The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer

by Jim Fetzer


The publication of “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” has led to many attacks upon me by Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, and others, as anyone who reviews the comments on that article can ascertain for themselves. In addition, a rather heated exchange has taken place on an email thread initiated by T. Mark Hightower, the collaborating author of that article, which initially included Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Neils Harrit, and many others.

When I sent them a set of questions that had been posed in the “Comments” section, the level of attack increased, where I sought to remind them that they not only have not done their homework with regard to the “explosive” properties of nanothermite but have made a practice of attacking me without doing research on my actual views and have gone out of their way to attack me even when I was standing up for 9/11 Truth.

Ryan has even asked me if I had been recruited by the CIA as a graduate student at Indiana University after I had served four years of active duty as a regular officer in the USMC, to which my answer was a most emphatic, “No!”

And, in what has to be one of the more bizarre twists of fate in relation to the 9/11 truth movement, Kevin Ryan, whom I have admired in the past, has also attacked me for criticizing “The 9/11 ‘Truth’ Parlor Game”, an article by Robert Parry, in my response, “9/11 Truth is No ‘Parlor Game’”. Ryan had already expressed his displeasure that I had responded to Parry’s trivialization of the truth movement in a thread on the bloggerbrigade and was apparently taken aback when some of those on the thread responded negatively to his assault on me. When I was invited to reply and exposed certain shortcomings in his false and defamatory attacks, he left the thread saying that he was going to “write it up”. His later blog, “Why Robert Parry is Right about 9/11 Truth”, was the outcome.

Alas, this blog illustrates some of the worst tendencies in the 9/11 truth movement. Kevin criticizes me for trivialities, including a couple of typos. He attacks my JFK research, which he does not know, and assails me for trespassing into terrain that is “off limits” to the members of his clique. He pretends to understand a subtle debate between two professional philosophers over the meaning of the word “information”, which drives him to absurd claims over a dispute where he hasn’t a clue. To guard against public criticism, he even “closed” the comments on his blog before any could be posted. This shows that dogmas are not restricted to religious groups but can be embraced by 9/11 societies–where I would offer his exaggerated commitment to “explosive nanothermite” as the primary explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers as another!

My Background

It is no secret that I am the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a former Marine Corps officer, a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton and a Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I have done a great deal of research on the assassination of JFK as well as on 9/11, where I edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized and moderated its first conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not”, and produced its first DVD. These events have proven to be expensive, however, where I lost about $10,000 on the Madison meeting, which was blackballed by Kevin Ryan, even though I had invited both him and Steve Jones to be speakers.

“The Science and Politics of 9/11″ DVD

I have participated in hundreds of interviews about 9/11 on radio and television, including a 3.5 hour appearance on television in Athens in December 2006, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, speaking in New York in 2007 and in 2008, traveling to Buenos Aires for 9/11 presentations in 2008 and 2009, and organizing a London symposium on “Debunking the ‘War on Terror’” in London in 2010. But none of that matters to Kevin Ryan, who insinuates that I have an agenda to spread false information about 9/11, which is apparently based, at least in part, on his misunderstanding of a subtle disagreement between professional philosophers. This means that, when he attacks me, the truth simply doesn’t count.

Ryan’s Attack

Since Parry was condemning the 9/11 truth movement, while I was defending it, that Ryan should attack me for doing so is rather peculiar. Acknowledging that mine was the only response to Parry that had been published at that time, he said I “did not contribute to any of the research he claims as ‘our research’, and apparently cannot even spell Parry’s name or the name of the company that I worked for in his continued efforts to spread false information. The article also makes wild assertions that are not supported by evidence, such as–“… every claim the government has made about 9/11 is false.” I took a look to figure out what he was talking about and discovered that these claims were either trivial or false.

The name “Parry” appears nine or ten times in the article, and in one instance, I had it as “Perry”. I had also referred to Kevin Ryan’s former place of employment, as “Underwriters Laboratory”, where, strictly speaking, it is “Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.” I was curious about his allegation that I had made a “wild assertion” in saying that, “… every claim the government as has made about 9/11 is false”. When I took a closer look, I discovered that he replaced the word “virtually” with “…”, which is not the act of an honest critic. Indeed, since my rebuttal is devoted to elaborating major falsehoods advanced by the government, based upon research by the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and previous studies, as I observe in “Why doubt 9/11?”, what’s wrong with calling it “our research”?

My JFK Research

Kevin was not satisfied to trash me for trivialities but also claimed that, when I founded Scholars in 2005, I was “known for some dubious contributions to the JFK assassination research community”. What he has in mind is beyond me. To the best of my knowledge, Kevin Ryan knows nothing about the death of JFK, where, in late 1992, I organized a research group that consisted of the best-qualified individuals to ever study the case. We discovered that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substituted for that of JFK, and that a home movie known as “the Zapruder film” had been extensively edited. I have published these findings in three edited books, which Vincent Bugliosi, who defends the lone gunman theory, has described as “the only three exclusively scientific books” on the JFK assassination. Our work has shattered the cover-up and qualifies as of exceptional scientific significance.

JFK was hit four times: in the throat (from in front); in the back (from behind); and twice in the head (from behind and in front). Two shots were fired from the vicinity of the Triple Underpass.

As an indication that others do not share Kevin Ryan’s dismal assessment of our work, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which has chapters from nine contributors, was reviewed by George Costello for THE FEDERAL LAWYER, a professional journal for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear in federal courts. His comprehensive evaluation, which you can read for yourself, is decidedly at odds with Kevin’s dismissal as “dubious contributions”. He concludes,

It is time for people of integrity who were involved in the official investigations — especially the professionals — to take a good-faith look at the new evidence and confront the likelihood that their conclusions were based on falsified data. Murder in Dealey Plaza may not be the last word on the medical evidence, but it should be the starting point for a fresh look — not only at the medical evidence, but also at the assassination and its implications.

Costello would later write to me that he had subsequently received an award of recognition for his review. What I do not understand is why Kevin Ryan would hazard opinions about research on a topic that, if anything, may be even more complex and convoluted than research on 9/11, when he knows nothing about it. That does not strike me as a responsible approach for someone who wants to be taken seriously, especially when I have been pioneering the application of scientific reasoning to controversial political events like these.

My 9/11 Research

Some of my more recent JFK articles are “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”, “Forrest Gump on the grassy knoll”, and “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”As in the case of my JFK research, which has focused on its most challenging aspects, especially with respect to separating authentic from inauthentic evidence, including the authenticity of the Zapruder film,

“The Great Zapruder Film Hoax” (2003)

my research on 9/11 has focused on the most challenging aspects of that case, too. Thus, I have studied what happened at the Pentagon, the causal mechanisms by which the Twin Towers were destroyed, and the possible use of video fakery in New York. My research has included “What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions about 9/11”, and “Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”. It is common knowledge that Kevin Ryan’s society, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, shuns those who, like me, study the Pentagon and video fakery–and go ballistic over anyone who challenges the nanothermite dogma.

Even though Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the FDR data it obtained from the NTSB corresponds to a plane that flew toward the Pentagon on a different trajectory, too high to have hit any lampposts, and rather than crashing into the building, swerved over it—for which there is a great deal of evidence—Kevin Ryan and his friends are intolerant of anyone who suggests that no plane hit the Pentagon. Indeed, there is also no evidence that a plane crashed in a field in Shanksville. Even though Elias Davidsson has shown the government has never proven the hijackers were aboard any of those planes and David Ray Griffin has established that all of the alleged phone calls were faked, Kevin and his associates refuse to even consider questions they raise for the prospect of “phantom flights”.

The Scholars Breakup

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice not only proscribes the study of video fakery (or “no planes”) but also insists that thermite in one or another of its forms is the crucial ingredient for explaining the demolition of the Twin Towers. I am sure that Kevin took a dim view of my agreement with Parry on the point that thermite does not seem promising as an explanation of the demolition of the Twin Towers for the reason that it is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to be explosive, it has to be combined with explosives, where the same could be said of toothpaste. That has long been my opinion, which is no secret within the 9/11 research community. I have given critiques of this theory during 9/11 conferences as well as elsewhere, such as “The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community”.

Indeed, it was my growing conviction that thermite was most unlikely to be able to provide an explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers that was behind the separation of Scholars at the end of 2006 and the creation of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, which entailed corrupt activities by those trying to wrest the control of Scholars from me, including the misrepresentation of my views, which continues to this day, but also by conducting a phony poll of the members while feigning to be the “membership administrator” and freezing our original web site at st911.org, even though I had been responsible for posting every item that ever appeared there, which forced me to create a new web site at http://911scholars.org, where the history of these events has been archived on Scholars home page.

Kevin’s Distortions

Kevin claims, for example, that, less than one year after founding the society, “just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks” when media attention was at its peak, “Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense”. And he faults me for a radio interview with Judy Wood, Ph.D., which occurred on 11 November 2006, when I was about to speak in Tucson. With her degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science, however, I regard Judy as one of the best qualified students of 9/11 in the world today. A former professor of mechanical engineering, she introduced her theory that directed energy weapons may have been employed on 9/11 during during our conversation on the radio. I found her conjecture fascinating because it opens up an unconventional approach toward understanding the events of 9/11.

Since 11 November is two months after 11 September, I have no idea where Kevin comes up with this stuff, but factual accuracy does not appear to be an important desideratum for him. I do not know to this day whether Wood is right, but her web site (at http://drjudywood.com) and new book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?,

[whose cover’s own subtitle is, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″, which is her theory]

sets a high standard in accumulating evidence about the data that an adequate theory would have to explain, including the conversion of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, the peculiar kinds of damage that were sustained by WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, and the oddity of the “toasted cars”. While I have advocated the study of DEWs—along with nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids—I have not endorsed them because we still do not know how it was done. And I would add that Kevin Ryan and his colleagues are certainly not in any position to know that Judy Wood has it wrong.

The Exchange

What set him off in composing this blog appears evident from what occurred on a discussion thread between January 26th and 28th, 2011. Kevin began by expressing dismay over my article criticizing Robert Parry with the remark, “Oh God, not Fetzer again.” He was immediately countered by Ben Collet, who replied, “Kevin Ryan’s reputation as a scientifically-minded 9/11 activist has, unfortunately, taken a big hit with this snide comment about one of the most important voices in the 9/11 truth movement.” Not to be outdone, Kevin responded with a partial transcript of my interview from 11 November 2006 in which I expressed fascination with Judy’s theory. He was again countered by Ben:

Ryan’s citation of this four year old interview demonstrates only that Dr. Fetzer starts with the appropriate attitude of the truth-seeker who is employing the scientific method. That is he exhibits curiosity and openness to a new idea. Nowhere does he say Judy Wood is correct, he simply evinces an honest curiosity to hear her views. This is the true scientific approach. Unfortunately others who do not have Dr. Fetzer’s familiarity with the scientific method think it is enough to denounce unpopular views as heretical without even listening to them. Dr Fetzer has a PhD in the philosophy of the scientific method.

Kevin’s Defense

Kevin responded by offering an exaggerated version of my position, which makes it easier to attack, and ridiculed Ben for supporting me: “Ben”s support for Fetzer’s claim that space beams destroying the WTC is ‘the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11′ is interesting.

“Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Ben. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge … this is huge Ben.

He added, “See attached for an article on the value of false information, written by Fetzer and presented in a conference one month before 9/11/01. Fetzer doesn’t have any peer-review scientific articles on the attacks of 9/11. But he does know the value of false information.”

Ben replied, Kevin Ryan misrepresents Dr. Fetzer’s position. Fetzer never has said he supports “space beams”, only that he supports the study of space beams and other theories of how it was done. This is the appropriate attitude to take until we figure out the actual method used. . . . In writing, “9/11 Truth is No Parlor Game”, Dr. Fetzer is defending the 9/11 movement against an attack from a widely admired investigative journalist, Robert Parry. It is unfortunate that Ryan feels compelled to belittle and misrepresent the person who has so ably defended the truth against Parry’s lies.

Another Response

While I am sure he was not pleased with Ben’s comments, I imagine that another response from mlkjeldsen was even less warmly received, since it cut to the core of his attack upon my article:


I do not mean to attack you, because I consider your actions to be heroic and your tenacity inspiring. But I have two questions.

Number one, after going back and reading Jim’s piece a second time, I found nothing to be untrue or disinformative. I found it to be a quality refutation of a piece of garbage written by a scoundrel. Did you find any flaws?

Number two, our phony president, while addressing the phony congress and the rest of the phony government actually made a joke about the sexual assault that the TSA carries out against us everyday. There are blimps surveilling us. The country is divided into ten FEMA regions. The economy is being collapsed on purpose. The noose is being tightened around our collective neck. How does, let’s be honest, attacking Jim Fetzer help us to reach the critical mass of informed citizens that we need to hold off this tyranny? This is a war of government against freedom, plain and simple. He, like you and I, is reaching people with this message—is he not?

Kevin’s response was almost guttural:

He has been reaching people with space beams and holograms and false information for many years. Please don’t promote it. It is the problem.

To which he would subsequently add:

The most influential article relating to this topic that he wrote is the paper on the value of false information, which Fetzer presented at a conference in August 2001. Why would an expert on false information, who has made no serious contributions to the truth movement, be seen as worthy of our attention let alone be welcomed as a champion of truth?

Thank you, Ben and Mike, for reminding me of the power that false information still has in the 9/11 truth movement. I will turn my attention to this problem again, and write it up.

Kevin’s Misconceptions

While I have not been endorsing “space beams” or “holograms” but promoting their study, I am now increasingly inclined to believe the plane rather than the video was faked. The hologram hypothesis to explain video fakery in the footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower—where the plane is traveling at an impossible speed, entering the building in clear violation of Newton’s laws, and passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it takes to pass through its own length in air—is one of three possibilities, where the other two are the use of computer-generated images or the use of video compositing. Unless you have studied the issues involved here, it may sound a bit far-fetched. But how are we going to understand “the pivotal event of the 21st century” if we are not allowed to study the evidence and explore alternative explanations? Kevin’s attitude is not only unscientific but is virtually illiterate.

The hardest part of scientific inquiry—which involves stages of PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence) and EXPLANATION—is figuring out all of the possible alternative explanations. Premature closure at this stage (by excluding hypotheses that seem too unusual, unconventional, or politically incorrect) can consign an investigation to failure by excluding the true hypothesis for consideration on inappropriate grounds. That, in my opinion, has been the case with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice with regard to the possible use of directed energy weapons or the possible use of sophisticated technology to create images of a plane that isn’t really there—as I have attempted to demonstrate many times now. But the most bewildering aspect of Kevin’s assault concerns his attacks upon me for (what he claims to be) the use of false information, which is a massive confusion.

False Information.

The differences between me and Professor Floridi concern whether or not truth is a condition for something (reports, photos, evidence) to qualify as “information”. In other words, we are engaged in a classic philosophical debate over how a word should best be understood in order to clarify and illuminate its use within various contexts in which it might occur. He maintains that, for something to qualify as “information”, it has to be true, which I deny. I argue that, for every assertion, there is a denial, where we are often presented with contrary or contradictory assertions from alternative sources. As I see it, we are being presented with information and have to figure out which is true and which is not. According to Floridi, however, we would not even know if one other the other of these assertions were “information” unless we knew that it was true.

As it happens, I have published two papers, one on this question and another on the nature of misinformation and of disinformation. I argue that “misinformation” is information that is false, where “disinformation” occurs by the deliberate dissemination of false information with the intention to deceive or mislead an audience. Think how awkward it is to even talk about “false information” if you have presupposed that, to qualify as information, it has to be true. This is another reason for rejecting Floridi’s approach. It creates very awkward—even incoherent—uses of language in talking about false information, if that means talking about the falsity of what we have already implied is true merely by calling it “information”. So I think Floridi’s approach has no merit and have offered my reasons for holding that position in these articles:

“Information: Does it Have to be True?”, Minds and Machines 14/2 (May 2004), pp. 223-229.

“Disinformation: The Use of False Information”, Minds and Machines 14/2 (May 2004), pp. 231-240.

Kevin’s Confusion

Imagine my astonishment when I read in Kevin’s blog that, “In this paper, Fetzer argues that false information (including disinformation) is just as meaningful as true information, implying that false information has just as much value as true information.” He further maintains that, according to Fetzer and his colleagues, “spreading and using false information (more precisely, misinformation, if the source is unaware of its falsity, or disinformation, if the source is aware and uses/spreads it on purpose, precisely because it is false) is perfectly fine and acceptable”! I must say that in my entire adult life I have never read such drivel, which has no basis in my work other than drawing a distinction between information, misinformation and disinformation. We are dealing with a man who has a diminished capacity for grasping conceptual distinctions.

To say that information, misinformation and disinformation are “equally meaningful” does not mean “that false information has just as much value as true information”! No one in their right mind would make such a claim. The point about meaning is that I define “information” as meaningful data, where the meaningfulness of data is not a function of its truth. If we are told my one source, “It is going to rain”, and by another, “It is not going to rain”, they cannot both be true but they are both meaningful! The problem that we confront in every area of inquiry is to sort out the claims that are both meaningful and true from those that are instead meaningful but false. Truth itself can even be defined as beliefs that provide us appropriate guidance for actions in the world, where, when our beliefs are true, actions based upon them are more likely to be successful than if they are false. Their value is enormously different!

What’s the Deal?

In this blog, Kevin Ryan asserts that, “This paper challenged the work of a professor at Oxford University by the name of [Luciano] Floridi, who like most honest people, contends that, since information is data that changes what we do, only true information that helps us respond to our world accurately and effectively has value.” He then contends that, “When contacted by 9/11 researchers who suspected Fetzer of being a proponent and purveyor of false information, Floridi confirmed that Fetzer was effectively arguing for the use of false information. Floridi responded that the arguments of Fetzer and his colleagues suggest that “spreading and using false information (more precisely, misinformation, if the source is unaware of its falsity, or disinformation, if the source is aware and uses/spreads it on purpose, precisely because it is false) is perfectly fine and acceptable”. But there is no reason that Luciano Floridi would make such claims.

That Kevin Ryan did not know his first name, “Luciano”, suggested to me that this was a false report. In spite of our philosophical disagreement, Luciano and I are friends, so I wrote him to ask if he had made such a claim to 9/11 researchers. He replied that, “I’m afraid I had not recollection of being contacted by any 9/11 researcher, but before writing to you I wanted to check my computer. It also does not have any recollection. So I might be wrong (it happens more often than I like to think), and my computer might be wrong (but it is a beautiful new iMac after all), but it seems more plausible to think that there was no contact at all. I do answer tens of emails a day, so who knows, but I would remember, I think, and there should be a trace in my mail, at least of my reply. But nothing, no biological or artificial memory of any of this.” So it may be that one of us—deliberately or not—really is trading in false information.

Bringing It Home

On the basis of a gross misunderstanding of my position, Kevin Ryan contends, “Facts and evidence indicate that the use of false information to derail the 9/11 truth movement is a reality despite the inability of leading 9/11 researchers to admit such a possibility. With unsubstantiated claims of space beams, video fakery and holograms, Fetzer and his colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are scientifically illiterate. These evil parlor games give influential professionals like Robert Parry, who are already psychologically challenged and fearful of the topic, additional reasons to ignore all the evidence and spout off about the issues with little or no understanding.” Which is especially ironic, since, in this very blog, Kevin Ryan is spouting off about me and my positions, even philosophical ones, with little or no understanding. And nothing would give me greater pleasure than to discuss these things in a public forum. I therefore extend an invitation—a challenge, if you like—to Kevin Ryan to debate these issues with me over the radio, where Kevin Barrett could serve as our host.

Once again, we see that Kevin Ryan wholly ignores the difference between STUDYING A POSITION and ADVOCATING A POSITION. I do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but I do know that Judy Wood has advanced an interesting hypothesis. I don’t know if holograms were used to perpetrate video fakery, but I do know that the weight of the evidence supports it. And I have no doubt at all that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, for which there is abundant and compelling evidence. But don’t ask Kevin Ryan, because he won’t even consider them. How, I have to ask, could I be dedicating my life to sorting out the differences between authentic and inauthentic evidence regarding JFK and 9/11 were I not profoundly committed to discovering the truth? And why would I even care, if I held the absurd views that Kevin Ryan attributes to me? As a philosopher, I care about truth. As a former Marine Corps officer, I care about my country. And, as a philosopher of science, I know that scientific investigations are our most reliable means for discovering truth. One of us has lost his way and is betraying the movement, but it isn’t me.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in December 2005 with Steve Jones as his co-chair. This is an expanded and revised version of “The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan”.

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 August 6, 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

49 Responses to "The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer"

  1. best electronic cigarettes  September 7, 2011 at 6:46 am

    I have to agree fully with your point of view, excellent writing.

  2. best electronic cigarette reviews  September 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    They seem to know much about many things. I’m definitely bookmark your site. Thank you for everything!

  3. Bill Enyart  August 18, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    It never fails. When name calling starts, we all get defensive and responsible and respectful discourse ends.

    I’ve been studying 9/11 for over 6 years and know that the truth may never be known and justice for the victims is even less likely.

    I think it is high-time that everyone stops ignoring Dimitri Khalizov’s explanation which is that the Twin Towers had a thermo-nuclear demolition plan in place at the time of their construction.

    He doesn’t offer a hypothesis. He “swears to god” that the entire Soviet Union secret service had this knowledge. Can nano-thermite explain the pulverization of concrete and the blowing up of human bones, telephones, and even toilets into small fragments?

    Watch Dimitri Khalizov’s video and he may make more sense than anyone else. Not an atmospheric nuclear event, but thermo-nukes placed 77 meters below ground surface in the bedrock. The explosion followed the path of least resistance which was through the towers, their fixtures, and the inhabitants.

    Please stop name-calling and give this plausible explanation a fair hearing, gentlemen.

  4. SaiGirl  August 14, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Kevin Ryan’s long-time role as 9/11 gatekeeper and purveyor of disinformation and limited hangouts has been observed and discussed in great detail before:


    Of course the real “jewel in the crown” of 9/11 truth is the manifest evidence of blatant TV fakery:

    ,,, the now infamous CNN “ghostplane” attributed to “amateur” Michael Hezarkhani

    the one broadcast by PBS

    and the classic Evan Fairbanks “hot knife through butter” broadcast by ABC


    For your convenience I’ve assembled some of the most egregious examples of 9/11 TV fakery by the major media networks, at my blog “Los Alamos 9/11 Truth”.

  5. Jim Fetzer  August 12, 2011 at 6:25 am

    Here’s a nice article by Tom Valentine for those who are skeptical about the existence of directed energy weapons: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/10/microwave-weapon-and-emp-killed-marines/
    Mark and I do not deny that thermite/thermate/nanothermite may have been involved. Our concern is that the properties of nanothermite have been grossly overblown. Here’s Tom Valentine’s final paragraph:

    “The human body is about 70 percent water, so microwave cooking [of human beings] would be a snap, so to speak. In 2001, the Air Force announced they had a “crowd control weapon that “burned” the skin but did not kill people protesting government. Recently, I suggested that such microwaves from DEW equipment could easily have been used to enhance the power of the thermite plus conventional explosives used to turn the towers into fine dust. Just add a little water to the target.”

  6. Herr der Elf  August 11, 2011 at 9:39 am

    I’ve been a two-trick 9/11 pony for years: video forgery and milli-nukes.

    Alas, I’ve jumped back-and-forth over the video forgery fence, I don’t know what I believe today except some degree of video manipulation happened, just like editors regularly photoshop already pretty women into being unrealistically drop-dead georgous. Such enhancements, like inserting pixels of planes into some footage that may not have depicted planes more more shock-and-awe, doesn’t prove that all video footage was faked and that no planes hit the towers. What it does prove is a complicit corporate media to allow for (or actively edit) such fakes to be aired.

    Were corporate media not complicit, we wouldn’t be doing our September Clues analysis on poorly recorded broadcast footage complete with oversize banners and footers. No, corporate media would have opened their vaults and provided the raw footage long ago to settle the issue. They didn’t, just like the FBI never released the 85 tapes they confiscated of cameras around the Pentagon. They all have something to hide.

    On the milli-nukes front, that’s not my pony any more. Now I’m riding DEW, thanks to Dr. Judy Wood’s excellent book. (Those who try to debunk it without cracking its cover: shame on you!)

    But to accomodate the radiation evidence that others (including Dr. Jones) try to gloss over and the poor health of first responders matching Hiroshima which had me tied to the milli-nukes saddle for years, I’m now saying cold-fusion or nuclear reactor powered the DEW devices.

    You see, the flash, heat wave, and destructive wave of a milli-nuke would have been hard to control and contain. The unburned paper and trees, the anomalous damage to the metal in vehicles, and non-correlation of seismic data are indeed conclusive pieces of evidence pointed out by Dr. Wood against super dooper nanot-thermite, conventional demolition, and nukes. Yet, DEW does offer an explanation, rather Occam Razor.

  7. MK  August 8, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    By the way, Dr. Fetzer, I once met a cameraman from Dallas who rode to Parkland with JFK and Jackie. He told me a couple of interesting things…one, the back of JFK’s head was gone (not consistent with the story) and two, that he was already dead when the ambulance picked the body up.


    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      Yes, the back of his head was gone (blown out in Dealey Plaza). I discuss this in “Kennedy Assassination Questions”, another column of mine here at VT. But he was taken to Parkland Hospital in the Lincoln limousine and was only transported in an ambulance after he had been placed in the bronze casket. What happened after the body was forcibly removed from the hospital by the Secret Service is a fascinating story, by the way, where the body was taken from the casket (possibly during the swearing in) and probably placed in a compartment at the back of Air Force One, then offloaded and transported by helicopter (probably to Walter Reed) and then delivered to the morgue at Bethesda in a black hearse and in a body bag, while the official entourage made its way to Bethesda with the bronze casket (but not the body) in a gray Navy ambulance. The autopsy was already in progress when it finally arrived. For more, see David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE, and Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB. It’s a story that rivals video fakery in its complexity.

  8. Gordon  August 8, 2011 at 11:50 am

    A few years ago Jim spoke to our local 9/11 truth group. I had no reason to disbelieve him, being already certain that it was an inside job.
    Then he projected a still picture of the flowing metal on the corner of one tower before “collapsing”.
    I had seen a better picture of the obviously bright-yellow molten steel or iron before. He claimed that it was molten aluminum, and I pointed out that it was in fact molten iron because molten aluminum has low emissivity, and looks silvery, not incandescent, in daylight, whereas iron has high emissivity, and its temperature can be gauged by its color. What theory he was promoting with this wasn’t clear, but he was ready for my objection, showing a picture of a crucible pouring molten aluminum and saying that the shiny metal seen there was the same as in the WTC pictures. Why?
    Then there was the Judy Wood theory. He proposed that MASERS were the DEW weapons used. Somebody in the crowd asked what that was an acronym for, and only I knew that it stood for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Kind of like a laser, it sounds powerful and was in Tom Swift books. However there are natural masers in stars, and the man-made ones are precision microwave oscillators, not death rays.
    Right there I knew what he meant by being a “philosopher of science”…it meant NOT a scientist!
    I agree with above comments on what could be done with even the most powerful DEW weapon: not enough to do what we saw!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm

      Gordon, “A few years ago” I knew less than I know today. I do have a discussion of some of the photos and other claims about 9/11 that I have been inclined to disbelieve, including what you call “obviously molten steel or iron”, in “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?”, which I presented in Buenos Aires. It is archived on the Scholars’ home page here: http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html The point I was making was not so much that it was aluminum but that it was unique: if there was a huge amount of nanothermite throughout the building, then why was it flowing only from this one location? I still think that this remains a very good question.

      My thought at the time, as I am sure I explained then, is that there must have been something that was distinctive about that floor, which was owned by the Fuji Bank. I gather than it held an enormous series of batteries as a source of back-up electricity in case of a power outage, to maintain records of their clients, where my best guess at the time is that it was molten lead, which has a much lower melting point and could more reasonably explain that it happened only at this unique location, which I continue to believe to this day. I gather I responded to your objection at the time, where this was a controversial issue at the time, so I had more slides about it.

      Some of the other and varied “evidence” that has been presented to support the molten metal story also appears to be faked, which I explained on that occasion. I have dealt with all of this more extensively elsewhere, such as in Portland in 2009, a discussion that is archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html
      That includes the photo of a group of responders peering into a cavern of molten metal, which seems to me to be faked. The temperature of the heat coming out of that opening would have been in the range of 3,000*F and melted the skin from their faces and arms, yet they are displaying no signs of any physical distress.

      Your comment, by the way, is a nice example of taking issues out of context. During the Madison conference, a woman with a Ph.D. in physics said, in response to a presentation by Judy Wood, that it had never occurred to her before that masers might have been used on that occasion, which you can find in the DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″. I may have reported her having said that at the meeting when I made my presentation, but I was not endorsing it. I think your memory is playing tricks on you, since I still do not know enough about lasers, masers, or plasmoids to commit myself to one of them. When I figure out how it was done, I will let you know.

      Like other rational thinkers, I adjust my beliefs to the evidence, where, as new evidence becomes available, I reject old beliefs and accept new ones as appropriate to the acquisition of more relevant information. As you observe, I am a philosopher of science, not a physicist, and therefore engage in collaborative research with others who know more than I about specific subject areas. An example is my collaborative research with Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, about nanothermite. Have you made any adjustments to your beliefs on the basis of what we have discovered about nanothermite? See http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

    • Gordon Duff  August 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      Explaining things only serves entropy.
      We can hang our hats on the pentagon and building 7, disprove al qaeda and bin laden’s existence and it all falls apart.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      That’s the difference between science and politics. For political purposes, you may well be right. But some of us want to know how all of this was done, both for the sake of pure understanding but also in part to guard against being taken in by fakery of these kinds again. Many activists do not appreciate that sorting this out is not only intellectually challenging but also historically significant. 9/11 is one of the great murder mysteries of all time, which some of us are determined to unpack.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm

      PLUS–and this seems to have been lost in the shuffle–PROOF OF VIDEO FAKERY has the potential to convince everyone in the country that this was an “inside job”! No way could 19 Islamic fundamentalists have faked a plane hitting the South Tower.

      And since frame-by-frame counting can demonstrate to anyone that the plane passes through its own length into the tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air–where d = r x t (alternatively, d / t = r )–I think we should embrace this point, which is as irrefutable as any could be about 9/11.

      We underestimate the intelligence of the American people when we shy away from arguments that are as simple and as powerful as this–since, unless steel and concrete provides no more resistance to the flight of a plane than air, it not only establishes that the plane/the video has been faked but also that the plane undergoes no deceleration upon entry.

  9. Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 5:36 am

    Here is the latest from Mark Hightower about the nanothermite paper, of which Kevin Ryan was one of several co-authors. As I evaluate what Mark has to say about it here, it should probably not have been accepted in the version in which it was published but required a great deal more research and revision:

    Contrasting uniformity and non-uniformity of WTC dust sample results of the Harrit et al. paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”
    T Mark Hightower

    Although the Harrit et al. paper claims great uniformity of results among all samples based on all the tests apart from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) tests, this is in significant contrast to the tremendous lack of uniformity reflected in the DSC results.

    Also, although the paper contains a rather doubtful statement regarding its findings in one part of the paper, it concludes with a strikingly confident conclusion in the final statement of the paper.

    There are some weaknesses in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) data that is presented in the paper (Harrit et al.) for the 4 dust samples.

    There were 4 dust samples tested. Page 9 of the paper identifies them as

    1 MacKinlay
    2 Delassio/Breidenbach
    3 Intermount
    4 White

    The DSC data is presented in the text of page 19, section 3, which refers to graphical results of Fig. 19 on page 20. One of the DSC traces is compared to a trace of published nanothermite data in Fig. 29 on page 25. The results are presented in Fig. 30 on page 27 in the form of bar graphs reporting units of kJ/g.

    There is an oddity I want to point out before I get into the first weakness.

    The data referred to on page 19 and in Fig. 19 appears to have not included sample 2 Delassio/Breidenbach, but instead has a MacKinlay 2 sample in its place to give a total of 4 samples tested. In Fig. 30 the 4 samples are clearly labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4, so here it seems to imply that the 2 Delassio/Breidenbach sample is included. Interestingly, the numerical value of 3 kJ/g given in the text on page 19 for the MacKinlay 2 sample of Fig. 19 is the same or at least close to the same as the 2 (presumably) Delassio/Breidenbach sample of Fig. 30. Clarification from the authors should be sought to clear up this confusion.

    So there were 4 separate dust samples, with multiple red/gray chips in each sample.

    I will use the numerical values of energy release given in the text (page 19) as representing the values in the bar graph of Fig. 30 for the 4 WTC chip samples. These would be

    Sample 1: 1.5 kJ/g
    Sample 2: 3 kJ/g
    Sample 3: 7.5 kJ/g
    Sample 4: 6 kJ/g

    As these four DSC data points are all we have, it is of note that there is tremendous scatter in this data. The average value is 4.5 and the standard deviation is 2.7. As two standard deviations is usually what is used when referring to a value being +/- some uncertainty, in rough terms, we would then say that the DSC data gives an average value of 4.5 kJ/g, with an uncertainty of +/- 100%.

    It appears that only one red/gray chip was selected from each sample for DSC testing. If DSC tests had been done separately for multiple chips in each sample, then the question of whether the scatter in the data was present similarly within each of the samples could also have been addressed. You cannot find what you do not look for.

    The paper offers some possible explanations for the scatter in the data. From page 19, section 3, it states,

    “Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.”

    Page 29, Conclusion 10. offers an explanation for higher total energy release than can be explained by the classic thermite reaction (true for samples 3 & 4)

    “The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.”

    If citing gray layer variation and organic content is not enough to explain the tremendous variation in the results, another explanation is added on page 27, section 6. I will quote an entire paragraph so you can appreciate the context.

    “It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.”

    So the DSC tests were done in air so extra oxygen was present to help liberate energy from any organics that might be present.

    I know there is very little data to go on, just 4 DSC scans of red/gray chips, but with the scatter in the data and the explanations offered to explain it, I get the impression that the red/gray chips are tremendously lacking in uniformity. Or else there is much inherent error in the experimental apparatus.

    By having air and therefore a source of oxygen present in the DSC seems to be an error in method since it allows for the input of energy from outside the substance that is itself being measured for its energy content. From Fig. 30 Chip 3 liberates considerably more energy than the high explosive HMX, and Chip 4 also exceeds the HMX value, but only by a little. The HMX provides its own oxygen within its chemical makeup, so it would not depend upon additional oxygen present to liberate its full energy. (Be sure not to confuse energy release with detonation velocity, an issue I am not dealing with in this write-up.)

    I would like to see what a DSC trace of pure HMX would look like. It would probably look quite different because it would start to release its energy at a lower temperature, the deflagration temperature of HMX being 287 deg C. (page 238, “Explosives,” 6th edition, Meyer et al., 2007)

    In summary, the DSC data is extremely limited with much scatter and has a potential method error. Drawing firm conclusions from it is extremely dubious.

    Variability in proportions of gray layer within the red/gray chips and organics present in the red layer are cited as explanations for the scatter in the DSC data. Let’s quantify these explanations to see what kind of variability of the specimens might account for the scatter in the data.

    The energy release for thermite is cited as 3.9 kJ/g. For the lowest value from the DSC tests, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, let’s first assume for the sake of illustration that this specimen had a low value because it had no organics in the red layer (in other words it is essentially pure thermite), and the gray layer being predominantly iron oxide as the paper says, acted as excess reactant and therefore was essentially inert providing no energy in the DSC test. In this case, the red layer would have to be present at 38 % by weight and the gray layer present at 62 % within the specimen. The math is 1.5/3.9 = 0.38. In summary, this would be assuming no organics, 38% red layer, and 62% gray layer.

    The above calculation is done as a base case for comparison, even though its assumption of no organics in the red layer goes against the major thrust of the conclusion of the Harrit et al. paper that the red layer is a form of nanothermite that includes organics.

    The next calculation is an attempt to quantify the high end of the DSC data, 7.5 kJ/g for sample 3. The presence of organics is cited as the explanation for the high value by the paper. Pure high explosive HMX has a energy release of 5.2 kJ/g, so even if sample 3 were 100 % HMX, this could not account for the higher value of 7.5 kJ/g obtained by the DSC test. So, for the sake of illustration, I am going to assume that the organic present in the red layer has an energy release of twice that of HMX, or 10.4 kJ/g. To help account for the high value of 7.5 kJ/g for sample 3, I am also going to assume that it contains no gray layer. In other words I am going to assume that sample 3 is 100 % red layer material. Setting x = weight fraction thermite in the red layer, the math is 3.9x + 10.4(1-x) = 7.5. Solving for x gives 0.45. So based on the above assumptions the red layer would have to contain 45 % thermite by weight and 55 % organic. In summary, this would be 100% red layer, no gray layer, with the red layer made up of 45% thermitic material and 55% organics.

    Let’s now go back to the low value case, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, and assume that it is made up of red layer (containing 45 % thermite and 55 % organic from the previous calculation) plus gray layer of inert excess iron oxide reactant. In this case then, the specimen would have to contain 20 % red layer and 80 % gray layer. The math is 1.5/7.5 = 0.2. In summary, this would be 20% red layer (made up of 45% thermite and 55% organic) and 80% gray layer.

    Therefore, a very high degree of variability among the red/gray chips is necessary to explain the scatter in the DSC test data, unless there is significant error in the experimental apparatus and technique.

    This is in contrast to these statements from the paper concerning the great uniformity of results.

    From page 15, right column, it states, “From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.”

    From page 23, upper left column, it states, “The results clearly show the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four sites.”

    On page 25 of the paper, it says

    “The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).”

    Note that in Fig. 29 the trace of the WTC sample is really not all that similar to the known super-thermite. The WTC sample cited in Fig. 29 is the MacKinlay sample, although it does not say whether it is the MacKinlay 1 or MacKinlay 2 sample. But from Fig. 19, where 4 WTC DSC traces are plotted, for the four samples, MacKinlay 1, MacKinlay 2, Intermont, and White, the two MacKinlay samples are the lowest energy release traces. The other two, Intermont (sample 3), and White (sample 4) have much higher energy release, and deviate even more from the known super-thermite trace of Fig. 29.

    With the tremendous scatter in the DSC data presented in the paper, and its implication for extreme non uniformity of the red/gray chips that I have tried to quantify, the question needs to be raised on all of the other tests that were performed to characterize the red/gray chips, and whether additional tests should have been done on other of the chips within the samples, to see if those tests also would have shown such high levels of non uniformity.

    From page 25 of the paper, right column, first paragraph, the final sentence is

    “We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.” This statement expresses a lot of doubt about the findings.

    From page 29 of the paper, final paragraph.

    “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” This final conclusion statement of the paper expresses much less doubt.

  10. Anthony Clifton  August 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    I’ve always considered the Israeli’s Terrorists….because that is what “THEY” are. Wanna buy some sunglasses.

  11. Tom Valentine  August 7, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    My problem with all of this is—too many words. The evidence laid out by Zabrosky is more than adequate To indict; My gut reaction (Intuition) recoiled against some theory of nukes being used. While I surely aint an expert in explosives, I know that the power to turn all that gypsum and concrete into dust could be a combination of known explosives and thermite. The biggest hurdle for a while was the time needed for crews to set it all up with timing; that has now been explained by the facts of security companies et al being controlled by Isaelii companies. You guys squabble, if you must, but for me a “professiorial” approach puts students to sleep.I have always considered Kevin Ryan pretty sharp.

    • percy  August 8, 2011 at 1:30 am

      So why was there so much paper left? Why didn’t the paper get destroyed too?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 5:52 am

      Percy, That is an excellent question to which the answer, at present, is not known. But it should offer clues as to how this was done.

  12. ben  August 7, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    “My arguments stand on their own merits.”

    No they don’t, but you know that.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      This is stupid, Ben. If you can defeat any of my arguments, DO IT! Explain what my argument
      is (so we know that you understand it) and then DEFEAT IT! All this swagger with nothing to
      support it is pompous and hypocritical. I am calling your bluff. SHOW WHAT I HAVE WRONG.

    • ben  August 8, 2011 at 9:44 am

      We are of like mind in that neither of us believe what you’re saying.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      My point, of course, is that arguments have to be evaluated on their own, not on the
      basis of the person or parties who may have advanced them. Your ad hominems do
      not defeat any of my arguments. If you could do that, then why haven’t you done it?

  13. ben  August 7, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Philosophers seek the truth, but whether they then promulgate the truth or lie instead is another matter. There are whole schools of philosophy built on lying about one matter in hopes that it will benefit a cause perceived to be greater. This is common in all societies where the middle class and poor often get left in the dark “for their own good.” The Neo-Cons philosophically endorse the Big Lie as something practically moral, for the greater good.

    So stating you are a philosopher of science doesn’t create the credibility you think it does; in fact it does the opposite because the person reading your hologram/video fakery/mini-nuke/DEW theories does not only have to determine whether or not you’re intellectually dishonest, but additionally, whether or not you’re guided by philosophy, your own moral code, to lie.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      Some philosophers, such as Leo Strauss, betray the truth. What I have argued here and elsewhere, however, is so obvious when you apply logic to the evidence that I have no idea what you think this irrelevant remark is supposed to accomplish. Evaluate my arguments appropriately on the basis of logic and the evidence.

      If you think a real plane can pass through its own length into a massive steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, you have some serious thinking to do about your own thought processes. This is about the evidence, not me. My arguments stand on their own merits.

  14. Rosalee Grable  August 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Hijacked planes hitting buildings is the entire justification for the War on Terror, Porno Scanners, TSA and Perpetual War.
    “controlled demolition” is the bullwark against accepting the existance of a technology that could make oil obsolete.

    There is no plane in the first hit footage. The second hit “planes” commit impossible acts of cartoon physics.

    These simple facts could save humanity, but the word is held back by what amounts to a gang of playground bullies namecalling anybody not playing big oil’s game.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 1:26 pm

      It continues to astonish me how many here on this forum are taken in by those very “cartoon physics”. Amazing!

  15. Denny Cautrell  August 7, 2011 at 8:23 am

    The technology for image fakery has existed since 1995, to insinuate the military has not developed it’s own is naiive. And I might add, Dr Fetzer’s work is being discussed on a lot more alternative websites as time goes on. They are not “buying it”, they are accepting critical analysis aspects and rather than trashing his character they are actually active in getting at the truth, using his work as one more avenue to get there. The 9/11 truth does not reveal itself by puffed egomaniacs lambasting anyone or any one theory. Time spend on serious study might, but voodoo words about a researcher posted out of hand are just that.

  16. Denny Cautrell  August 7, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Dr Fetzer, what is so difficult with understanding that there could, at the onset of an investigation, an unlimited number of possibilities, some bizarre or even insane, as probability reduces the number one moves forward to ascribe scientific scrutiny, including Occum’s Razor, to reduce the number down to those most possible to meet all of the requirements of the properties one is analyzing?

    Or has scientific study been reduced to “you’re with us or against us” and the real truth be damned?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 9:14 am

      Denny, Your posts are simply excellent! You are describing how I am attempting to proceed: in a very systematic fashion, taking alternative theories and examining them to determine their likelihoods on the basis of the available evidence. See “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, which I have archived at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-analysis-of-the-wtc-on-911 I will keep at it, but the combination of mini-nukes with thermite as an incendiary looks very promising at this point.

    • MK  August 8, 2011 at 7:54 pm

      Dear Denny and Dr. Fetzer,

      You have both pointed out to a trend in modern discourse that is not just regretable, it is deleterious. All too often, the search for truth is being lost in ego. People come up with a theory and instead of trying to improve it by listening to challenges or questions, they attack. I have seen so much of this behavior, particularly in subjects that touch up politics. Far too often, these theories don’t rise above the level of considered opinion.

      I think that what you are doing in continuously asking questions and reviewing new information as it is developed will add to what should be a collective search for the truth. Thank you


    • Jim Fetzer  August 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm

      Thanks for posting, MK. I think you are exactly right. It is a common tendency in response to those who show we have something wrong to strike out against them and try to show that they “aren’t so smart” after all. I think a lot of the comments here have that kind of motivation. The equal distance/equal time/equal speed argument should not be that difficult for anyone who understand the simple formula, d = r x t (or alternatively that d / t = r).

  17. Denny Cautrell  August 7, 2011 at 6:58 am

    1 – Produce a large number of 9/11 documentaries for public consumption – in any format: memorial, heroic, sentimental or scientific. The latter format may bring up any sort of seemingly damning evidence. That is, anything but the newsmedia’s complicity.

    2 – Diffuse all sorts of conspiracy theories on the internet – the more, the better. Promote seemingly damning aspects of 9/11 in order to sustain in people’s minds the illusion of serious investigations being undertaken; the tower demolitions, the NORAD standdown, the FBI/CIA foreknowledge, etc… – anything but the fake imagery.

    3 – Ban, ridicule or censor all people aware of the fakery: Dismiss them as ‘disinformers’, ‘saboteurs’ or even ‘CIA-funded agents’. Call them ‘no-planers’ rather than ‘TV fakery researchers’. Infiltrate their ranks to stir up controversy from within, using classic, old-style divide and conquer tactics.

    Finally, launch all out attacks on his work and persona.

    – how plotter’s against real truth operate

  18. Louise  August 7, 2011 at 1:49 am

    I am 100% sure that some members of the USA government knew that 9/11 was going to happen, my question has always been – did they help it happen, like adding the explosions into the buildings, and hitting the Pentagon with a missile, did they make the whole thing happen? To what degree were members of the USA Government involved? Certainly the attack was in line with America’s world domination military strategy. War in the Middle East was definately being planned when the Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 because it created the bubble needed to go to war. Also the Good Friday agreement was done in 1998 so that Britain was free to go to war. Bill Clinton’s administration bombed Afghanistan and Iraq in 1999 but it failed to start a war, even though these attacks were legally an act of war. In the late part of 2000 Bill Clinton was still trying to negotiating a peace deal with Israel and the Palestinians and he knew that the Israelis had absolutely no interest in any peace agreement, were the whole negotiations just a charade?

  19. Smitty  August 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    Jim Fetzer religiously believes in media fakery on 9/11 and attacks anybody who says otherwise as reliving in a ‘fantasy’

    That says it all and there is nothing more to say. Nobody should waste their time reading or commenting on his pathetic editorials. He is either the world’s most educated moron or a paid psyop shill. His military career, dismissal of spiritual consciousness, and ‘experience’ with mind control and the brain among other things leads me to believe the latter.

    Just google “Fetzer” and “Disinformation” and you’ll see that he has long been discredited in conspiracy theoryville starting with JFK and ending with 9/11. (keep in mind that Fetzer himself ironically has put time into explaining ‘disinformation’ and ‘critical thinking’) I have no idea why his contributions are on VT. My guess is it is merely for the LULZ.

    Don’t bother following his ‘sources’ or taking his sock puppet trolls at face value. The man is ruined, he’s a joke. I’m glad he wrote this because it just cements his demise even further. 9/11 was a Zionist job, everything else is irrelevent. JFK was obviously not killed by Oswald. Nothing more needs to be said. Fetzer can repeat the same rhetoric, pretend he speaks for the ‘movement’ all he wants, list several BS external URLs, and personally attack people and ask them for sources all he wants. He is irrelevant

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Where does Smitty come up with some of this rubbish? I have done considerable research on the nature of mind, of consciousness and of cognition, which involves elaborating theories and concepts intended to clarify and disambiguate the meaning of those notions within a systematic, theoretical framework. I have no background with regard to “mind control”, and the collaborative research I have done on JFK stands on its own merits.

      If Smitty had an argument against anything I have published, especially here at Veterans Today, then I assume he would have produced it by now. The colossal stupidity of his and Nelson_2008’s attacks on what I have said about Judy Wood’s research is easy to demonstrate: they are based upon ignorance about the history of directed energy weapons, where I am only recommending the study of her work, not endorsing it! How dumb is that?

      Since much of the point of my critique of Kevin Ryan’s attacks was that he does not acknowledge the difference between SUPPORTING RESEARCH ON A SPECIFIC THEORY and ENDORSING IT, how can they come here and make even more attacks that do not acknowledge this distinction? I find her work quite fascinating. She has done more than anyone else to elaborate the effects that have to be explained, but I am not yet convinced that she’s right.

      Although I have interviewed Dimitri Khalezov on “The Real Deal”–where our discussion about this is at http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/Jim%20Fetzer%20Real%20Deal%20-%20Dimitri%20Khalezov.mp3 –I do not believe his theory can be reconciled with the evidence, I still suspect that mini-nukes may be a more promising hypothesis. As for Nelson_2008 and Smitty’s ongoing assault, they not only have no idea what they are talking about but don’t even seem to care.

  20. Nelson_2008  August 6, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    “I regard Judy as one of the best qualified students of 9/11 in the world today. A former professor of mechanical engineering, she introduced her theory that directed energy weapons may have been employed on 9/11 during during our conversation on the radio. I found her conjecture fascinating because it opens up an unconventional approach toward understanding the events of 9/11.”


    Firstly, you’ve just completely delegitimized yourself with that statement. You really don’t expect to be taken seriously, after taking Judy Wood seriously, do you?

    She has no expertise whatsoever in the area of directed energy weapons. Her claims are laughably absurd. No country in the world has any kind of “directed energy weapons” that have anywhere near the capabilites her scenario would require…and they won’t for a long, long time, if ever.

    Look at the U.S. – after years of trying and hundreds of millions of dollars spent it still can’t field a viable laser weapon, even for niche applications. Look at the ABL program, the latest failure, just like the other failed laser efforts before it.

    Presently, lasers are still big, bulky, inefficient, expensive, fragile, relatively low-powered, and very sensitive to atmospheric conditions. Particle beam weapons would also be big, bulky, expensive, subject to beam propagation instabilities, subject to the earth’s magnetic field, i.e., difficult to aim and control, and just generally way beyond reach at the present time.

    But her theories can be dismissed on purely logical grounds: If some country had such powerful and covert “directed energy weapons” as per her theory, that country would have invincible ships at sea, and invincible planes in the air, and an invincible missile defense system and the ability to take out targets anywhere in the world at anytime from space, for example, with complete impunity. Put simply, that country wouldn’t need to do a 9/11, as they’d already rule the world.

    Second, regarding “nanothermite”, as far as I know, nobody at A&Efor911truth is taking a position that nanothermite was or had to be used exclusively in the demolitions. Nobody has ruled out the use of conventional HE as well. And to the extent that someone has, even that wouldn’t be too unreasonable, since nanothermite, depending on the details of how it’s used, may be “explosive”, and may have been deployed in such a manner and in such a quantity as to be responsible for the destruction as witnessed.

    I hope that clears things up.

    • Smitty  August 6, 2011 at 10:54 pm

      No point in wasting our time with this disinfo troll. He’s made a career out of it. He also has experience in mind control. If he isn’t a useful idiot then he is likely getting paid to write this garbage by “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”

      Just laugh at it all. If he really thinks he is serious and he really has a PHD, then our education system really is a joke afterall which I always thought my $50k degree was anyway.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 5:33 am

      You and Smitty are as predictable as broken records. When I was doing research on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone and placed control of the US Senate in Republican control, I did research on directed energy weapons, since it appeared to be the case that one of them had been used to take down his plane by overwhelming its computerized systems–navigation, communication and alarm systems, as well as flipping the switches that control the pitch of the props–and taking them out. The evidence included an anomalous cell-phone call, garage doors opening spontaneously, popping-sounds like shots inside the plane, and the absence of any distress call–which would be explainable on the hypothesis that a directed-energy weapon had been used.

      When I looked into the matter, I discovered the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) was holding its eighth annual meeting in Honolulu that year–which was 2004! Visiting its site at the time, I found about a dozen different varieties of directed energy weapons were listed. A discussion of Particle Beam, Cosmic rays, Radio Frequency, Infrasonic, Acoustics, and Electromagnetic Energy weapons and their history at http://www.stopdirectedenergyweapons.freeservers.com/index.html You can also find a 2007 study by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf. Nelson_2008 and Smitty may find the study, “Historical Background of Scalar EM Weapons: by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (1990) of special interest.

      Since I found these in seconds by doing a search, I really do not understand what people like them are doing here and posting as though they knew what they were talking about. I also recall featuring Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, USAF (ret.), as my guest on an earlier radio show some years ago. Bob has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from CalTech and was the director of the “Star Wars” project under Presidents Carter and Ford. (You can check out his Wikipedia entry.) When I asked him about the militarization of space, he demurred and would not talk about it. Within a few weeks, however, he had begun speaking out and explained that the program was always offensive but had been sold to the public as a defensive system. It was ALWAYS all about the weaponization of space.

      My co-authored book, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004), includes a brief history about DEWs, which was provided to me by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who has a specialization in electromagnetism. I would subsequently fly him to Minnesota to follow up my earlier research, where we were tramping around the crash site at 35*F below zero, picking up charred pieces of the rubble. We did a review of the 2,500 pages of documents and records on which the NTSB’s summary report was allegedly based, and John discovered a meteorological anomaly above the crash site–a melted area in the atmosphere at the level where ice forms–weather experts were unable to explain, which was easily explainable as another effect of the use of a DEW.

      I don’t expect Smitty or Nelson_2008 to actually make the effort, but our co-authored study, which was published in Michael Ruppert’s “From the Wilderness” Newsletter, can be found archived here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070605_wellstone.shtml This is a short paper, which has 115 endnotes, perhaps the most copiously documented study ever published. A lecture that I presented in 2005 about the Wellstone crash is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vbf49kzWFw
      and statements I made at The National Press Club on 25 October 2004 when we announced the publication of the book two years to the day of his death are archived at assassinationscience.com. A new 15-part documentary, “WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM”, is also available on YouTube.

    • Nelson_2008  August 7, 2011 at 7:47 am

      You fool, I’m an engineer with over 20 years of experience, both in and out of DOD. I have professional experience with lasers and electro-optics, I’m interested in the science, and I’ve been following the development of DEWs and I’ve been reading every paper I could my hands on, since the 80s.

      And you, you with your embarrassing child-like naivety, you’re going to presume to lecture me about what is or isn’t possible?

    • Nelson_2008  August 7, 2011 at 9:19 am

      First, unfortunately, none of your hand-waving, pedantical, strawman arguments can change the fact that it is presently impossible (and likely will be for a long time) to build, let alone militarily deploy, any kind of directed energy weapon with the characteristics Judy Wood’s theories would require.

      Understand, I’m not saying that high-powered lasers and EM weapons don’t exist, they do. What I’m saying is that it would take literally orders of of magnitude more power than that of the most powerful lasers available today, to even have a chance to do what she claims. Not to mention the apparent “covertness”. (Is she also claiming that they used a star-trek like cloaking device? LOL!)

      Second, let’s say for the sake of argument that super high power lasers (i.e., at least several tens of megawatts of reliable cw power) were available, with commensurate high beam quality and high precision aiming/beam directing capability. The destruction of the towers as witnessed simply doesn’t look like any kind of beam-target interaction.

      A beam from any imaginable DEW would have to hit in one spot somewhere, dwell there long enough to do serious internal damage, and then sweep across the target at a rate slow enough to
      deposit enough energy to have the desired effect. In other words, the damage would not be done all at once, and it would be asymmetrical, starting at some point and visibly progressing across the target.

      We can see from the video that all sides of the building are being destroyed at the same time. Or are you “space beam” people actually claiming that the beam diameter from the star-trek like weapon used was hundreds of feet wide manifesting literally thousands of megawatts of power? LOL!

      Note that I haven’t even gotten into the annoying little details like the fact that, as soon as the beam started to do damage, there would be a cloud of smoke and dust and debris which would then obstruct the beam and reduce the effectiveness in an unpredictable way.

      Nor have I gotten into the fact that, there are limits to the amount of laser beam intensity that you can transmit through the air, as the air will breakdown electrically and become an ionized plasma, preventing further power transmission. To be able to do so much damage so fast with any reasonable beam diameter (but in your make-believe world any imaginable beam diameter is ok, right? LOL!) implies power transmission at an intensity level far beyond the fundamental limit for air breakdown.

      Lastly, you’ve failed to address my logical argument that the existence of such DEWs would’ve made 9/11 unnecessary in the first place, since the perpetrators, having the ability to covertly attack anyone, anywhere, at any time, while being immune from any counterattack, would not have needed a false-flag terror attack to achieve their nefarious geopolitical goals.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Nelson_2008, you are grasping after straws. Here are three key points I make in response:

      (1) Military technology is typically decades ahead of what the public is allowed to know. So you have no idea whether your claims have any basis in fact. You are indulging in speculation.

      (2) I am NOT endorsing DEWS. I AM endorsing THEIR STUDY. Are you really so brainless that you cannot comprehend one of the most important distinctions that I have drawn here?

      (3) Using high-tech weapons against enemies does not garner the support of the American people to support attacks against nations that have never attacked up. 9/11 did just that.

      And what’s with this pedantry business? If you can’t cope with (1), (2) and (3), I really have no idea at all why you are posting comments when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Nelson_2008  August 7, 2011 at 11:52 am

      We’re not talking about advanced “military technology” here, knucklehead, we’re talking breathtaking, fundamental breakthroughs in physics. Of course I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

      What do you mean by “I am NOT endorsing DEWS. I AM endorsing THEIR STUDY”; that’s a silly, meaningless statement. Judy’s woods nonsense can be immediately and I mean IMMEDIATELY dismissed on its face, by anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the underlying physics. Sorry I guess that leaves you out.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm

      Nelson_2008, if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself on this forum, be my guest!
      So far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute except for espousing positions that appeal
      to you with no evidence or argument to substantiate them. That is completely irresponsible
      intellectually and, so far as I can see, you have no scientific competence at all. So keep it up!

    • Nelson_2008  August 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm

      Coming from a hapless, technically illiterate fool such as yourself, I’ll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 7, 2011 at 8:55 pm

      Nelson_2008, some documents for your reading pleasure are archived here: http://www.deps.org/

    • OS  August 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm


      Have you visited the laser research facility in Southern Italy? Others around the world? Have you read the papers these scientist have written, I doubt, because they’re confidential.

      You have some good points, and I am also Senior Engineer (20 years) and worked in the field of lasers and optics, but have to agree with Jim. Most of the papers you read are not classified by government or corporations, and you know much work is classified (corporate or government). There are also classified corporate projects that government has no knowledge about, been that way for many years…

      And know as Jim stated, that much of the work is decades beyond the information released to the public. I doubt you would be able to visit the facility in South Italy.

    • OS  August 16, 2011 at 8:42 pm


      Let me say this,

      I worked on extremely complex projects abroad for eight years, with research and development companies from around the globe. New technologies were developed for these projects that included lasers, optics, and other complex systems. However, most of the advanced systems were not developed by US Companies, but by companies from other countries. And much of this technology does not exist in the United States, I attempted to get one of these research companies to perform some work in US, and they flat out refused. They developed some of the most advanced systems in the world.

      that’s all.

    • OS  August 16, 2011 at 9:38 pm

      In 1978, two teams were asked to be apart of an experiment. These two teams would be given 24 hours to hide in vast location. During the night, an aircraft flew over, neither team heard nor seen this aircraft, however, in less then 10 minutes every person and their location was identified with 10 digit grid coordinates. This was not the first time thermal imaging was used to locate people. How we forget….and that about 33 years ago.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login