 9/11 conspirators until at least 2003 (and quite possibly is still on it). He fled to Israel on 9/12 abandoning the business.

    The flash is a natural phenomena that occurs with aluminum and can even be seen with bullets. The kinetic energy manifests itself as a bright flash of light. This has been thoroughly debunked over the past 9 years.

    Jules Naudet being making a film involving firefighters and being in perfect position on the other hand. That is a very good question. Remember, there are no coincidences. Not like we had on 9/11

    The video and photo comparison though, that’s not very good. The video was made on 480i NTSC miniDV and has been compressed further introducing additional artifacts. There are 9/11 videos which show the planes “disappearing” completely disregarding the fact that this is the result of compression artifacts. The hole on the tower is clearly a 757.

    I still disagree with any of the so called impossibilities regarding the planes hitting the towers. If you want to suspend reality, dismiss a ton of evidence, and some how indicate a huge media conspiracy with no whistle-blowers (keeping in mind human beings can’t keep secrets to save their lives), then you can continue preaching this narrative if you believe in it. But I am offended because real truth seekers want to be taken seriously and this just makes us look bad. It is Poisoning the well. It takes away from the real perpetrators with real evidence against them – the Israelis and the neocons/Zionists.

    The no plane stuff is fringe and we believe it is Zionist-created propaganda meant to hide the real perpetrators and discredit real truth-seekers. The South Tower was hit on the corner and the nose of the plane exits the building. It encountered mostly hollow office space. The fuel is contained in the wings. There is nothing anomalous about this.

    Flight 93 was shot down and the ‘official’ photo is an obvious fake and has a huge story behind it to prove it. We know this, but it’s not important. Our government only owns up to shooting down civilian planes when they aren’t ours (like they did in Iran)

    That FAA registry data doesn’t prove anything. What is proof is the official flight manifests released that do not have the official hijackers on board, which I am glad you agree with. We’re all aware that the phone calls were faked. Despite the impossibility back in 2001, they just don’t sound right. A flight attending not freaking out until the last second and nobody in the background screaming? LOL. The government suppressed evidence from the incident and didn’t follow normal investigations because there were secondary explosions.

    Israeli security was the reason why the aircraft didn’t follow the rules. ALL the airports were staffed by an Israeli company. Which brings me back to real concerns – the Israel involvement.

    Building 7 is an anomaly. Flight 93 is also an anomoly to a lesser degree. Then we have secondary explosiions at the WTC and the Pentagon with eyewitness testimony and vans/cars to point in that direction. We also have impossilbe explanations for the WTC collapse. But the Pentagon missile and the no plane stuff, that’s just bogus disinformation. You might as well say that HAARP and aliens were involved. It doesn’t help. It hides the real criminals

    Those criminals are Israelis. Zionist Israelis and their neocon conspirators who worked in the Department of Defense during the Bush administration. Watch Ryan Dawson’s ‘War by Deception’ where he gives actual names of the guilty. These are the people who did 9/11 and they are walking freely among us when they should be behind bars. Focusing on disinfo is counter productive. The Israeli connection is real. People might want to believe that Israel is our friend (LOL!) or that no planes, lizards, and HAARP are more interesting (they are, but they aren’t true), but if you want to expose the truth you have to examine real facts. Many of us have done this. They point to a shadow government led by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and their buddies in Tel Aviv along with the Mossad and some CIA Zionist shills.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 11, 2011 at 10:23 pm

      Smitty, the evidence that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is abundant and compelling. In addition to the points I made in “Seven Questions”, you can find others at “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, which includes a photo of the hit point on the ground floor. There is a chain link fence, two large spools of cable, two cars, and unbroken windows beside and above the 10′ high by 16-17′ wide hole. But there is no massive pile of debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage. Not even the massive engines were recovered. A civilian employee, April Gallop, even walked out that hole, looked around and observed no indications that any plane had hit there. I assume you don’t know that Pilots for 9/11 Truth studied black box data provided by the NTSB and found that it corresponded to a plane with an entirely different approach, which was 300′ in the air (and too high to hit any lampposts) and, at one second from impact, was 100′ above the building, which corresponds to the report from the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, who was there and saw the plane fly toward the building but then swerve over it. Plus CIT has found many witnesses who saw the plane approach NORTH of the Citgo station, while the official account would have required it to have come in SOUTH of the same station. The evidence is so powerful and the official account so preposterous that I am having a hard time appreciating why you would be making such an unfounded defense of a falsified theory. I agree with Alan Sabrosky about the complicity of the Mossad, which I have written about in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic'”. But that was not my purpose here, which was to discuss indications of duplicity regarding the crash sites, not who was or was not responsible. So I am also at lease mildly perplexed as to why you are laying this trip about ignoring Israel’s role here.

    • Angelo  July 12, 2011 at 10:18 am


      Please, please, can we just concentrate on what will bring the guilty to justice. Bldg 7’s demolition is clear, Silverstein was involved. And the most recent revelation may be that Rupert Murdoch was involved in spying on everyone before and after the attack to find out what the 9/11 Commission was discussing (for example) and where everyone else’s attention was focused.

      Why can’t we just focus on what’s provable, instead of all these physics contortions that your putting us through, its mind numbing and in my view counter-productive. It’s diluting the energy and focus of the stated mission, which is bringing those guilty to justice as soon as possible, every last one of them.

      Once a few are arrested, we can find out the details from them. Isn’t it good we can still use torture for national security reasons? Nothing could be more important for national security than getting the facts on 9/11 and Israeli involvement and conspiracy in planning and executing the attack.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 11:09 am

      Angelo, I also have opinions about who was responsible, which are consistent with the views I cited by Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean in WITHOUT PRECEDENT and by Alan Sabrosky and Steve Pieczenik in the articles linked in “Seven Questions”. But we first have to prove that a crime has been committed before bringing indictments (as though such a thing were possible given the current domination of the judicial system), where my purpose is to contribute to exposing the depth and the breadth of the deceit and deception involving in staging 9/11. If the American people were to become convinced that it was indeed an “inside job”, then there is at least the ghost of a chance that serious changes in our domestic and foreign policies might be possible. Absent that, I have serious doubts that anything is going to change, just as PNAC supporters were concerned that the US would lose its historic opportunity to create an American empire that would endure for the next 100 years–absent an event like “a new Pearl Harbor”! My efforts do not impose any boundaries on the efforts of others, which I wholeheartedly commend.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 12, 2011 at 8:58 pm

      In retrospect, I think my respose to Angelo may have been misunderstood. I certainly believe we have to pursue those who were responsible for 9/11, where I have discussed this in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, in “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, and In “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?” (The answer is, “No!”) I only meant that, in these articles, I was not focusing on that question but on what was done and how it was done, which can provide important clues about who was responsible. For example, who had the power to insure that the US Air Force would be taken out of action that morning? and who had the ability to determine what would be broadcast about those events that day–including dated footage of Palestinians “rejoicing”–which was broadcast just once!–to try to impress upon the minds of the American people that Palestinians were somehow behind 9/11, which is simply absurd. But it also conveys the mind-set of the “Dancing Israelis” who, when they were apprehended, said to the arresting officer that they were not the problem, that we have the same problem, and that the Palestinians are the problem! (I say more about my views on responsibility in my reply to Truthman below.)

    • Greg Bacon  July 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      But the Pentagon missile and the no plane stuff, that’s just bogus disinformation

      For a Boeing to hit the Pentagon at the level it did, it would have had it’s body cutting a trench 3′ feet and at least 15′ wide.

      Then there’s that pesky ‘Wing in Ground’ effect (WIG) which states that due to turbulence created by the wings that close to the ground, it’s impossible to fly a plane the size of a Boeing that far, that close to the ground.

      And what about the alleged pilot of the Boeing that supposedly flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hansour?

      He was so inept, he couldn’t even learn how to fly one of the world’s easiest planes to fly, a single-engine Cessna, but put that Boeing 757 thru a display of aerial aerobatics that fighter pilots, with thousands of hours in the cockpit, say they couldn’t mimic.

      And what about the lack of debris on the Pentagon lawn? 200,000 pounds of plane supposedly hit the Pentagon, so where’s the debris?

      Or was it another 9/11 ‘miracle’? Maybe the Pentagon caused the Boeing to ‘liquefy,’ like the ground ‘liquefied’ in Pennsylvania and swallowed the plane?

  28. Shallel  July 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    This is really the meat of 9/11 research, here. Proponents of the OCT should be able to take a hundred parts from the total of four Jumbo Jets with verification linking them by serial number to the alleged plane,
    and tour the country with them. That would shut up us “crazy no-planers”. Problem is they cannot. (I’m sure it’s a “National Security” issue lol.) Not even those required flight check envelopes. They never existed.

    George Bush’s words (in his 6th grade English) about seeing the first hit on TV were “I had seen a plane had flown into the first tower…a t.v. set was on” he may have meant that he saw the news reporting that a plane had crashed into the tower, not that he saw the actual crash live.”

    I don’t use this as proof of foreknowledge, though there is proof aplenty of foreknowledge:


    Professor Fetzer fits well on this highly respected site.

  29. Nelson_2008  July 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    Jim Fetzer said: “Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry…”

    Don’t forget that fuel, by itself, neither burns nor explodes; it has to be mixed with air (oxygen) first. And it has to be mixed with air in the right proportion. There’s a lower and an upper flammability limit to the mixture. That’s why, in the videos of the plane inpacts (the North Tower shows it best I think), you can see the fuel mist forming a cloud outside the building and the cloud grows in volume until it hits a certain size – and then it ignites.

    • Jim Fetzer  July 11, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      Nice point, Nelson. So perhaps I had it backwards and the fakery (in this respect) was better in New York than it was at the Pentagon! Another interesting contrast is that the planes in New York create these cut outs that are cartoonish (in extending to the ends of the wings, for example), while the Pentagon plane doesn’t make a dent (even though its facade is relatively soft limestone). I have a photo of the hit point at the Pentagon in “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”. Thanks for your remarks about the air/fuel mix!

    • Greg Bacon  July 13, 2011 at 7:35 pm

      Take an aluminum beer can and try smashing it thru a steel grate, even a poorly made grate and see what happens.

      Just make sure you can afford to be off work with a broken wrist.

  30. Doug  July 11, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    I support your conclusions! thanks, Doug

You must be logged in to post a comment Login