Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots

by Jim Fetzer (with Preston James)


One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996)

9/11 appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another.  In this case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the atrocities of 9/11.  That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which were of much greater political utility.  And in each case, qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were “the real deal”.

The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track #1”, as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone assassin”.  Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done it.  Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union.  But these were superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.

Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and sensitive compartmented information (SCI).  Since WWII, however, major covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.

This is related to Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.  When basic primal survival fears are activated in the “group mind” of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more protection from the boogeymen.  This principle is the basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in “quiet desperation”,  which is the actual intended result of those who plan and activate them.

Deep Black/False Flag Ops

The “shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them secret–even from those operatives who are involved as well as the government’s own agents who do the investigations.  The “national security” cover can be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be invoked again at any time.  Thus, alphabets who discover what really happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a “national security letter”.

One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as “multi-track, enmeshed”.  This involves using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if they were actually “taken live”.  These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more taken live.

This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done.  Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.

As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable.  Such deep black cover op designs can thereby provide sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.

Palestinians Did It

Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It!  Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and employees.  Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be indelible—that the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.

An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower!  So during that brief interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under way.  The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be cast

And that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their possession.  Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a Mossad front.  After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin Towers.  Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of 9/11.

Arab Hijackers Did It

Cover Story #2:  19 Arab Hijackers Did It.  If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless.  We know “the official account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.  It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.

But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq.  Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government officials or the main stream media:  If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we attacking Iraq?

Osama bin Laden with al Qaeda

Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard evidence” that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is deep.  Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government had never produced evidence that the alleged (Muslim) “hijackers” were even aboard those four planes. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.

Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia

Cover Story #3.  The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t work any longer and  was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count.  It certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were “pulling the strings”.

“Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?”  Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions  a number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.

Sibel Edmonds

Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up”.

Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including “that foreign operatives who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who have been selling America’s nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with the United Stages government right up until 9/11.” While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to imply—that Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.

The US “Let it Happen”

Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen.  The distinction between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps. As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.

The evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed, that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad.  As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven.  The first one was the creation and tracking—principally by the Mossad—of some “low tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US and other intelligence agencies.

“Able Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call “Track A”.  The operation was designed to be discovered to create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis.  Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

When the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real terrorist cell plot”, they are telling the truth.  It was set up this way as a false track.  When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth.  But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be merely hugely incompetent.  After all, how could government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert operation?

The US “Made it Happen”

Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on 9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of them live and substituting high-tech weapons in order to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing investigators and researchers.

A perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth group’s insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition of the Twin Towers.  This position, which has assumed a status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or, at best, a feeble explosive—and cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves.  To a bona fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious deception.  If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11 along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.

Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building.  The evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.),  perhaps the world’s leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it— and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this evidence out of the public domain:

“From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,” Stubblebine has explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the façade of the Pentagon.  “If it had wings, it would have left wing marks.  [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a wing.  But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs.”  Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, “Look at the buildings falling—they didn”t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake.”

Whistleblowing as Deception

The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are telling the truth.  It was set up this way as a false track.  When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth.  When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she is telling the truth.  Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended to support the theory of US incompetence.

Clarke, who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, “It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA’s failures to communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”

Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.

But Israel cannot have done this alone.  The NORAD “stand down” and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”

The Fourth Reich

Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the Mideast may have created a huge future trap for them in their role as “classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.

Richard Clarke, Anti-Terrorism Czar

It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of 9/11.  Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation’s anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only we had done better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11.

We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as “potential domestic terrorists” by Homeland Security, which some—with ample justification—view as “The New American Gestapo.”  If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.

So if you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate them—and even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what happened and,  even among them, only a few probably knew the full dimensions of the plan.  The objective throughout, accordingly, has always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these events is believable and nothing is knowable—which is the ultimate objective of disinformation.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government.

Jim Fetzer

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

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

Related Posts:

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

Posted by on August 14, 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

161 Responses to "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots"

  1. Jim Fetzer  September 26, 2011 at 9:28 am

    This one was lost in processing:

    Author : Soccer Cleats

    You’re the best, always prefer reading your site content.

  2. Stewart  September 1, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Why over complicate all this stuff? Urban renewal was done in NYC on 911, paid for by insurance companies and Randolph Bourne’s “War is the health of the state” got another traditional boost. Airport records show that neither American Airline flight took off on 911. Both United Airlines planes were listed as being operational as late as 2005 so there was no damage done there. Computer graphics, TV’s digital video fakery, put an airliner into a NY tower, leaving its outline as distinct as that of Bugs Bunny slamming through a wall.

    Two UA planes flew to Cleveland airport, with sufficient delay in airtime of the Newark plane to involve passengers in phone participation of a mock hijacking exercise. 911′s “crash” events (plane-launched rockets) occurred during the Newark plane’s flight-time between 8:42am and 10:45am, including the decimation of a large unmaned drone over Pennsylvania. Shanksville “no-plane” experts need to see read Devvy Kidd’s Shanksville interviews at http://devvy.com . The PA event covered for the snuffing of victims following their separation from flying conspirators. I suggest directing truther energy to researching birth records, original high-school and college yearbooks, marriages, and employment records of alleged plane-victims for starters. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

  3. TruthMakesPeace  August 27, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Excellent article Jim. Remember that just as Flight 77 was approaching the Pentagon wall, explosives hidden in luggage in the cargo compartment could have exploded, shattering the wings, engines, and fuselage. A fragmented plane makes a smaller and more diffuse impact. This would explain what General Stubblebine is talking about. The official story has the plane going into the Pentagon, then exploding. But if if exploded outside the wall, that explains the trajectory of the plane debris. More explosives, pre-planted in the Pentagon during construction, explains the remainder of the building damage.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 27, 2011 at 11:04 am

      Fantastic, TruthMakesPeace! Except the evidence does not support it. Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructable, were recovered. If your hypothesis were correct, then we should have found debris all over the lawn. But even when the lime-green civilian fire trucks are extinguishing the very modes fires, the lawn is completely clear, green, smooth and free of debris, which means that you cannot be right. Debris only starts showing up later and, if my best guess is correct, was dropped from the C-130 that was circling the building. Take a look at “Seven Questions about 9/11″, which was my first column here at VT, and you’ll see what I mean. And we found planted debris later on the lawn. If your theory were true, it would also not have been necessary to plant debris: it would have already been there!

  4. Steve P  August 21, 2011 at 10:32 am

    On August 17, 2011 – 6:15 am,
    Jim Fetzer wrote:

    I do not understand what’s wrong with some of us trying to sort out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. How can anyone be held responsible if no one plays “the blame game”?

    The Air Force’s failure to intercept the planes was the part of the plot most critical to its success. It is the sine qua non of the entire affair.

    If the Air Force shows up, none of this goes down.

    We need to know why the Air Force didn’t show up. That knowledge would help us crack this case wide open.

    The Air Force has an Inspector General for just this purpose.

    Who pulled the mission statement of the fighter squadrons at Andrews AFB on 9/12/2001?

    Andrews AFB is only a taxi-ride away from the Pentagon and DC. Its failure to launch aircraft to prevent the attacks is another key to the plot.

    Off we go into the wild blue yonder,
    Climbing high into the sun;
    Here they come, zooming to meet our thunder,
    At ‘em boys, Give ‘er the gun! (Give ‘er the gun!)
    Down we dive, spouting our flame from under,
    Off with one helluva roar!
    We live in fame or go down in flame. Hey!
    Nothing’ll stop the U.S. Air Force!

    (Words & music by Robert MacArthur Crawford, 1899-1961)

    But on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, something did stop the U.S. Air Force.

    Today, we’re chasing snipe while the ducks who sat are still sitting.

    Red herrings, snipe hunts, wild goose chases…

    Sitting ducks.

    Choose your targets carefully.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      This is an important point. In the second edition of 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR: MADE IN THE U.S.A., Webster Tarpley identifies as many as seventeen (17) anti-terror drills that were taking place, which completely nullified normal relations between the FAA and NORAD and made any response to the alleged hijackings virtually impossible. Since this would have been difficult for 19 Islamic terrorists to have arranged, we have consider whether it is more probable that they were incredibly luck in their choice of dates to commit these crimes or that the DoD managed these arrangements to insure there would be no interdiction or discovery that these were “phantom flights”. This is one more important proof that 9/11 was an inside job. For more, see “Why doubt 9/11?” at http://911scholars.org in the upper-left corner.

    • Steve P  August 22, 2011 at 10:52 am

      The exercises offer no valid excuse for the USAF’s failure to launch aircraft in time to prevent the attacks of 9/11.

      According to General Eberhart, after the first attack, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation.


  5. Ned  August 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Jim, agreed Sunstein is a ……………………………!
    I do not have to express an opinion on thermite or even termites.
    People would otherwise have survived if the buildings were nof ‘blown up’ and murder committed, that is a crime so let a proper investigation commence now.
    The truth can then be discerned. If you are really worried about lies go and attack the government lies as we all wish to. I have no further comment.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 21, 2011 at 7:57 am

      In case you haven’t noticed, this article–as well as “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, “Was 9/11 ‘an inside job’?”, “Why doubt 9/11?”, and many of my others–IS an attack on the US government and its friends in the Mossad who were responsible for 9/11. I am taken aback that you seem to be unable to appreciate that we have to unravel how it was done and sort out the many theories that have been advanced about who was responsible, as this article does, to figure out who was responsible.

    • Ned  August 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm

      Alright one more time, I have a proper keyboard at hand.

      Re your last sentence.
      Finding out who is responsible…yep, no doubt thing to do, but it will not be achieved without a proper commision with search, arrest and subpoena power etc…the full gambit.
      Recently I appeared for someone brought before a sought of governemnt inquiry..can’t say anything, it is all a secret.
      We had to answer all questions and could be prosecuted and jailed if any answers were false or misleading and it woud be contempt not to answer. By the way, they may as well be investigating the peoper way to shell a peanut. I think 9/11 is slightly more significant!!

      Now how about that Jim? First, force the US government to have the equivalent of a ‘Royal Commission’ with simiilar powers.

      Call the first witness: Mr Richard Cheney. “Now Mr. Cheney answer these questions please………….”. “Next; Mr. George Bush………….”. “Next; now ‘youg man’ ,why did you report to Mr. Cheney ‘incomming’ thrice [ref; Norman Mineta] and whose /what orders were you referring to when you asked the VP; ‘do the orders still stand sir’…and, and”

      You would not miss that for the world would you Jim?

      So what are you waiting for? Enlightenment? a St Paul experience? Give us a break, get on with the investigation.

      Alternatively the US could adopt the Gonzales Bush administration approved method in dealing with ‘enemy combatants’. (you know those bastards who are far more dignified than; home grown murdering treasonous traitors and those giving aid, comfort and protection to them)

      Mr. Cheney lie down on this board please and Mr Ventura will have 30 minutes with you,…… After all they did it to KSM 83 times in one month and Hello! He admitted everything about 9/11 “………..from Ay to Zee”. as reported. By the way when is his trial comming up? I would love to see him explain how he arranged the US airforce standown who supplied whatever was used to ‘blow up’ the buildings, how he paid for the stuff, how he managed to get through all the security, close down the security cameras for a period with the wtc powerdown, who placed the stuff and, and, and, ad nauseum.

      Be a beut trial Jim…bring it on. “Oh dear we can’t, we will look sillier than we already do…ssshhhish”

      How about the Israeli method…just go and shoot who we think is responsible or who might be a threat. Sound good?

      Jim, do you have any apprecaition how rediculous (and evil greedy warmongers) the US people appear to the rest of the world? Is their not any pride? If so, get the damm investigation under way as many decent americans are demanding and stop chasing rabbits….we know the official government conspiracy theory is ‘Hogwash’. [e.g. refer; Bob Bowman at patriotsquestion9/11.com.

      Then you can hang all your rabbits before the Commsion of inquiry for gutting and a public reading of the entrails.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 21, 2011 at 7:07 pm

      Ned, I don’t get this. You seem put out with me, but I am an investigator doing research on 9/11. I am not a prosecutor. I think it would be great to have a formal inquiry with the kinds of powers you describe, but I have no idea how to bring that about. I am doing what I can to present and evaluate the evidence about what happened so we can have a high degree of assurance in pursuing this further. I you have ideas about how to do that, great! But I have no idea why you think that that responsibility would fall to me.

    • Ned  August 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm

      You have no idea how to bring about a formal inquiry!

      Hey, Mr. Fetzer, you’re (spelt correctly?) an intellectual and an investigator with some contact and some clout no doubt. Perhaps if you prioritise how to get an inquiry under way that would be a better use of time then hunting rabbits.

      Get the prosecutor and official investigator to chase the rabbits, bring them home and you can read the entrails as well as the commision of inquiry.

      Inded you can suggest who to subpoena to give evidence and what should be asked of them.

      You have done some great work, but you are not getting anywhere with anything to show for it at the moment…… just talk, theory and speculation.

      The ‘ae people’ and their supporters have brought home the scientific bacon on building 7, so lets us get the inquiry underway.

      The old saying; ‘thou shalt (shall?) know them by their deeds’ can be compared with; ‘thou shall know them by their wise efforts and results’ ,seems appropriate.

      I take it that you would have contacted the lawyers for KSM, if he is alllowed any, and offered publicly to present your material to the Star Cahmber hearing his case….Now that would be something to spur on the interest in the triall.

      By the way, when is it being heard? Oh! No information, well there you go, just love the land of the just and the free, don’t we?

    • Ned  August 21, 2011 at 10:46 pm


      I forgot to add that you might get some pointers on how to get an inquiry under way by consulting with those, who at least had some partial success.

      Try the ‘Jersy Girls’, they have some ‘True Grit’!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 6:04 am

      I am a scholar, not an attorney! My colleagues and I are attempting to sort out what happened on 9/11 and how it was done, who was responsible and why. There are many 9/11 organizations that are better positioned than I to take the kind of steps that you suggest. I admire The Jersey Girls, Judy Wood, Ph.D., and those making other kinds of contributions. If you have the knowledge, background, and resources to pursue them, then do it! We will continue to do research that will substantiate your legal case. Get off your butt and do it yourself! Go for it! Good luck!

    • Ned  August 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm

      I take it that your scholarly mind has not discerned that I live in Australia and I am not a US citizen.
      So America; you get of your butts and get an investightaion under way.
      I have contributed money and time in Australia at personal expense…I would not visit the US fascist state in a pink fit to pursue your suggestion.
      Yesterday, another Aussie soldier died in Afghanistan…America, go tell his family that it was worth a US corporate’s oil pipeline.
      By the way, search ‘War is a Racket’ by Smedley Butler and the interview by Ex NATO chief Wesley Clark with …?…on about 3rd March 2007, wherein Clark told the interviewer that in September 2001 he was told at the Pentagon that America was going to war….. to do 7 countries in 5 years…..ending with Iran.
      That is getting close and it is all based on the lies of 9/11 to get the average Western citizen suckered by deceit to go and kill and thieve for the American Reich…..best of luck America…..the American Macho male has been out done by some Girls from Jersey. If it were not for them getting the Commmision and the then realisation that the Commission was to protect mass murderers, then the 9/11 movement might not have been as successful as it is now.
      It was the realization that the Commision was just one great big lie that woke me up. I had formed a view back in early 2004 but it was Griffin,s ‘9/11 Commission; Omissions and Distortions’ in 2005 that was the icing…for, when people lie there has to be reason…that being to protect mass murderers and their supporters in the US who have then being responsible for the invasions and killing of Million (?) or more.
      The US administrations since at least 2001 have simply been the most evil and deadly in the world….I would have thought that even a scholar might be inclined to concern himself with trying to correct that by…not theorising…just getting the prosecution/investigation under way to determine the facts. Jim you can theorise all you like, indeed ask around those you suspect and ask them; “did you have any involvement in carrying out or planning or covering up the mas murders on 9/11″? They would spit in your eye…the only way to get the answer is to subpoena them cross examine them, place documemnts before them and continue with others and detect the inconsistencies. Even do a deal with some to get to the top echelons,
      Theorising is necessary but is only useful for a limited time…after that, one is juts banging one’s head against a wall.
      By the way, thermate does not ‘explode’! Well theorise on the posibility that there was a combination of materials place in the towers some exploded and others cut through the vertical columns..Just a thought. Now how will we find out? For a start subpoena those miserable people ‘dancing’ on a removalist van celebrating, as Americans jumped to their deaths from 100 stories and firefighters werer murdered whilst just doing their job.
      How about the investigation forcing the release of the Bush/Cheney interview with the Commission. How about forcing the rrelease of the FBI intelligence report on arrested foreigners and spying set ups. How about subpoenering all the videos from the Pentagon, how about forcing the relevant airlines to produce all the service records of the relevant aeroplanes and compare the parts with those found at all the sites.
      Do I take it that in your scholarly investigation into who, why, and how your going to manage to get a peak at that materilal, for example?
      Get the evidence Jim, by forcing a proper invdestigation..If the girls can do it, surely you and your friends and scholars can lobby hard to do the same.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      What my “scholarly mind” has discerned is that you seem to have no appreciation for the concept of a division of labor. I am an expert in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. My great strength is that I bring those abilities to the study of significant and controversial political events, such as JFK and 9/11. Very few students of either have the kind of background that I represent. Yet I realize full well that I am not an expert in all of the disciplines that matter to understanding complex events like these, which is why I created a research group including a world authority on the human brain (who was also an expert on wound ballistics), a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology, a physician who was present when JFK was brought into Trauma Room #1 (and two days later was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin), a legendary expert on photographs and films related to the assassination, and yet another Ph.D. in physics, this time with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and the physics of images in motion. We were able to reconstruct the case from the ground up, discovering that the X-rays had been altered, another brain had been substituted, and the home movies of the assassination, including the Zapruder, had been altered to conceal the limo stop and change the appearance of the wounds to make them look more like ones that would have resulted from shots fired from behind. In founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I took a similar approach in bringing together experts from different disciplines–including pilots, physicists, engineers (aeronautical, mechanical, structural, and so forth)–in a collaborative effort to sort out the evidence and figure out how it was done. We have had many achievements, including discovering 20 major points of refutation of the official account, which can be found summarized in the upper-left-hand-corner of the Scholars home page, http://911scholars.org, under the heading, “Why doubt 9/11?”

      In addition, I have done hundreds and hundreds of interviews on radio and television, organized the first conference for Scholars here in Madison in 2007, edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ (2007). I was featured for 3.5 hours in a major television program in Athens in 2006, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, flown to Buenos Aires (twice) in 2008 and 2009, where I was the principal speaker at The International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice held at The National Library of the Republic of Argentina, and organized a symposium, “Debunking the ‘War on Terror'”, held at Friends House in London on 14 July 2010, featuring my friend, Kevin Barrett, co-founder of Muslims for 9/11 Truth; Gilad Atzmon, celebrated jazz musician and outspoken critic of Jewish identity politics; and hosted by Ken O’Keefe, the hero of the Freedom Flotilla, who disarmed several Israeli commandos when they came aboard his ship. You can find my presentation at The National Library on the Scholars home page, http://911scholars.org, and the London symposium featuring my “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?” and the rest at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621. You write as though I were some kind of slacker who is not doing enough to bring truth and justice to the fore, when I am doing everything I can do with the resources at my disposal. I am not an attorney and am not well positioned to take that on, as I have previously explained. But I have identified those I regard as responsible in several articles and multiple presentations. So if you want to harass me, be my guest, but don’t expect me to suggest there is any justification for your complaints. And when you raise the issue of nanothermite, it makes my skin crawl. If you want to form “Liars for 9/11 Truth”, do it, but don’t expect me to join. Our hands are full just trying to sort these things out, much less having to disabuse ourselves of false theories.

    • Ned  August 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm


      If you read the 5th paragraph of my note on 21st August at 10.22 above, you will observe that I appreciate that you have done great work…you do not have to prove it.
      But it is time to put that work before a new investigation and that investigation will only come about by public demands through lobbying legislators, as did the Jerssey Girls.
      You confirm you have impressive collegaues friends and contacts who can be requested to join in demands of the legislators that there be a proper investigtion.
      Nothing will happen until then, meanwhile we will just sit around like college freshmen drinking port to 4 am, theroising on some obscure subject.
      Jim, the port bottle has run dry.
      I note that your skin ‘crawls when nano thermite is raised. it does not with me and I do not have crawling skin when someone says ‘no thermate’ or Muslims did it or it was an inside job or the Jesuits did it or whoever. I don’t kow one way or the other, so why get so upset with me?. It is a matter to be sorted out by the competing theorists supported with scientific evidence at the proper investigation together with appropriate questiong of those who obviously should be able to contribute via their positions etc., to the circumstances of the crime.
      As for the possibility of ‘joining liars for 9/11 truth’. No I do not wish to. I will await the ‘truth’ when the invstigation is complete and then bring out the knitting.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 9:57 pm

      It makes my skin crawl because you are implying that we are better off with a false theory than the truth. That, I thought, was our problem with the government: it has lied about 9/11 and not told the truth. If we promote false theories when when know they are untrue, we are no better than they. We must put science and truth ahead of PR and politics. I would have no idea how to launch a law suit, if I had the resources to do that. As I have previously observed, you seem to think that unless I am doing everything by myself, what I am contributing comes to naught. I would like to see those responsible brought to account, but I am a scholar, not an attorney. Others are going to have to bear that burden, which would be an ineffectual way for me to contribute to this cause, when I have well-honed research skills but no knowledge, ability or resources to launch a law suit. Is that OK with you?

    • Ned  August 22, 2011 at 11:48 pm

      Any implication that we are better offf with lies is just not justified.
      I mentioned soemwhere up above that a police investigator will get lies and conflicting information combined with theories.
      The theories and speculations can be found on the station whiteboard as submitted by his/her crew.
      Fact is lies are filtered by investigations and cross examination etc….hopefully!
      Some of yours might be there and some might come from Ggoofey, nevertheless they have to be tested. (some people suggest that fire brought down the three buildings even!)
      By all means apply your scholarship to the problem as you wish, it will/should be taken into account.
      I just want a proper murder investigation, nothing will be achieved until it happens and ends and I can get on with my knitting as the blade falls.
      There is nothing untoward in seeking your ardent support for such an investigation.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 11:55 pm

      Well, I appreciate this post, Ned. It makes a lot more sense than some of your earlier commentaries. I certainly SUPPORT carrying this case as far forward as we can. But, frankly, the judiciary in this country has become something of an abomination. The judges in New York who are involved in 9/11 do not appear to me to have truth and justice foremost on their minds. Judy Wood’s Qui Tam lawsuit is an instructive example.

    • Ned  August 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm

      Well there you go: the problem also lies with the US judiciary as well!.?
      May I suggest that you search; “Lawyers and the third Reich’. (no time for me at moment) you will find a summary of a book on the subject and one comment refers to the fictional conversation in the film, Trilal at Nuremburg, when Spencer Tracey speaks with a German judge who asks something, from memory like; ‘Where did we go wrong” and Spencer replies; “when you condemned the first innocent man”. Could he be referring to the beheaded simpleton ‘commie’ who did not burn the Reischstag? That of course brought in the ‘German’ Patriot Act and other obscenities in legislation………………as has the US.
      Of course that was only one of Hitler’s ‘false flags’. Then again we have plenty of our own ‘culminating’ in 9/11. The next one will be a real humdinger!
      Now what say; KSM is the US example of the ‘commie’ and the Muslim people are another, in general.

      Sorry to say that when the judiciary (and the politicians) are corrupt in your country then your people are cactus……just living, as the Germans did in the mid 1930’s…Naive stupid dumbos who did not get off their butts to ensure that matters were corrected.
      As for lawyers, is not Professor Cass Sunstein an ex professor from the Harvard Law School and he now runs the department of Informatiopn and regulatory affairs. {ref: Ggriffin; Cognitive Infiltration] I think you have a problem and that is why it is imperitive that a proper investigatin be underway NOW. Your time is fast getting to 1939!
      The people have to be motivated by the desire not to end up as the Germans did…you can help..

      As for lawyers generally; they are just as thick and controlled here and when tested outside their expertise in some particular aspect of the law, coud not find the toilet roll in an outside dunny……but I have hasd some successs, now , if only they would manage to wipe themselves.

      Put your theories with all the others on the station whiteboard for the proper investigation. Have you tried sending out a letter to every AG in the US, outining the possible scenarios and seeking an investibgation. Surely, you can obtian many academic signatories who will support a proper investigation withourt committing to, how, who and why……yet!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 4:41 pm

      YOU DON’T KNOW there are problems with the judicial system, especially in New York? Have you paid any attention to the 9/11-related law suits there and what has become of them? I am afraid you are one of the masses of the gullible who will believe anything they are told by our government. I am surprised that you are not here defending the “official conspiracy theory” of 19 Islamic hijackers and those planes!

    • Ned  August 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      Your first line is presumptous and impertinent and based on no knowledge of what I have been observing since early 2004.
      Try a dictionary and look up ‘facetious’ .
      To suggest I have been ‘gullible’ is unfounded (at least since early 2004) and the unfounded allegattion indicates more about you then of me.
      I am well aware of the numerous”allegations’ against the US judicial system and some players in it when it comes to actions by 911 truthers seeking information via freedom of information suits and others seeking compensation etc.,
      If the case/s has been reported at 9/11 blogger particularly, as I have read every thing published on blogger since about 2005
      Perhaps you would like to borrow my print-out (about 2′ high) of the Heidner papers referred to in one of the posts above….I had to carry it around for a week to get through it all….you might find them an interesting read and put it up on the whiteboard with all the other theories. If I had a whiteboard sticker I would put it up as a posibility for precise examination….talk about plots within plots!..Dan Brwon could not even compete with Heidner. But then again I know of some matters metioned by Heidner and I can add to them…so at least I know that Heidner has some credibility and this thesis could have legs..
      (For other readers who want to look, just search; E.P.-Heidner-911commision-report-revised-december- 2008……plus, add ‘collateral’ and ‘collateral 1′, to see the two smaller reports of 53 and 56 pages..start with the latter two reports..I suggest.)
      It is a mystery to me, as to what your presumptions, uninformed judgements, uniformed conclusions and attempted insults in relation to me, are meant to achieve. You trying to bait me to expose more? Nah! No more!.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      Egad, Ned! What did I do to set you off? You made a remark that implied I was performing some kind of diversion or fakery in pointing out that the judiciary, especially in New York, has been biased against 9/11 law suits! Now you come back and proclaim yourself an expert on judicial bias in relation to 9/11 lawsuits! I have no idea what to make of this–and your diatribe against me is not going to impress anyone.

    • Ned  August 23, 2011 at 10:36 pm

      Jim, I decline to bite .l Ieave it to the readers of the commenst…been illuminating!.

  6. Ned  August 20, 2011 at 12:16 am

    Jim, thank you for the reply and clarification.
    You refer to the truth movent being base on a lie.
    I feel that you are mirroring the Cass Sunstein methodology and examined by Griffin in his book
    Cognitive infiltration.
    A police officer does not fail to investigate a crime just because persons
    propose differing and even contradictory information. He Investigates and sorts out truth from fiction and awaits the result.
    So let’s get on with the frigging investigation and let a proper inquiry
    do their investigation.
    Kiss kissee kiss ha!
    forensic evidence from red herrings and does not to worry about
    the truth from fiction, forensic evidence from red herrings and philosophical crap.

    • Ned  August 20, 2011 at 12:21 am

      Last line after ‘ha’ are in error…..bugger these minute IPhones!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 20, 2011 at 7:06 am

      Ned, is nanothermite explosive? can it pulverize concrete or shatter steel with its shockwaves? Once we know that “explosive nanothermite” is a myth, we cannot continue to assert it without perpetrating a form of deception that qualifies as a lie. Lying occurs when you make an assertion that you know to be false yet you do so deliberately with the intention to mislead. Now that it is known that nanothermite is not a high explosive, to continue to talk or to act as though it were is a form of lying. That is why I’ve asked you if you believe that the 9/11 Truth movement should continue to perpetuate this myth and why I have suggested we could call it “Lying for Truth”.

      I am not a fan of Sunstein and I like Griffin’s book. I published an article about cognitive infiltration some time back, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, in OpEdNews back on 22 January 2010: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html Like you and David, I am completely opposed to the deceitful and duplicitous techniques that Sunstein is proposing, which are corrupt to the core. And I have published articles like this one explaining why it’s wrong. I think that you just might like this piece, which concludes with the following paragraph and links:

      “Joseph Lawler has observed the profound irony of attacking conspiracy theories by proposing a conspiracy to defeat them! That Cass Sunstein is a member of the Obama administration in a regulatory capacity and has even been mentioned as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court reflects an astounding example of cognitive dissonance. Like other officials of the government, that would entail an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Given his position on the First Amendment, not only could he not swear such an oath without committing perjury but his role in subverting the principles upon which this country was founded make him one of those who qualifies as an enemy of the document he was swearing to uphold.”

    • Ned  August 23, 2011 at 8:59 pm

      Nah, not biting…let the readers make their own assessments. Bye.

  7. Ned  August 19, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Jim please, do you join in the demand for a new investigation into the collapses now as wanted by the ‘ae’ people or not?
    If so did you tell Rudin that for his BBC program? If not why not?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2011 at 9:59 pm

      I signed their petition long ago. I support A&E and like Richard Gage. But I cannot condone the use of a false theory even to promote a worthy cause. Surely we can base the 9/11 Truth movement on theories that are true! And of course I had had several conversations with Mike Rudin even before he showed up here, explaining that I had been disillusioned by the program they produced after Guy Smith had been here and filmed me for eight hours. I gave Rudin dozens of proofs that the official account is false and had told him that, if the BBC was interested in the truth about 9/11, then I would be glad to assist and they could produce a blockbuster! I was naive to think that they would do anything like that. Now I can attest to the disinformational practices of the BBC, which I have seen “up close and personal”. I don’t remember specifically if I said anything about the A&E petition. What good do you think it would have done if I had? I can’t recall nanothermite being much of a topic when they were here and I don’t think that nanothermite was even in this latest hit piece. Tell me: Do you believe that the 9/11 Truth movement should be based on false theories because it’s such a worthy cause? We might call it “lying for Truth”!

  8. Gerry Hiles  August 18, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    @ Jim

    Please do not SHOUT with capitals. That does not bode well.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2011 at 7:17 am

      I wasn’t shouting. Book titles are commonly capitalized so their character as title is apparent.
      I worry about you, if you can’t understand something this simple. It is called “a convention”.

    • Ned  August 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm

      Thanks be to God that I skipped philosophy and chose archeology where one can see and feel the evidence.
      I saw three high rise steal structured buildings come down in near free fall speed. No 7 at free fall at commencement for an admitted 2.5 seconds.
      The official ‘fire did it’ is BS, so let us get on with a proper investigation fullstop.
      Any problem with that Jim?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2011 at 9:05 pm

      Well, it depends what you mean by “come down”. There were
      significant differences between them: WTC-7 was a classic
      controlled demolition. All the floors fell at the same time at
      about free fall. You could see the demolitions work their way
      across the bottom, up the side; there was that characteristic
      kink from blowing one support column early; and when it was
      over, there was a debis pile equal to about 12% of its height.

      The Twin Towers were blown apart from the top down. All of
      their floors remained stationary, waiting their turn to be “blown
      to Kingdom Come”, in Morgan Reynolds’ memorable phrase.
      They also came down at about free fall speed. But when it
      was over, apart from some steel segments flown outward and
      away, there was no pile of debris: they were destroyed below
      ground level. These were demolitions under control, but were
      not classic controlled demolitions. It depends what you mean.

  9. Gerry Hiles  August 18, 2011 at 9:53 am

    @ Jim.

    You induce that I have never studied logic. Wrong, as a matter of fact.

    You assert that I am generally wrong and that, by implication, you are right.

    I would have put this reply to your thinly veiled castigation of me at the foot of your response to what wrote, but a reply option was not available.

    But ‘thanks’ for the lecture on “Philosophy 101″ … did that and more at the Universty of Western Australia.

    I have moved on since then.

    I will not bother you again, because splitting hairs is pointless and you do not understand Occams Razor.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 18, 2011 at 10:24 am

      Well, I taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years–and you could have fooled me. Your remarks about truth are as sophomoric as they come. Why don’t you check out my co-authored GLOSSARY OF EPISTEMOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, for example, my SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, or AI: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS, where I discuss truth and Occam’s Razor? I have no idea what your views are in general, so I have certainly not implied that you are “generally wrong”; but on the nature of truth and of Occam’s Razor, there is no room for doubt.

    • Gerry Hiles  August 18, 2011 at 11:40 pm

      So you say.

      I will glean you this much.

      My first essay on Descartes (who is the epitome of doubt/uncertainty) got rejected; so I went to Professor Graves – the head of the Philosophy Department at UWA – who said that my essay was actually brilliant, but that it could never be accepted in English/American schools.

      He said that I should go to Paris or Berlin, if I wanted to get a “pass”, but I stuck with the course anyway and just took the cynical approach of “logical positavism” (assumedly your kind of approach).

      Crudely speaking I am an “existentialist” … hence Socrates/Plato, Husserl, Schopenhauer, Descartes, Hume and Kant, for instance.

      My way of thinking has a 2500 years of pedigree, whereas yours has maybe 100 years.

      I did say that I would not bother you again, but I cannot resist taking you on.

      Do you understand Kant’s “phenomenal world”?

      Do you understand Descartes’ “Method of Doubt”?

      Do you understand that the scientific method is to doubt everything and to only admit the most probable?

      You, it seems, have zero doubt that nanothermite was NOT significant during 911.

      How do you know? Have you got any dust samples? If so: have you had them tested?

      Well no, you have not.

      Logic, both common and formal (e.g. the simple if, then) tells only that you have some kind of personal axe to grind … maybe that, as an ex-member of the military you find it hard to accept that factions of the US military were involved.

      I am sure that you are a “good American” and served out of best intents in whatever war situations … Vietnam? But, logically, it has not worked out, has it!

      The Washington Empire is in steep decline, both overseas and on the US mainland – which is the primary empire carved from the defeat of the native population and the Spanish/Mexican Empire.

      No room for doubt that this is so?

      Do you know that the word ‘science’ (from Latin) just means ‘knowledge’?

      Do you know that the word ‘philosophy’ is actually a Greek phrase: philo (love of, or desire for) ‘sophia’ = knowledge or wisdom.

      Did you know that wisdom is a special form of knowledge, i.e. knowledge put to the test of experience, observation and repeatabilty. A core component of what is generally regarded as ‘science’ for anyone reasonably well informed.

      Experience dictates that all empires reach their apogee, and then implode/collapse … as is happening now, as a matter of fact.

      Admittedly there is a possibly solipsistic problem with ‘facts’, as Berkely illustrated and which Kant expressed as, “We can never know the world-in-itself.” But all we have to go on is the “phenomenal world” that Kant described that is grounded in our fundamental senses of ‘time’ and ‘space’.

      Come to think: I will post an essay I once wrote ….

      I have never bothered to follow this up, because everything is now falling apart, e.g. financially, wars, Fukushima and so on.

      Anyhow you kinda sucked me in, Jim, for possibly final shots at what I once thought important.

      At least I have now given you more substance to what my “views are in general” … they are not “as sophomoric as the come”. Thanks for the insult. Now explicate Plato, Descartes and Kant, if you can.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 19, 2011 at 7:21 am

      If we need any more proof of your sophomoric approach, here it is.
      I also taught courses in the history and philosophy of science, the
      history of philosophy, and the theory of knowledge. This is neither
      the time nor the place for a tutorial in philosophy. Why don’t you do
      yourself a favor and pick up a copy of my co-authored GLOSSARY
      graduate student has told me that they only survived to earn their
      degree because they had a copy. It might also do you some good!

  10. Gerry Hiles  August 17, 2011 at 9:56 am

    @ Jim.

    I have read http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

    I already knew that thermites are not explosives, so I was anticipating some alternative explanation, or hypothesis for how cut steel members got ejected as they clearly were. However nothing was on offer, except for a vague reference to Judy Wood, who I find very hard to believe … in any case, neither could her theory account for the ejections.

    Why not just admit to not knowing, rather than have an entirely negative dispute?

    It does cross my mind that it is not valid to compare the demolition of WTC7 with 1 and 2, because they were of different construction and much taller. Beyond that I have no more clue than you do, nor anyone at this stage.

    One thing I am certain of is that at least 90% of people either can’t, or cannot be bothered to understand the fine detail which, for me, somewhat resembles Scholastics of the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels could sit on the head of a pin.

    This why I say to package things in a form which most people can easily grasp, as A&E are doing by concentrating mostly on WTC7.

    As I am in Australia, quite old and disabled, I cannot be heavily involved, but I do know what works for most people, e.g. showing some footage of WTC7 coming down, especially because most people only know about WTC 1 & 2.

    This is the way the MSM works, e.g. short, dramatic scenes with minimal commentary.

    No use fighting against this. The vast majority of people switch off quite quickly.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2011 at 10:15 am

      Well, I have made no secret that we do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, but we do know that it required a very different mode of demolition than WTC-7. Here is an outline of some of the differences between them, which I have discussed most explicitly in “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, which is archived on the Scholars forum at http://911scholars.ning.com, where you can enter that title and you will have access to it:

      ………… WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7
      Sequence: Top down / Bottom up
      Floor motion: Stationary / Falling together
      Mechanism: Pulverization / Controlled Demolition
      Time/Speed: About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
      ………………… (~ free fall) / (~ free fall)
      Remnants: No pancakes / Pancakes
      ………… (below ground level) / (5-7 floors)

      They display substantial difference even in gross appearance. Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different. If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition– as virtually all sides agree–then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

      The phrase, “controlled demolition” still applies, since they too were brought down by a demolition that was under control. I am not concealing that we don’t know. I believe I emphasized it in “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/

      It appears to me that we are dealing with some unconventional mode of destruction, which may have involved mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, or some other form of directed energy. While I believe that Judy Wood has done more to display the full range of effects that have to be explained by an adequate theory, I am not yet convinced that she has figured it out.

    • Ned  August 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm


      If you really like analysing 9/11 a bit more and past the obvious proof that the official conspiracy theory is BS, may I suggest that you raise above the obvious and examine some very interesting aspects of 911.

      Do a search of the three papers by E. P, Heidner;

      ‘E.P Heidner- 9/11-commsiiion-report-revised-december-2008′ and
      ‘E.P. Heidner-9/11commsion-report-revised-december- 2008-collateral’

      They are at the scrbd site.

      Applying ‘KISS’ it is really quite simple as set out in Heidner’s theses and fits in with Fetzer’s plots withing plots.

      As a teaser; Now what happened on 9/11? Airplanes, buildings etc drew everyone’s attention. But the real 9/11 was the closure of the SEC and the undocumented financilal launderings that were put through.

      Everyone was distracetd and have been ever since as the ‘firewalls’ put up by the real culprits have held in place by means of misinformation whilst anaylsis and debate rages about how buildings were demolished. Who cares how, they were, we know that they were, the official story is nonsense. We should be pressing against the next ‘firewall’ they have set up to delay and obfuscate the questuioning.

      When you raed Heidner note his reference to the Nugan Hand Bank in Sydney……Heidner fails to mention (he probably did not know) that the former chief Magistrate in NSW, when released form jail on other charges, was charged in the early 1980’s with conspiracy to steal Phillipines government gold bullion……….nothing more heard but who were the other conspirators??.

      Think!? 9/11 was a bank heist and destruction of the investigators at the ONI into money laundering, gold bullion theft, drug dealing and arms dealing by black ops since the end of WW11, as a start.

      The ONI office was coincidently wiped out at the Pentagon and Cantor Fitzgerald was wiped out at the WTC, the Enron and other prosecution files were destroyed in builidng 7 and the gold bullion in building 6 was on its way out in a heavy loader in a tunnel underneath the sites.

      Got your interest?

      By the way, Aussie councils with investments to tens of millions of dollars in the failed subprime mortgae derivitives flogged by lehmans are helping to pay for 9/11.

      Now, do we see the real purpose in all the obfuscation and misinformation by those delaying a 9/11 invvestigation?

    • Steve Johnson  August 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm

      Spot on there Ned Matey,

      The Biggest crime on Sept 11 was NOT the murders of 3000 innocents by state sponsored terrorism, NOR was it the 7.2 billion $ insurance scam to demolish aging superstructures and claim insurance money on it, NOR was it the massive administrative and defensive incompetence that these criminals are attempting to paint.

      No Siree. The Biggest crime on Sept 11 was the organised and preplanned Gold bullion looting of the Bank of Nova Scotia, combined with the wholesale destruction of Federal evidence in forthcoming insider trading scandals (in WTC 7) and the trillions made since in Afghan opium and iraqi oil sales worldwide as an end result.

      Since then, the pillaging and plundering has only gotten worse, 9-11 was both the catalyst and the signal for the global looting as modern day godless vikings to begin.

      See the video from last year about another Canadian bank with all its gold bars missing:

      Gold was stolen from, underneath WTC 5 to the tune of 650 Billion dollars worth with only 120 million recovered of the stolen bars. *( And that was at 2001 prices of $240 an ounce.)

      These criminals have so much untold wealth they can buy any court or law enforcement system or even ANYONE they want to. Even 9-11 truthers it seems can be bought and sold these days.

      Sad as it is, against this anti-human type of demonic agenda we may well need divine assistance in overcoming the swollen impetus and criminality and greed that has been allowed to breed.

      So how did people not even notice this?

      EASY – By Misdirected attention. That is precisely how they have managed so much criminality in such a short decade of greed. While we were busy watching upwards towards the smoke, the Wombles of Bush manor were doing their dirty business underground. Misdirection helped them get away scot free also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhsmAISqo6U

      We are today being bombarded with information and media saturation. New DVD’s are costing less than ten bucks each and the gaming industry is projecting sales of upwards of 65 billion$ in software as young ones play their life away learning how to be nintendo drone pilots for future wars.

      Ever wonder why we have so much distraction? Because these criminals know while you are busy paying taxes, playing games, watching youtube videos, and watching lady gaga concerts, they can basically do what they like with little or no major public outrage.

      One of Professor Fetzers better articles in recent years for sure.

      Steve Johnson

    • Gerry Hiles  August 18, 2011 at 10:02 am

      Hi Ned.

      I have some familiarity with your references.

      Nugan Hand brings back memories, but it all goes back much further to when the Whitlam Government got dismissed, e.g. “The Falcon and the Snowman”.

      Corruption has been embedded for a very long while. FAR too much of a tangled web to untangle.

  11. Donald F. truax  August 17, 2011 at 6:53 am


    First time here :)

    This is an excellent analysis and a rare one at that!


    PS: Link of the week: http://winner-foodservice.com/hi-res/Winner-logo-Adobe-RGB.jpg

  12. foo  August 17, 2011 at 6:39 am

    @ Denny Cautrell

    “…CBS tosses Dan Rather for outing Bush Jr as AWOL…”

    That’s not the way that I remember it. Rather was set up — fed faked documents. He should have noticed that they were not typewritten, and he didn’t. He went with the story. CBS feigned embarrassment and fired Rather for his incompetence.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am

      No, it was a bit more complex than that. Rather had confirmed the contents of the fitness report with both the commanding officer who wrote it and the secretary who had typed it. The content was genuine. But it had been secretly retyped using a typewrite face that was not available at the time. Those who heard that the document was fake assumed incorrectly that its contents were false. This is the kind of cover-up that comes from the fertile mind of Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, whom I believe pulled it off.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login