Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist

by Jim Fetzer


Steve Fahrney, an activist from 9/11 Truth San Diego, who had worked with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E) for a year, contacted me because of his awareness of my research with T. Mark Hightower on the properties of nanothermite, “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”  He had a number of issues related to A&E that he wanted to discuss, including that he learned during his work with it that research on conventional explosives at the World Trade Center had never been conducted and that communications within the organization did not allow discussion of what happened at the Pentagon or alternative explanations of how the Twin Towers had been destroyed.  I invited him to be my featured guest on “The Real Deal” on Monday, 15 August 2011, an interview that will be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com (which is now available), and invited him to author the following blog. 


To Test or Not To Test, the Pentagon and “Off Topic” Topics

by Steve Fahrney

As much as I respect the work of Richard Gage, AIA, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I decided to publicly address some of my concerns about some of the policies I experienced as a volunteer on the team for a year. Jim Fetzer was kind enough to provide me a public forum to get some of these alarming concerns off of my chest. Most of the Truth movement is aware that NIST shamefully admits to not having tested dust and debris for explosives, despite the overwhelming presence of “high order damage,” but what most 9/11 Truthers are largely unaware of is that WE, in the 9/11 Truth movement, have also failed to test for explosives.

Richard Gage and TV Anchor

I had always assumed that the tests had been done but had yielded no results, which I further assumed was the reason the painstaking nano-thermite research, testing, and publication were carried out. I did not find out until I had been on Richard Gage’s staff for nine months, via an e-mail thread, that we had never tested for explosives ourselves. I was alarmed by this revelation and quickly backed the notion of testing as soon as possible. I was even more surprised when a respected team member, Gregg Roberts, a technical writer who co-authored the nano-thermite paper, was arguing adamantly AGAINST testing for conventional explosives and det cord. He argued that we have limited resources, and we already have a “smoking gun” and saw no benefit of testing. He cautioned that since so much time had passed the residues might have broken down, where testing could yield a negative result even if they had been used. He further emphasized that “debunkers” would use a negative result to their advantage.

Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal Abstract

In regard to the resources, several members of the team had already stepped forth and pledged $200 per person, which would have covered several tests, meaning that A&E’s organization funds would be unaffected. In addition to T. Mark Hightower’s startling revelation that thermite lacks the explosiveness to be considered as a sole “smoking gun”, I had argued at the time that it would greatly benefit the 9/11 Truth movement to empower our outreach specialists with a more easily understood explanation involving conventional explosive, if the results were positive. As an outreach specialist myself for San Diegans for 9/11 Truth, I was using all of the tools at my disposal, including the nano-thermite paper.

Gregg responded to my e-mail, stating it was actually “perverse” to desire different evidence simply because I was having a hard time explaining the evidence I had. I corrected him stating that I could explain it to others, but that I did not feel qualified to do that. How much time might have been saved by the 9/11 Truth movement collectively, if we had simply tested for conventional explosives, gotten a positive result, and been able to state definitively that explosives had been found at the World Trade Center–without having to explain the intricate details of how thermatic material was allegedly engineered to explode?

Gregg Roberts (left) and Dwain Deets

From what I have learned about controlled demolition, I understand that the charges have to be synchronistically timed to go off within a fraction of a second of each other, where any miscalculation could cause the building to fall over instead of straight down. Given the non-explosive character of nanothermite, I find it rather difficult to believe that melting steel by means of an incendiary could achieve the same result. Additionally, I don’t see how an incendiary could shatter steel and pulverize concrete to produce those enormous pyroclastic clouds of dust that were so ubiquitous in New York on 9/11.

I additionally pointed out to the team that we were hypocritical to attack NIST for not conducting testing when we at A&E hadn’t either.  But recently I have realized there is another hypocrisy. We ridicule NIST for advancing the unprecedented theory that fire had brought down these massive steel and concrete structures, even while we were advancing the unprecedented theory that those buildings had instead been destroyed by a controlled demolition using nanothermite. Given Mark Hightower’s research and unrefuted “Nanothermite Challenge”, I find it rather far-fetched to suppose that nano-thermite could possibly have achieved the symmetrical destruction of the towers.

Gregg’s argument that we should not test due to the hypothetical concern of getting a negative result and that the “debunkers” would attack us, in my opinion, is both ethically irresponsible and scientifically irrelevant. Are we supposed to halt the scientific process and continue allow potentially crucial evidence to spoil due to an unsubstantiated irrational fear? And this brings me to my next concern about the society as a whole. Due to an internal divide on certain issues, A&E has deemed that any discussion of Dr. Judy Wood’s theories related to Directed Energy Weapons, lasers, masers, mini-nukes, or anything to do with the Pentagon was “off-topic” and could not be discussed as official business at A&E. I was puzzled to find out that there were people on the team who felt very strongly that Flight 77 had indeed hit the Pentagon, when my experience in the 9/11 Truth movement at large was that most truth advocates agree that the evidence was against it.

Gregg Roberts was one of the advocates of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) regarding the Pentagon, as are Justin Keogh and David Chandler, which is one of the reasons that I labeled them as “infiltrators” in my resignation letter to the team when I left. In my interview with Jim Fetzer, I retracted those accusations toward any and all parties. I believe that name-calling and accusations are divisive, but I hope you can understand my skepticism. I challenged all of the members of A&E to go to their local 9/11 Truth groups, and see for themselves that (1) the Pentagon issue is not divisive, as some within A&E have claimed, and that (2) it is largely agreed that the available evidence strongly supports that Flight 77 did not crash there.

Steve Fahrney, President of the San Diego City College 9/11 Truth Club, created this for an event hosted by Toreros for Truth.

After leaving the organization, I discovered that the government not only treats the Pentagon as an “on-topic” issue, they treat it as an architecture and engineering issue as well. In January of 2003, the Pentagon Building Performance Report was generated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) due to the structural failure it suffered on 9/11. I asked Richard Gage why his organization had not critiqued that report, and he said that since its inception, AE911Truth has only focused on WTC-1, 2, and 7. He argued that it is best to promote your strongest most compelling evidence. I realized later, upon reflection, that he had not actually answered my question.

I support the strategy of promoting your best evidence, but we were not discussing strategy. We were discussing policy. Why does A&E have a policy that discourages new discoveries at the Pentagon? Why doesn’t A&E critique their peers who generated the Pentagon Building Performance Report about the structural failure at the Pentagon with the same scrutiny they focus on NIST’s explanation of the structural failures in the three largest buildings of the World Trade Center?

Steve Fahrney with friend celebrating A&E reaching 1,000 signatures. The accomplishment would later make the front page of the Campus News

I would like to point out that the report appears on the website, fire.nist.gov. I do not know how much involvement NIST had in the generation of this report, but A&E, which has a “NIST pursuit team” and has collected funds for that cause, should, in my opinion, find out. Why does NIST get a “bye” on the pentagon? I offered Jim and his listeners a speculative theory. If indeed we have infiltrators in our midst, by discouraging discoveries at the pentagon, and promoting the OCT internally in the 9/11 Truth movement, military and government officials could be let off the hook, again.

As Barbara Honneger, and CIT have theorized based on their independent examinations of the evidence, it appears that explosives inside the Pentagon are what caused the destruction. If this theory is correct, it means that there had to be an insider(s). A new investigation could conclude that, even if thermite/explosives were planted in the World Trade Center, the media could still spin it with al CIA-duh involvement — but not at the Pentagon. You cannot simply sneak explosives into the Headquarters of our Department of Defense without intimate involvement internally.

Created by Steve Fahrney of the San Diego City College 9/11 Truth Club to raise awareness on campus. Note the nano-thermite chips in the display

I previously mentioned that Judy Wood’s work is off-topic at A&E, as well as any exotic theories other than nano-thermite. AE911Truth has had many problems with petition signers and volunteers who support Dr. Wood. It is a disqualifier for new members of the team to join if they endorse her work. Anyone who supports “no-plane” theory, laser theory, directed energy theory, or any theory about mini-nukes is disqualified as well. As a Ph.D. and former professor of mechanical engineering, Judy Wood has not been afforded the same dignity and respect of her peers as her counterparts in the nano-thermite realm, particularly by co-authors of the thermite paper.

Gregg Roberts has told me that in his opinion, Dr. Judy Wood is unscientific when it comes to 9/11. I personally have yet to delve into Dr. Wood’s research or into any of the inappropriately ostracized members of our movement; but, after I shared my story with San Diegans for 9/11 Truth, they began looking where A&E/911Blogger told us not to. As our local NASA engineer, Dwain Deets explained at our last event, after making a presentation about some exotic theories, ‘San Diegans for 9/11 Truth are committed to looking at all the evidence and all the theories, not just those that are approved by certain groups.’ Independent of myself, the group decided to buy Judy Wood’s book, which compelled them to contact her. Dr. Wood, has now been invited to give a presentation at our community center.

I would like to make it clear that I still support A&E, but not its policy about “off-topic” subjects and theories.  While I retract my accusations of infiltration, though I still find it highly suspicious that the same people who are advocating against testing for explosives are also against looking at the Pentagon, against discussing Dr. Judy Wood’s research, in favor of the OCT at the Pentagon, and in favor of nano-thermite as the sole culprit of destruction in the WTC. No subjects or theories about 9/11 should be “off topic”.  None is “too controversial” to deserve discussion.  Science should not be subordinated to politics in the 9/11 movement, which should be dedicated to truth no matter what form it may take.

Steve Fahrney, an activist with San Diegan’s for 9/11 Truth, worked as a volunteer for Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

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 22, 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

170 Responses to "Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist"

  1. download music free  October 12, 2011 at 4:02 am

    I feel this is one of the most important info for me. And i am satisfied reading your article. However wanna commentary on some common issues, The site taste is great, the articles is actually excellent : D. Just right activity, cheers

  2. Tas Wanita  October 8, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Nice blog, just looking around some blogs, seems a pretty nice platform you are using. I’m currently using WordPress for a few of my sites but looking to change one of them over to a platform similar to yours as a trial run. Anything in particular you would recommend about it?

    • Jim Fetzer  October 8, 2011 at 8:35 am

      It’s extremely easy to use, to upload columns and respond to comments. I recommend you contact Jim Dean, Managing Editor, at jimwdean@aol.com, who can address your questions more completely than can I.

  3. how to do magic tricks  October 1, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Help! Yesterday I was working 3rd shift at work and a dude walked up to our register to pay his food ticket and he reached into his pants pocket and pulled out a one dollar bill and said, “This is all I’ve got in with me. I dont have the rest money to pay you.” Then he did the most shocking thing. He instsantly turned the dollar bill into a credit card. Wow I went home and got on yahoo and found the magic illusion video BUT I aint paying 29 dollars to know the secret. Can U figure it out? http://magictricksdirect.com/dollar-to-credit-card-2-0-magic-by-george-iglesias/

  4. Acai Berry Review  September 29, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Thanks for the good writeup. It in truth was once a enjoyment account it. Look complicated to far delivered agreeable from you! However, how could we be in contact?

  5. Matthew C. Kriner  September 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    My 2011 will be better being aware of that!

  6. dirt  August 29, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Everyone, watch the video on this page please


    • Jim Fetzer  August 29, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      Except, of course, if these shaped charges were “high velocity” (or “high explosive”), they could not have been nanothermite. You might want to check when some of those photos were taken, by the way, I think at least some of the most dramatic were taken during the clean up, when thermite was undoubtedly used.

    • OS  August 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      In the military, we refer to these charges as cutting charges (shearing). That’s explained above, these are HE, often C-4 or similar compositions. That’s all Jim, and there’s formulas applied for calculating material amount and configuration. Get the clearance then evaluate.

  7. Sam  August 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    As for Gordon Duff — I see him as one of the best people working on the internet, someone I would like to know personally.

    As for Jim Fetzer — Ever since his separation from Scholars, I think of him as probably being a person who is either: a deliberate troublemaker, or someone who can’t help being a troublemaker. I could be wrong about him, but that’s my current view — he looks like a troublemaker, deliberate or not, so I don’t trust him.

    Mysteriously, Gordon Duff and Veterans Today apparently DO trust Fetzer, and to me that is one indication that I could actually be wrong about him.

    (However, I do also wonder to myself — is it possible that Veterans is deliberately giving Jim Fetzer a place where he can cause trouble in plain sight — right out there in front of the curtain — without doing much actual damage, and without making too much of a mess?)

    As for this article by Steve Fahrney — It looks to me like an article that had no real need to be written in the first place. The writer appears to be a disaffected former A&E volunteer, writing this article in an attempt to settle a personal score and thereby solve some kind of ego problem he has with A&E.

    And Fetzer is now sponsoring and introducing this article, at Veterans — with what intentions, exactly? He says how much he respects A&E, and that he’s “a fan” of Richard Gage, etc., etc. — but this article is undermining A&E’s credibility.

    And why would Fetzer want to undermine A&E?

    Check out Fetzer’s own wording. In one of his comments above, referring to A&E, Fetzer says: “Well, the same group that managed the mutiny at Scholars late in 2006 has also brought you ‘explosive nanothermite’ . . . .”

    WOW, looks like Captain Bligh is inflicting some payback on the mutineers. Or rather, on people who he thinks of as mutineers. Actually I don’t believe there was any mutiny — I think they were just seceding from toxic proximity with Fetzer.

    But the main thing to notice about the Fahrney article is that its “criticism” of A&E is absolutely lame. A&E has established the three demolitions, and in that context it’s very pertinent for them to include in their presentation the fact that nanothermite (military-grade material designed and used for demolitions) is present in the dust. To say, as this article does, that A&E people have some kind of logical or ethical problem because they haven’t ALSO tested the dust for other types of explosives — is absurd. It’s a non-criticism. This is an issue that exists entirely in the writer’s own mind.

    And why would Jim Fetzer promote this lame article to the Veterans Today website, with that provocative “Confessions Of” title on it? Looks to me like the same pattern which I do believe I have seen before — Fetzer is either being a deliberate troublemaker, or someone who can’t help being a troublemaker.

    By the way, I appreciate the long comment from Daniel Noel.


    • Jim Fetzer  August 29, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      This has to be one of the most ignorant and irresponsible posts I have yet to read here at VT. I did not split from Scholars–that was Steve Jones, Kevin Ryans, and others. I am still there. Visit 911scholars.org, which you apparently have never done. Or try reading “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”. Or “The Debate about 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, right here at VT.

      If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would surely acknowledge that the “hard science” group did not do its homework and has misled the 9/11 Truth movement for the last five years with its myth of “explosive nanothermite”. If you can’t get what happened to Scholars right, there isn’t much of a chance that you are going to understand the science of nanothermite.

      Just ask yourself this question: How can a “9/11 Truth” movement succeed if it is based upon a false theory? Stop your mindless speculations and ask how the perps could be brought to justice if it were done on the basis of the theory that nanothermite blew apart the Twin Towers, pulverized the concrete and destroyed the steel, when the fact is nanothermite can do none of the above?

      You appear to be another candidate for the new “Liars for 9/11 Truth” group. Indeed, with your paranoid cast of mind, you would be a strong candidate for its President! Then you can attack everyone who has shown that Jones, Ryan, and Harrit were wrong and defend those who have blocked serious research on how the Twin Towers were destroyed for the past half-decade. Go for it!

    • Sam  August 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm

      The way it looks to me is, the people who really were (and are) scholars, and who really were (and are) FOR telling the truth about 9/11, and who really are FOR cooperating in a relaxed and natural way with other truth-tellers, decided to leave the old Scholars group — because you were not aligned with them in those ways — and so they set up their own group.

      I do realize that they did that under a different name — because you held on to the Scholars “brand name” and the website.

      But I would say that the reality of an organization of scholars, dedicated to the truth about 9/11, left when they did, and went with them.

      I do realize you kept the name and the website, so congratulations on that — and I believe THEY are the real scholars for 9/11 truth.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 29, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      Believe what you want, Sam. The same group that split Scholars because I thought a scientific society had to consider a broader range of alternatives than thermite/thermate/nanothermite and they did not has brought the movement the myth of “explosive nanothermite”. My guess is that you have not actually read the posts devoted to this or you would appreciate the dimensions of not having done their homework for the 9/11 Truth movement, which is now based upon a false theory, has never checked for explosives at the WTC, and would have its case thrown out of court because it is based upon a refuted theory! If that’s your idea of progress, then join up. Personally, I believe a “truth movement” has to be based upon truth, not fantasy.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 3, 2011 at 7:25 am

      Well, it kind of makes you wonder what Gregg Roberts and Steve Fahrney were debating at A&E, doesn’t it? If there are no such tests, then that would have put an end to it. Since this involves questions that Mark can address far better, I will let him add whatever he regards as appropriate. But none of us can wait for more of your important posts.

  8. blind freddy  August 27, 2011 at 1:57 am

    for evidence of explosives, all anyone with an ounce of cognitive ability has to do, is watch the many videos of the towers exploding.


    if you need more than that, youre either not serious, or youre seriously dysfunctional.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 27, 2011 at 2:49 pm

      Judy Wood’s followers make a big deal of the difference between “explosives” and “directed energy weaponry”, wanting to make sure that formulations to not exclude her theory of the case. I think that’s it.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 3, 2011 at 6:58 am

      Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is by far your most impressive trait! While I was completing research on AMERICAN ASSASSiNATION: THE STRANGE DEATH OF SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE (2004), I discovered the existence of the DEPS (Directed Energy Professional Society), which was holding its 8th annual meeting that year in Honolulu. When I visited its web site, I found discussions of about a dozen different kinds of directed energy weapons–and that was in 2004!

      So why don’t you contact them to ask if those weapons really exist? A USAF Lt. General was already briefing Congress about them in 1996, so I would suggest that, unless you want to continue to make yourself appear to be stark raving mad–where you have already established your place in history as the world’s leading LSA–I would suggest you do something that I have not seen from you here, namely: RESEARCH! That would be a refreshing change from your characteristic and unsubstantiated drivel.

      A one-hour flash lecture about Wellstone can be found on http://assassinationscience.comat the bottom of the menu bar. Statements I presented at The National Press Club on 25 October 2004 when we announced the book are also there. A later study with John P. Costella, Ph.D., a physicist with a specialization in electromagnetism, “The NTSB Failed Wellstone”, published in Michael Ruppert’s “From the Wilderness” Newsletter, is also there. And see the documentary, “WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM”, on YouTube.

    • Albury Smith  August 28, 2011 at 8:41 am

      What’s most noticeable in all tower collapse videos is that the upper sections begin falling with no prior disturbance of the smoke. The South Tower’s upper floors weighed ~125,000 tons, and started downward with no scattering of the smoke clouds until the movement of the upper floors caused it. 236 of the 283 columns in each tower were more than halfway outside of the living areas and in plain view, so secretly planting and detonating explosives on them is more than a little unlikely; it would literally have been impossible.
      Here are eyewitness accounts of what caused the towers to fall:

    • Jim Fetzer  August 28, 2011 at 9:25 am

      Albury, You seem to be missing a few premises or your argument might have merit. The steel that was used in those buildings was tapered from being six inches thick in the subbasements up through five, four, and at the top 1/4″ thick. Chuck Boldwyn, a retired math, physics, and chemistry teacher, has calculated that the upper floors in the North Tower (above the 86th floor, in particular) represented only 1.4% of the mass of the steel. Not only is there no way that tiny mass is going to overcome the remaining 98.6% but, below the floors that were said to have been hit–around the 94th on the North Tower (where the alleged impact intersected with seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and filled with 4-8″ of concrete) and the 80th on the South Tower (where the alleged impact intersected with eight (8) floors)–those structures were stone, cold steel.

      Those two buildings represented an enormous “heat sink”, drawing heat away from any specific location and dissipating it throughout the structures. PLUS the South Tower began with the top 30 floors tilting to the side, where, when the demolition sequence began, they did not continue to fall to the side and down to the street as a segment but were turned to dust, as even Steve Jones observed in his chapter in 9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE (2006) edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. Take a look at my “New 9/11 Photos Released” for the North Tower Sequence. From the source you cite, I have the impression that you are defending the official account, which is a huge blunder. See “Why doubt 9/11?” at http://911scholar.org, for example. Why don’t you spell out your take on what happened more completely so I can see what else you have missed about what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Albury Smith  August 29, 2011 at 8:21 am

      Chuck Boldwyn apparently hasn’t heard about dynamic loading, and doesn’t realize that the tower framing wasn’t designed to withstand a mass of ~125,000 tons dropping on it from a story height or more. If he contacted the ASCE, ~144,000 engineers who do could explain it to him.

      The top of the South Tower initially tilted southeast because the south side was severely damaged by UA 175, and columns on the east side were gradually bowed inward as the heat from the fires caused the extremely lightweight floor trusses to sag:


      When the remaining columns on the north and west sides failed, there was no fulcrum, and all of the force was directed downward.

      Steel’s a lousy conductor of heat, and the floor trusses in the towers weighed ~24#/lineal foot, with no steel sections larger than 3″ X 3″ X 1/4″ angles, so they lost ~80% of their room-temperature yield strength very rapidly in the ~1200 F that’s typical in upper air layers of normal office fires. If steel really did act as a heat sink in building fires, there’d be no reason for code requirements mandating SFRM or other fireproofing on structural steel in hi-rises.

      Gravity acting on 500,000-ton buildings that are more than 1/4 mile high will tend to turn drywall to dust, and will also create dust when fracturing concrete slabs that were <4" thick. There were exceptionally large dust clouds because of the height of the collapse initiation areas and the size of each tower. Explosives sufficient to turn those buildings to dust would have been heard in Montauk and beyond, and would have ejected steel and other materials for miles.

      Do you even have a perp and plausible motive for this alleged C/D?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm

      You continued to display your distinctive combination of ignorance and stupidity. The towers were taped in the thickness of their steel from six inches in the subbasements to 1/4 inch at the top. The floors were steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and filled with 4-8″ of concrete posing immense horizontal resistance. Have you heard of Newton’s laws?

      The buildings were constructed to withstand plane crashes, but none actually hit them that day. I dare say that your claim about the top 30 floors of the South Tower is quite amusing. And it would have been impossible for the highest 14 floors of the North Tower, which represented 1.4% of the mass of the steel, to overcome the lower 98.6%. And below the “impact” floors, these buildings were stone, cold steel.

      I thought everyone knew by now that, as John Skilling has observed, the buildings were put up with a safety factor of 20–meaning that each floor could actually support twenty times what it was supposed to support. Give that some thought, Albury, because even very simple calculations demonstrate conclusively that you are wrong–completely and totally wrong! You are out of your depth, Albury. Give it a rest!

    • Albury Smith  August 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm

      “Posing immense horizontal resistance” to what, and if two planes didn’t hit the towers that day, what “actually” did?

      707s are only slightly lighter than 767s, but KE is also a function of the square of the velocity, and the WTC engineers were anticipating accidents at landing speed, not 440 and 540 mph crashes of planes carrying transcontinental fuel loads. The KE of the moving mass of upper building increased as it fell, and easily overwhelmed the heavier framing in the lower levels also.

      John Skilling died in 1998, but his associate and lead engineer on the WTC towers, Leslie E. Robertson, has noted that they did withstand the impact of the planes, but not the effects of the subsequent fires. He’s also offered his opinion of your theory of the collapses, and you can listen to his comments in that regard at ~18:25 here:


      along with those of other prominent SEs, Irwin Cantor, Matthys Levy, and Gene Corley, and demolition expert Brent Blanchard at other points in the video. If you feel the need to enhance their understanding of Newtonian physics, they’re easy enough to find, as are these people:


      A considerable number of other SEs with PE certification can also be found here:


      Many of them have doctorates and years of relevant experience, and they’re all as “wrong–completely and totally wrong,” and “out of [their] depth” as I am, so please feel free to lead them out of the darkness.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 29, 2011 at 9:14 pm

      There are plenty of hacks willing to do the government’s bidding and vast numbers of the weakminded who are willing to follow them anywhere. Go to 911scholars.org and take a serious look at “Why doubt 9/11?” in the upper-left hand corner. Then go to the upper-right hand corner and click on patriotsquestion911.com. Read them and you might learn something.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 30, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      You seem to think you can play this forum for saps, Albury. But Newton’s laws cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The plane in these videos not only travels at an impossible speed but enters the building in violation of the second and third law. It cannot possibly have passed its whole length through this massive steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air. I know there are many whose opinions are for sale or believe that lying for the government is an honorable thing to do, but I am not among them. A flying what’sit hit the North Tower, as I explained in “More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”, and what appears to have been a hologram was deployed to fool everyone at the South Tower. They had to coordinate temporally with the explosions in the subbasements to “explain” them by citing falling jet fuel, but that required penetration of the buildings, which no real plane could do. Some frames actually show the plane’s nose extending out the other side (which is impossible, given the fragile electronics located there), while the plane has yet to explode. I cannot abide those who prevaricate about such serious matters. You are contemptible.

    • Albury Smith  August 30, 2011 at 4:27 am

      There are ~140,000 “hacks” in the ASCE, the oldest national engineering society in the US:
      If you visit their web site and search “WTC collapses,” or “9/11,” you’ll find a number of papers on serious topics like the World Trade Center Building Code Task Force, civil engineers’ reactions to the NIST findings, and implementing NIST building code recommendations. I’ve seen none that discusses the “research” of the 9/11 “truth movement” at all, nor have I found any claiming that the WTC collapses were caused by anything other than plane damage, fires, and gravity.
      Have you considered submitting a fact-filled article to the ASCE to enlighten these tens of thousands of “weakminded” civil and structural engineers?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 30, 2011 at 8:58 am

      Albury, why don’t you read “Why doubt 9/11?” and explain what we have wrong? You can find it archived on the Scholars home page at http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 There are twenty (20) refutations of the official account. Tell me what I have wrong and how you know and we can discuss it.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 30, 2011 at 7:51 pm

      Well, there are “hacks” here, Albury, of which you have demonstrated yourself to be the premiere example.

    • Albury Smith  August 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      Every claim you’ve made there has been addressed, and nothing seems to register, but here we go again:

      -The impact of the planes didn’t cause enough damage to bring down the buildings.

      -The jet fuel created fireballs on both sides of each tower, so it obviously soaked and ignited the office space in between. The planes’ momentum carried the bulk of the combustibles to the opposite sides, where fires well in excess of “500 degrees F” burned for nearly 1 hour in the South Tower, and ~1:42:00 in the North Tower.


      -The melting point of steel is irrelevant to the NIST findings, since no steel melted in any NIST collapse hypothesis. The steel above the fires was subjected to normal office fire temperatures of ~1100F, which reduces room-temperature yield strength by nearly 80%.

      -UL does not certify steel, and made none of the claims attributed to it by Kevin Ryan.

      -NIST fully explained the collapse initiation sequences in both towers, and much of it is in plain view on videos.

      -Floors that pivot to one side still have mass, and gravity still acts downward. Boldwyn just dreamed up 1 and 199 “units” of force.

      -16 survivors in Stairwell B walked out well after William Rodriguez did. The victim’s skin was burned off by flaming jet fuel that came down through an express elevator shaft from the ~96th floor, not ripped off. Demolition explosives don’t generally burn people, and if they’d been powerful enough to do any damage to the steel down there, they’d have killed all of them. “Massive explosions” would also certainly have been reported by thousands of others, especially if heard 14 or 17 seconds before AA 11 hit, and demolition explosives don’t wait ~1 hour and 42 minutes, and then begin collapses ~1200′ higher up.

      -Any hi-rise will collapse if enough supporting structure is weakened or removed by any means, and if “every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor,” a blind man would have been able to see evidence of it in the debris. Explosives would not only have been redundant, but also would have been heard in Montauk and Atlantic City.

      -“10 seconds apiece” isn’t even close. Scholars should certainly be able to time collapses:


      -If the towers had exploded, debris would have been sent upward. The collapses went down, with debris expelled outward.

      -“Pull it” was in response to the “terrible loss of life,” and referred to THE FDNY’s decision to pull back from WTC 7 ~3 hours before it collapsed.

      -Any questions you have about the crashes of AA 77 and UA 93 could easily be answered by contacting some of the thousands of eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

      -Bush finally got something right; Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

      -The FBI did not formally indict OBL for 9/11 because it served no useful purpose and would have involved intelligence disclosures that they chose not to make for obvious reasons. They had plenty of hard evidence against him and al Qaeda for the SUICIDE attacks of 9/11, the USS Cole SUICIDE attack, and the 2 US embassy SUICIDE attacks. Navy SEALs gave him all of the due process on May 1 that he gave his thousands of victims.


    • Albury Smith  August 31, 2011 at 6:10 am

      “No-planers” are the bottom of the heap, but you’ve also provided ample proof that you have little knowledge of engineering, science, or construction, and haven’t even bothered to look at the elevator riser diagrams and floor plans for the towers or read the eyewitness accounts from the basement levels. The Car 50 freight elevator shaft was directly in the path of AA 11, and it went from the B-5 level to the top. Car 6 also had a continuous shaft from the pit to the top floors, and neither one would have prevented fuel from pouring all the way down, regardless of where you think the cars were. If you really have any interest in the truth, I’d recommend reading 9.2.1 Fatalities in Elevators at this link:


      You have a rather strange idea of what a ~140-ton airliner carrying ~9000 gallons of fuel does when it hits the 96th floor of a hi-rise at ~440 mph, and apparently think that demolition explosives give people third-degree burns and then collapse buildings from ~1200′ higher an hour and 42 minutes later.

      As for your mangling of the “pull it” quote, the demolition industry does not use that term to mean explosive demolition, and no interested party, i.e. multiple insurance companies, ConEd, WTC 7 tenants, or anyone else thinks for 1 minute that Silverstein admitted to blowing up his property. If you’d bother to listen to what he actually said, “THEY (the FDNY) made that decision to pull…,” so take it up with them. The FDNY lost more than 343 firefighters and paramedics, mostly in the collapses, and you can count on one hand the number who are in your “truth movement.” Aren’t they as astute as you are, or don’t they care what killed their friends, relatives, and colleagues? By your account, they did it themselves.

      I loathe Bill O’Reilly, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while:


    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2011 at 6:52 am

      Albury, you may be the most irresponsible person posting at VT. The phrase “pull it” had nothing to do with pulling firemen out of the building. In fact, there were NO FIREMEN IN THE BUILDING. Anyone listening to Larry Silverstein’s own words can see that the words he uses and the context in which he uses them makes it unmistakeable that he means “to bring down by controlled demolition”: check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq-0JIR38V0 Barry Jennings was actually there: see, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE And that remains the case, no matter how many hacks and shills–like you–do their best to cover it up! That’s why it’s called a “cover-up”, Albury: to conceal the real by a smokescreen of illusion, at which you turn out to be highly accomplished. Of course I have looked at the elevator diagrams of the Twin Towers. Here are multiple diagrams, where the one in the lower-right corner is most appropriate and easy to understand: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Twin+Towers,+elevator+diagram&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

      As I have explained many times now, they had to fake the planes for three reasons: first, it is very difficult to hit a facade that is only 208′ wide at high speed with a commercial carrier; second, they had to get the planes completely inside the buildings before they exploded, to create the pseudo-explanation that the towers had been destroyed by fire and gravity alone; and third, they had to coordinate the “hit” to coincide with the timing of those explosions in the subbasements that were designed to drain water from the sprinkler systems, so they would not extinguish the very modest fires that would remain after the (planted) jet fuel was consumed by those enormous fireballs. They could not accomplish these feats with real planes, so they had to fake them, probably using several unmanned aerial vehicles in tight formation at the North Tower and a hologram at the South, where publicizing this is making some of you at Langley rather uncomfortable, I am sure. But your ongoing attempts at obfuscation here are all too transparent.

      The opinions of a higher class of intel ops can be found at http://patriotsquestion911.com, especially at http://patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf

      41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

      Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”

      May 18, 2009 – More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware of their publicly stated concerns– a direct result of the refusal of national print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue. There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national security of the United States. These 41 individuals formerly served in the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military. They are listed below by their branch of service.


    • Albury Smith  August 31, 2011 at 9:22 am

      Since Larry Silverstein very clearly said “And THEY made the decision to pull…,” are you accusing the FDNY of blowing up WTC 7? What motive did they (or he) have for demolishing a 14 year-old hi-rise that was bringing in more than $100 million a year, and was in nearly perfect condition? The phone conversation you’re referring to took place in mid-afternoon, when it was clearly documented that the FDNY pulled back to form a safety perimeter:


      so if Barry Jennings heard demolition explosives “minutes after the first plane hit,” which in itself is absurd considering the fact that no one even a block or two away heard them, then why were LS and the FDNY discussing at ~2:30 PM WHETHER to blow up WTC 7?
      There were 12 transformers on the 5th floor, right below where Jennings claims to have heard the explosion, a whole ConEd substation below the building, and it didn’t collapse for another ~7 hours. The interior columns weighed 730#/lineal foot and had 4.9″ flanges. Think about it.
      Now that you’ve Googled the tower elevator information, I’d suggest reading some of it. The sky lobby floors were 44 and 78, not “every 30 floors,” and Car 50 went from top to bottom, as did 2 express passenger elevators. There are numerous eyewitness accounts of flaming jet fuel in the basement within 1 minute of the plane crash, the building stunk of it, and people were burned to death by it.
      Your knowledge of hi-rise sprinkler systems rivals that of elevators, apparently, since they don’t work too well when their risers are severed, and risers aren’t plane-proof. Hydraulic calculations for normal fires and areas were meaningless on 9/11, since no sprinkler system has ever been designed to suppress instant fires over tens of thousands of square feet. Calling these “very modest fires” is just dishonest:
      and explosives don’t gradually bend perimeter columns inward for 45 minutes or so:
      All 4 hijacker/pilots had FAA commercial pilot certificates, and if hitting a 208′ target is that difficult in a Boeing wide-bodied twin under perfect weather conditions, then a lot of pilots have gotten really lucky hitting the centerlines of runways over the years. If you happen to see any unmanned aerial vehicles in tight formation, or a hologram that looks like a Boeing 767, I’d recommend another layer of Reynolds Wrap. It’s not just for baking cookies, yanno.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2011 at 9:59 am

      You have a lot of nerve calling me “dishonest” when it is obvious that are a fraud. Rob Baslamo has discussed the difficulties involved with hitting a tall building of that width, even though runways are about that width, but the planes have to slow down and is not traveling at 560 mph, as these videos display. That, in case you are unaware, is an impossible speed for a Boeing 767, as Pilots has also explained in a study which you should read, “9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed Indeed, at that speed and altitude, which is three times as dense as the air at 35,000 feet where that would be the cruising speed of a 767, the turbines cannot suck the air through the engines and begin functioning as breaks. John Lear explained all this in his affidavit for Judy Wood’s law suit, where it can be found at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the Indeed, at that speed, the plane would be unmanageable and physically come apart, as Pilot’s documentary, “9/11 Intercepted”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE , illustrates.

      NIST itself studied 236 samples of steel and ascertained that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures greater than 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. Since 500*F is the temperature of an ordinary office fire, these fires were indeed “modest”, where I am having trouble sorting out who you think you are fooling. We all know that no steel-structured high rise has even collapsed from fire in history: not before 9/11, not after 9/11, and certainly not on 9/11. That you are peddling such rubbish when we know well that WTC-7 was a classic “controlled demolition”, as “This is an orange”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk And you aren’t going to convince anyone that the destruction of the Twin Towers involved any kind of collapse. These massive steel and concrete structures were destroyed from the top down, where, unlike WTC-7, each of their floors remained stationary until they were blown to kingdom come. For a photographic series that illustrates we are not dealing with any kind of collapse but the conversion of these 500,000 ton buildings largely into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, see “New 9/11 Photos Released”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html or “9/11: Towers of Dust”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0

      Below the 80th floor of the South Tower and the 96th of the North, these buildings were stone, cold steel. Because the steel was tapered from six inches thick in the subbasements to 1/4″ at the top, the mass of the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, represented only 1.4% of the mass of the steel. It is absurd to suppose that 1.4% of the mass could overcome the bottom 98.6%. You are one more shill for the government, Albury, where your own posts have exposed your role here. No one is impressed to see that there are stooges who continue to post here in the faint expectation that they may be able to find one more sucker to deceive. I am sorry, Albury, but the horse has left the barn. Kindly cease and desist! You are very smooth and I would even bet you are the best the agency has to offer. But a world-class shill is still a shill!. You are exposing yourself as an op and making a fool of yourself to boot. What you are peddling, we aren’t buying. Have some self-respect and stop desecrating the memory of those who died on 9/11. You are a disgrace. You have been made. Enough!

    • Albury Smith  August 31, 2011 at 3:12 pm


      If “these massive steel and concrete [WTC tower] structures were destroyed from the top down,” and “each of their floors remained stationary until they were blown to kingdom come,” what was the purpose of those ultra-quiet demolition explosives that Rodriguez allegedly heard in the basement ~1 hour and 42 minutes earlier? Were they just to burn people and make the basement smell like jet fuel? How did the floors “remain stationary” for that long with the foundation all secretly turned to dust? Sky hooks? You obviously have no idea what charges powerful enough to sever 6″ or more of steel would sound like, or what they’d do to people nearby.

      You’re as wrong about the temperatures in office fires as you are about express elevators, sprinklers, and steel “heat sinks,” but if you’re going to claim that NIST is lying, why do you keep selectively quoting their reports? 1200*F is enough to reduce steel’s yield strength by >80% [Figure 4-3 here: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101279 ], so where was this anomalous hot area in those “modest fires” that covered tens of thousands of square feet on several floors? The removal of support at only one floor level is all it takes in a real controlled demolition, and supplemental charges only control how the building falls, so citing “stone, cold steel” temperatures away from the impact floors and fires is nothing but junk science and deception. You’re also ignoring the fact that only the columns reduced in size and weight going up, not the slabs, live loads, etc., and that the intact floors below the fires were not designed for dynamic loading of ~125,000 and ~60,000 TONS respectively at collapse initiation, with exponential increases as a function of mass and volume as the collapses progressed. What’s most mind-boggling though, is the fact that 236 of the 283 columns in each tower were in plain sight, and the plane and fire damage couldn’t possibly be more obvious, unless you think that was all “holograms” too.

      In short, you’ve clearly shown why you’re not an SE, and have no background qualifying you to critique the NIST engineers, but since you’ve deluded yourself into believing that you do, and that your “research” is worthwhile, why not submit a paper to the ASCE, RIBA, and other professional organizations that support the NIST findings, purely for the sake of enlightening their memberships? If you booked a speaking engagement, I promise you that you wouldn’t need to bring a laugh track. You’d really fracture them with your ability to determine the cause of a collapse just by timing it, especially when you haven’t even done that correctly.

      I’d also recommend letting both American and United Airlines in on your other findings, along with the NTSB, FAA, and all of the live eyewitnesses to the wreckage and human body parts from 4 Boeing wide-bodied twins that were tracked to those locations by ATC. Share them with Boeing too, since they’ve never noticed that their planes couldn’t go that fast in those conditions, and have only stated that the speeds grossly exceeded their recommendations. With all of these conspirators and dupes, I’m wondering how Larry Silverstein fits into the puzzle, but let’s blow the whistle on him, the insurance companies who went along with the gag to the tune of billions, the FDNY, and all of the other evildoers. The relatives of all of the victims you claim to care so much about won’t be able to thank you enough.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 1, 2011 at 12:03 am

      Albury, I really don’t have time for this, especially when you are apparently not even reading my replies. The explosions in the subbasements were used to drain the water from the sprinkler systems. I have a photo showing smoke coming from the lower part of the North Tower in “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?” and in “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?” You really ought to study them if you want to appear to know what you are talking about, because your lack of knowledge is starting to show, which surprises me.

      I don’t know what you think you are talking about. Barry Jennings was INSIDE WTC-7 during the morning and experienced explosions going off and stepping over dead bodies. If you are this unaware of what he has reported, then I have clearly taken you for your better. 30 floors is close enough in explaining these things to the public and, since they were staggered, as I had explained, the jet fuel cannot have fallen through them.

      A colleague of Willie’s was in one of the maintenance elevators and survived, which would not have happened if jet fuel had fallen through them. Plus, as Gorgon Ross and Craig Furlong, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, documented in their scrupulous research, those blasts occurred 14 and 17 seconds PRIOR TO the alleged plane impacts. But I have explained this many, many times, which tells me that you are a fake.

      Of course I am not a structural engineer, which is one reason why I created Scholars for 9/11 Truth: to bring together experts across a wide range of fields, including pilots and physicists as well as aeronautical, mechanical, and structural engineers. None of us knows everything, but only some of us take the time to interact with others, where twenty of our findings can be found at “Why doubt 9/11?” on the Scholars home page.

      And spare me this rubbish about Boeing 767s that can fly 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude. I now no longer think you are a spook but someone whose ignorance exceeds their arrogance. This issue has long since been resolved, including by calls to Boeing officials who laughed at the idea of that happening. Multiple sources have confirmed it, including Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and John Lear has explained it. You are a complete fraud.

    • Albury Smith  September 1, 2011 at 6:57 am

      I’m reading your replies a lot more carefully than you’re reading mine, and am actually responding to them, while you’re ignoring most of my comments and questions. You stated in your “Why Doubt…” malarkey that “William Rodriguez…has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.” Here’s a 50-ton hydraulic press:


      As you can see, the shipping weight is 722#, not 100,000#, and depending on its c.g. and whether anyone bolted it to the floor, a massive two-handed push would have knocked it over. The explosion also flattened a freight elevator door and inflicted 3rd-degree burns on the colleague of Willie’s you mentioned, who was in that elevator car whose shaft was continuous to the impact area and above, despite your assertion that flaming jet fuel couldn’t possibly have fallen to the basements. Please look at Figure 3-2 here: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101351 and explain to me why “massive explosions” would have been necessary to break two 8″ ductile iron pipes entering the NE corner of WTC 1, and why the alleged explosives were near car 50 instead of where the pipes were. To make your claim even more absurd, it was widely reported by people using the emergency stairwells, where the standpipes were run, that they were flooded with water, so your holograms, squadron of UAVs, or whatever, rendered sabotaging the sprinkler system in the basement levels unnecessary. The “scrupulous research” of Ross and Furlong is also news to the Lamont-Doherty scientists, Protec employees, and others monitoring seismic equipment near the WTC on 9/11, as well as to the overwhelming majority of people in and around the towers, most of whom were in much better position to know when and where the first loud explosion occurred, and aren’t traveling the world libeling and slandering the US government and who knows who else for speaker’s fees and donations, or what you’d call honoring the victims of 9/11.

      It’s also apparent from reading your replies that you think demolition explosives were set off in WTC 7 in the morning, because one person inside reported a loud bang that no one even a block away heard, and allegedly witnessed bodies there that aren’t in any FDNY or NYPD reports. Since you also claim that Larry Silverstein decided to blow up WTC 7 during a ~2:30 PM phone call with the FDNY in which “THEY [the FDNY] made that decision,” I’m wondering who decided to do it in the morning, why it needed to be decided more than once, and why anyone wanted to demolish it in the first place. Destroying a stairway to collapse a building also makes about as much sense as knocking off an elevator door and drenching a basement area with jet fuel to sever 2 sprinkler feeder pipes. The WTC 7 collapse occurred at ~5:21 PM, killing no one, and there was already massive death and destruction, so what do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the FDNY and/or Silverstein?

      As I said before, “no-planers” are the bottom of the heap, but please feel free to post links to any Boeing statement that a 757 or 767 couldn’t do 560 mph descending at low altitude.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 1, 2011 at 7:12 am

      It was a press that could apply 50-tons of pressure, not one that weighed 50-tons. I grant the ambiguity. There was a lot going on that day. Barry Jennings appears to be completely believable. I discuss the use of the phrase, “pull it”, in some detail in “What’s the matter with Jim Hoffman?”, http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html There is no real doubt about what Larry Silverstein meant. Perhaps we need a sequel, “What’s the matter with Albury Smith?” Since you seem to have so much free time on your hands, there is a nice series about 9/11 by Enver Masud, where the current part deals with many of these same questions. Here’s a link in case you want to harass him, too: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/31/911-unveiled-part-5-of-10-world-trade-center/ And there were quite a few reasons to knock off WTC-7, including the documents and records related to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, for example.

    • Albury Smith  September 1, 2011 at 8:19 am

      “Ambiguity” is apparently a new euphemism for “deliberately misleading information,” and the prior ambiguity of temperatures of structural steel not subjected to these fires comes to mind:
      Barry Jennings is the only one who’s reported these alleged bodies in WTC 7, and that either makes him or the FDNY, NYPD, and the tenants in WTC 7 believable, since they’re unaware of any people in there who were unaccounted for. You’ve accused me of not reading your replies, so I’m wondering whether you read mine regarding Silverstein, the FDNY, which one “made that decision,” why it was made, and the reason for making it again in the afternoon if it had already been made in the morning. The WTC 7 offices of the SEC were not the only repositories of investigational files, and we even had the Internet in 2001.
      I’d also like to know more about these ill-timed “massive explosions” that went off 14 or 17 seconds before the “hologram” hit, e.g. why someone in the basement is the only eyewitness with the right timeline, why a more subtle method wasn’t used to sever a couple of 8″ sprinkler lines down there, and why the flooding was from the impact area down.
      Since you think AA 11 and UA 175 were faked, I’m sure that you also have explanations for the plane-shaped holes in both towers, with the steel bent inward, and the plane wreckage that landed on rooftops 9 and 22 stories up and in plain view of taller surrounding buildings, including the towers and WTC 7. Do you suppose that no one was looking out the windows on 9/11, and it was all planted in advance?
      A scholar would not consider facts and logical questions harassment, and the topic here isn’t Albury Smith.

    • Albury Smith  September 1, 2011 at 11:59 am

      You recently noted (correctly) that the perimeter tower framing at the impact levels consisted of 1/4″-walled columns, and then suggested that multiple ~4500-ton floors were too light to collapse the ones below them, even after falling a story height or more, but now the same columns are impenetrable to a ~140-ton airliner at 440 or 540 mph? I hope you’re not a frequent flyer if you think Boeing aircraft are that fragile. You’ve neglected to explain how the “cartoonish” cut-outs got there, with all of the steel bent inward, or how the aircraft wreckage landed on rooftops 9 and 22 stories up and in plain view of thousands of windows right after the holograms or UAV squadron hit.
      Since ATC tracked all 4 hijacked aircraft to their crash locations, you’ve also added the FAA to the list of conspirators, but it’s gotten so long now that a few hundred more won’t matter much. Hell, Stubblebine just blew the whistle on hundreds of civilian first responders, NTSB and airline investigators, and a whole bunch of other live eyewitnesses to AA 77’s wreckage inside the Pentagon, not to mention the 130+ who actually saw the plane fly in and crash. Do you have even one eyewitness who saw your scenario? American Airlines must feel pretty foolish for paying out millions to victims not covered by the 9/11 VCF, but they’re probably on that long list I mentioned too.
      This masterful deception, complete in every detail down to coordinating the time-delayed sounds, wreckage placement, and even a fake WTC 1 perimeter column tree with a 767 landing gear embedded in it, makes me wonder why the perps couldn’t break those two 8″ sprinkler feeds without tipping off Willie and burning his colleague, while making the whole place stink of jet fuel. The flooding was widely reported by people who were in the upper stairwells, so if it had already been drained, water now runs uphill too.
      You still haven’t explained why Silverstein and the FDNY were deciding at ~2:30 PM WHETHER to demolish WTC 7, when the decision had already been made in the morning, or why either of them was interested in SEC files or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but you’ve never addressed any of the questions I asked in my August 23, 2011 – 4:48 am post, or much of anything I’ve said since then either.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm

      Albury, you are so amusing–confusing vertical columns with horizontal floors! And this even after I have published diagrams that show the alleged plane would have intersected with eight (8) floors–steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and covered with 4-8″ of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece–in the South Tower and seven (7) in the North. If you can’t do better than this, then there really is no point in discussing all of this. You apparently don’t even know about the “anti-terrorism” drills that were used to sow confusion among the air traffic controllers, where these fake blips should have been dropped immediately when it “went live”! Amazing how those 19 Islamic terrorists just knew which day there would be as many as 17 of these drills to disrupt coordination between the NORAD and the FAA. What are you doing? Trying to fool someone into believing this ridiculous pap? You better try someone else. Albruy, because you are making a spectacular fool of yourself here.

    • Albury Smith  September 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm

      This long after 9/11, you apparently still have little to no understanding of what happens when 140-ton airliners crash into lightly-framed steel hi-rises at 440 mph or more. The concrete slabs in the non-core areas were less than 4 inches thick and more than 12 feet apart, and lightweight bar joists and thin-walled columns (which are vertical by definition) don’t absorb that much KE without sustaining considerable damage. Since the area of each floor has little to do with the assessments of damage to either the buildings or the planes, “one acre of concrete apiece” is the new “50-ton hydraulic press,” i.e. more meaningless and specious gibberish intended to convey a false impression.
      Here’s what some engineers at Purdue came up with for what really happened, but they actually did more than simply look at videos or just “theorize” with no data:
      The top link contains contact information if you’d like to straighten them out.
      ATC had no “fake blips” from your imaginary anti-terrorism drills, but they did have ~4000 planes airborne at 9 AM, from which to pick out any that were off course with their transponders turned off or the code changed. NORAD had its usual complement of 2 F-15s at Otis and 2 F-16s at Langley, all fueled, armed and on standby, and the Otis fighters scrambled just as AA 11 hit the North Tower. In 2001, NORAD didn’t monitor civilian air traffic and relied solely on FAA notification of any problems, so that’s about as good as it gets, considering the fact that many still thought the North Tower crash was an accident until UA 175 hit the South Tower. The Langley fighters headed east to avoid DC air traffic and join them in a CAP over NYC, since that was where the first 2 attacks took place, but were later ordered back with insufficient time to intercept AA 77, and no “weapons free” or shoot-down order.
      The FAA and NORAD don’t know about these alleged drills that interfered with response time, and no drill to intercept suicide hijackings of planes originating within US borders had ever been conducted by NORAD prior to 9/11/01, so please feel free to enlighten them. Having lived during an era when they occurred routinely, I personally see nothing “amazing” about hijacking US airliners, and the unprecedented tactic of flying them into targets in perfect weather conditions isn’t very amazing for 4 men with FAA commercial pilot certificates either. The extensive damage to the towers and the scattering of 767 wreckage would have been quite amazing if done by UAVs or holograms, however, which may be why you’ve avoided explaining it.
      Now that your “no-plane” fantasies have been addressed far more than they warrant, I’m hoping you’ll answer my questions about Silverstein, the FDNY, their extra decision to blow up a 47-story hi-rise 4 to 5 hours after the first decision was made and implemented, how it all relates to the SEC files and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how water ran uphill on 9/11, and why it takes “massive explosions” around an express freight elevator to break two 8″ ductile iron pipes that were nowhere near it.

    • Gordon Duff  September 1, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      the airliners was 80 tons
      the building, the heaviest and strongest in the world at 1.6 million tons with both powerful endo and exoskeletons. your descriptions are purposefully false, in fact utter lies as are most statements you make. you obviously work for someone, more likely a “thing”
      the equivalent?
      throwing a beer can at a tank.
      The columns on the WTC are as thick as the armour on a T72 tank, capable of withstanding heavy artillery, much less aluminium foil airplanes loaded with kerosene.
      We have your number.
      In fact NO SINGLE THING you have said has been plausible.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      Albury, Spare me. The concrete varied from 4″ to 8″ (in the grooves), in case you bother to check it. The “planes” were intersecting seven (7) floors of the North Tower and eight (8) of the South. Each represented a steel truss connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other. That would have created enormous horizontal resistance.

      Why don’t you give us your scenario had just ONE of these floors been suspended in space and been hit by a Boeing 767? What do you think would have happened? We all know about the stand down of the USAF, which implies complicity by the Department of Defense. I am sorry, Albury, but just when I think you might have a serious thought, you make another brainless post.

  9. Jim Fetzer  August 25, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    We are strong supporters of A&E and I personally like Richard Gage. But the “hard science” crowd of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and the others have promoted the false belief about 9/11 that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown apart the Twin Towers, which is not possible. And if that is not their claim, then why haven’t they been insistent on figuring out WHAT ELSE WAS USED to destroy those structures? That would seem to be a matter of the highest priority! But as Steve has explained, the very idea of testing for explosives was ridiculed and suppressed within the organization. That should tell you that something is wrong and does not add up. False theories cannot be the foundation for a movement calling itself “9/11 Truth”. Give it a rest. You are wrong.

  10. Andrew Johnson  August 25, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Ah… a familiar scene here….

    Let’s address the only “attack” I made on Jim Fetzer – which was actually a question and observation:

    “These photos were gathered by Dr Judy Wood – posted by her over 3 years ago. They indicate the use of “Hutchision Effect-like” technology in the destruction. Why is this blog posting them in relation to Jack White (another photo researcher who has not been involved in this investigation?”

    There is nothing false here and no attacks on character. Of course, when you have a dictionary which is written in pencil, you can erase the recognised definitions of words like “attack” and then “philosiphise” a new definition in its place. If you are a good writer/orator etc, you may get away without anyone noticing how you have muddled and twisted things. If people read 911FTT, they will find verbatim copies of e-mails (and the actual emails are on my website in their entirety). One of these e-mails is very clear – and it involves the words: “Just between us, if Dr. Wood were to back off her relations with Hutchinson, whom I consider to be a fraud, I think her standing can be salvaged. if Dr. Wood were to back off her relations with Hutchinson, whom I consider to be a fraud, I think her standing can be salvaged. ”

    Of course, as Mr Fetzer invited me on the steering committee of ST911, and I had known of the Hutchison Effect since at least 1999, he had no compunction in ultimately accusing me making unreasonable “demands” (apparently, a request is the same as demand in Fetzer’s pencil-written dictionary) when I asked him to apologise when I was accused of sending hate mail, following him completely ignoring the evidence I presented to him to validate the Hutchison Effect’s reality (discussed in the book).

    But of course, here we are – in this barricade of blogging – not talking about the actual forensic evidence, such as the “mysterious” path of Hurricane Erin in the days immediately prior to 9/11. We, of course, cannot talk about *that* but instead talk about “who said what to whom about something irrelevant”. Such is the result of a successful operation in Perception Management.

    Have fun ignoring the evidence, won’t you?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Simple stupidity, ignorance, and an obsession with protecting anything remotely related to Judy Wood were involved here. This was the color-photo section of a book in which a chapter by Judy appeared immediately following it. It was prepared by Jack White based upon his own research, where only one–of the bathtub–originated from Judy’s site. I thought it was a good idea for those who did not have THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) to benefit from them, so I posted them as a blog. In the rather fascinating discussion thread for that blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html, I explained why your conduct and other of Judy’s supporters strikes me as that of members of a cult.

      In case you are unaware, Judy Wood is not the only one who had been doing research on 9/11. If you had only taken a look at THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), you would have seen that this was the color photo section of that book, which I mentioned in the first sentence of the blog. So your complaints were not only pointless but betrayed unfamiliarity with the only book in which her work had been featured. To object as you did was not only factually wrong (since Jack had not taken his photos from Judy’s site) but reflected the possessive attitude about everything “Judy” that I associate with the members of a cult (as I explain there). Your ongoing obsession with attacking me when I have continued to support her is bizarre.

      Life is too short to deal with the likes of you. I am no fan of John Hutchison, where it looks to me as though he is not competent. Ace Baker demonstrated long ago that Hutchison’s videos appeared to have been faked. Others have drawn the same conclusion. Ace offered him a substantial sum to invite him and me to visit his “laboratory” to determine for ourselves whether he was being honest, which he declined. At the time I believed that Judy was tarnishing her contributions to 9/11 by associating with Hutchison. I continue to believe that. If that is my “crime”, then I plead “guilty as charged”! I was acting in what I considered to be her best interests at the time. At least, we now know what it was I did to offend Judy Wood.

  11. munkle  August 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    addendum: They wouldn’t have been stupid enough to use it on the perimeter beams. Also, the most likely candidate for the limited use of thermite would be the extra-strength, two-story mechanical floors, which had no windows.

    • ronisrael  August 24, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Mr. munkie

      Inner side of the box Columns ?
      Please look:
      If it was SNT or any other heat/fire creating incendiary, the spire would have had the appearance of a flaming KKK cross stuck on ones front lawn.
      And this super duper nano thermate is supposed to keep an underground heat of 1500 degrees for 15 weeks.
      Ridiculous .
      Buddy – it’s time for a wake up call.

      I am not the enemy.
      I am an author of many articles on an Israeli truther website
      where we exposed the info on 911, Prime minister Rabin murder conspiracy etc for the Israeli public
      I was once talking just like you – defending the SNT theory as if my life depended on it.
      and why? because a cabal of controlled opposition gave us the conviction that this will give us concrete results and justice will prevail.
      But in fact, in reality, the 911 truth movement has gone into a standstill since the overtaking of SNT.
      In other words this is a classic example of Lenin’s famous words :
      ‘The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.’

      True skepticism suspends both belief and disbelief . (and that is also why i admire prof’ Fetzer’s way)
      It happened to me with the NP theory – which before actually viewing the evidence I too thought “come on this is nonsense” , or “it will hurt the truth movement” mantra
      i was completely brain washed .
      And after watching Khalezov’s full 4 hour presentation and contacting him personally on different blogs
      he is speaking the truth – and the evidence supports him to the letter.
      Everything fits like a glove.

      But I understand your dilemma. and so does Khalezov :

      ” Whether you doubt my claims or not – it is your undeniable right
      I would admit – if I were you, for example after chewing on various conspiracy theories for 8 years I eventually encounter such claims I might treat them with doubt too . Dimitri Khalezov “

    • dirt  August 24, 2011 at 8:31 pm

      You know, my proudest moment in college was setting the curve in my structural steel final. It almost killed me if that is believable. It’s true though. During my days studying I actually witnessed a complete mental breakdown from a study partner who couldn’t handle the math load that last semester. We both had soils eng, wood structures eng, materials eng, thermo eng, and a host of other terrible classes. We were also unlucky in the order of rotation of difficult professors. One actually was world famous and taught two of the classes at once, boy howdy! My good buddy had a brother who broke down at Northwestern who studied mech eng (I studied civil). I’ve just never gone too far into the obvious, and by that I mean to understand the impossibilty of what I saw at 8:45? in the AM on 9-11-2001. I take for granted that people can’t see the impossibilty of what happened to those buildings. I’ve never felt the need to post on the question of it. But, when I see the ridiculous minutea from the above, I just hover into my own shoulders.
      Gentlemen, there’s a thousand adjectives to describe the idiocy of what you’re arguing…really. Stop!!! We know what happened, we know pretty much who did it! We’re now at the threshold where we need to start aiming some blame. We need a united front, regardless of the belief of missiles, planes, thermite, thermate, mini nukes, C-4, blah god damn blah! Pissing contest over! Dick measuring over! Demands is where we aim. We have to make them afraid of a united front. Without that, keep shooting rubber bands at the moon.

    • ronisrael  August 25, 2011 at 11:04 am

      we know who’s behind everything in detail since the 60’s
      it’s not breaking news.

      You are naive if you think it is dick measuring.
      TPTB are the ones behind all this confusion in the truth movement
      it is classic cointelpro.
      we must get our evidence right before presenting our case.

    • dirt  August 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm

      I hate that you are right about that…… We need more steam on board this engine we are building. I couldn’t stand it if we got shot down in court before we had all of america behind us. That’s my fear. When I made the comment I had a few in me, and that’s no excuse I know.

  12. munkle  August 24, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    ronisrael said:

    “This is how painted Tharmite reacts on a steel beam :

    We should have observed WTC light up like a Christmas tree while collapsing.
    But we clearly don’t :

    Nobody who uses such disinfo artist reasoning should name themselves ronisrael. You just blew your cover. Why should thermitic charges burning 70 feet within the buildings, on the inner side of the box columns and within the obstructions of sheetrock walling and elevators shafts, be visible externally “like a Christmas tree?” You are showing deliberate ignorance of the frame architecture of the towers.

    Molten steel escaping the sides rather than all running down the center of the core as it was intended to is evidence enough that something damn hot was frying through that steel.

  13. dirt  August 24, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Well, I for one commend your bravery on the Wellstone assasination. I watched the video online obviously. Seems a clear case for what you presented. I believe there are many assasinations via aircraft, but this one called for direct energy, given geographic location and timing mostly. Others, I personally believe are conducted with mind control victims as co-pilot, etc. Of course the typical explosives couldn’t be used on this one, nor would the old “last minute pilot(s) switcheroo.” Words don’t describe Cheney and his ilk satisfactorily. Insidious. Your work is welcome.

  14. Matthew Naus  August 24, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Jim Fetzer said,

    “Well, the same group that managed the mutiny at Scholars late in 2006 brought you “explosive nanothermite”, trashes anyone who discusses what didn’t happen at the Pentagon, and does its best to denigrate research on unconventional explanations, including mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, or any other form of directed energy technology, especially the work of Judy Wood, Ph.D., who may be the single most qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science.”

    The use of the words lasers, masers, and plasmoids has nothing to do with Judy Wood’s research. Although, Jim uses these words in the same sentence and then right after using these words mentions directed energy technology and the work of Judy Wood the reader should be careful to not associate these words with her research. This was written about in a book by Andrew Johnson called 9/11 Finding the Truth which I highly recommend reading. The book can be read online for free at http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/ and can also be purchased for about $10.00. Andrew Johnson works closely with Judy Wood. Judy Wood’s research connects the Hutchinson effect with evidence found at ground zero. She recently came out with a new book called Where Did The Towers Go?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 8:34 am

      Well, lasers and masers are forms of directed energy, which also deserve exploration. At the Madison conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ (2007), a Ph.D. in theoretical physics observed during the discussion period following the presentations that viewing Judy Wood’s work had caused her to realize that masers had to have been involved. I think the weakest aspect of Judy’s work is that she has never done enough to spell out how all of this is supposed to have been done. Her allusions to “the Hutchison effect” won’t do, since there are many who question the integrity of his work, which appears to involved faked films showing “effects” that are fabrications. I am not denying that Judy has done good work, especially in laying out the evidence that has to be explained, but she has not convinced me or many others that she has solved the case. Her work is promising but clearly incomplete.

    • Matthew Naus  August 24, 2011 at 9:22 am

      This ALSO was written about in a book by Andrew Johnson called 9/11 Finding the Truth which I highly recommend reading. Let the viewers of this blog read his book and make their own decision about faked films. The book can be read online for free at http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/ and can also be purchased for about $10.00. Andrew Johnson works closely with Judy Wood. Judy Wood’s research connects the Hutchinson effect with evidence found at ground zero. She recently came out with a new book called Where Did The Towers Go?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm

      Matt, You are a “good guy” in my book, but you may be mistaking Judy Wood for a Vestal Virgin. Unless it has been rewritten, Andrew Johnson’s book is chock full of fabricated attacks on me, where I could offer a half-dozen other examples–from YouTube and elsewhere–in which Judy herself was clearly complicit. One of those is a gratuitous attack on me for posting “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation” on my blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html.

      Judy went bananas claiming that I had taken photos from her web site. Not only was that untrue–since Jack White, who prepared it, had drawn from his own studies of 9/11, with one exception–but none of those photos, to the best of my knowledge, originated with Judy Wood. This bizarre claim was included in an “Open Letter” from Eric Larsen, to which I was moved to reply here, “An Open Response to an ‘Open Letter’ from Eric Larsen”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/open-response-to-open-letter-from-eric.html

      As though that was not bizarre enough, this was Jack’s chapter from THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), where Judy’s chapter followed Jack’s. So it appears that Judy Wood is not even aware of the other contents of a book in which her own work appears, which, to the best of my knowledge, is the only place it had been published–apart from her own web site, of course–until WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010) And this is not the only case of strange behavior from Dr. Judy Wood. Consider the following.

      Judy Wood was the featured guest on The Bob Tuskin Show – 05-18-11 – Judy Wood – 1/6 – YouTube http://www.oraclebroadcasting.com/archives.php?stream=/Intel_Hub/Intel_Hub.2011-05-18_16k.mp3 – May 19, 2011 – uploaded to his archives, which includes the whole unedited program. Bob explained to me that he has received a lot of attacks for featuring her as his guest–even though that was obviously an appropriate thing to do. When I had discovered she was on the show, I called in.

      I asked Judy why she was saying that her book was all evidence and no theory, declaring that she “has no theory”. I asked her why she was saying that, when it was obviously untrue. Look at the cover of her book. Beneath the title, it states, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″. So obviously her theory is that directed free-energy technology was used on 9/11. What could be more obvious? Alas, she did not respond rationally to my question but instead had an emotional reaction, which you can hear for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDxCazAQTU

      Another point I made was that, on the inside front cover of her book, we find a sticker that says (in part), “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”! But that is clearly wrong. Since mimicry is a form of replication, taken literally, this says that a theory must replicate (or repeat) the empirical evidence. What she should be saying is, “Empirical evidence is the data that an adequate theory must explain!”, which has the advantage over her formulation of being both significant and true.

      And if anyone faults me for suggesting that Judy’s account is “clearly incomplete”, they should review page 451 of her book, where she states that the evidence does not fit “any known technology”, adding, “And a weapon that could produce all of the effects we saw on 9/11 would certainly not be in the public domain, no matter WHOSE weapon it was.” While I admire her study of the evidence, her theory is clearly incomplete and appeals to mechanisms that require further investigation.

    • Matthew Naus  August 24, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      Thanks for the ‘good guy’ comment. I’m reading your post and processing your information. Now give me a chock full of fabricated attacks by Andrew Johnson and please be specific so I can process this info. I processed one example of yours of Judy Wood being clearly complicit, according to you, but can you give me the other 5 making a half-dozen so I can process them also. Just like I processed Andrew Johnson’s book, 9/11 Finding the Truth, which can be located here: http://tinyurl.com/911ftb I also want to process your specific examples of Andrew Johnson and Judy Wood attacks so I can make an informed judgement.

    • dirt  August 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm

      Well put

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 9:51 pm


      It took longer than I had expected to put together a half-dozen examples from my archives, but I have done that now. Since some of them are complicated, I will provide a thumbnail sketch of each here (with links so you can verify them, for the cases where they are still available) and I can send more on each:

      EXAMPLE (1): January 26, 2010: “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”

      I had the color-photo section prepared by Jack White on hand and it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to republish it on my blog for the benefit of those who did not have access to copies of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007). I was simply astonished when I began receiving attacks from close associates of Judy Wood, such as Andrew Johnson, who said…

      “These photos were gathered by Dr Judy Wood – posted by her over 3 years ago. They indicate the use of “Hutchision Effect-like” technology in the destruction. Why is this blog posting them in relation to Jack White (another photo researcher who has not been involved in this investigation?” JANUARY 30, 2010 1:49 AM

      But this was false. Jack White had prepared them based on his own research–with the single exception of a photo of the bathtub, which I suggested he use from Judy’s site. See, too, the exchange with Hutchison and (what I take to be) the “cult-like” behavior of Judy’s followers.

      EXAMPLE (2): February 15, 2011: On The Deep Politics Forum a strange thread showed up:

      Someone named Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez created this thread, “Jim Fetzer Speculates: ‘Israeli Art Students Removed Building Contents from WTC” (lol!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCJ1cqgmhcE
      which is no longer working. When I checked it at the time, I found myself explaining the views of Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams, whom I had featured (twice) on “The Real Deal” on Twin Towers Fakery on July 28, 2010, and on August 9, 2010, which were being presented as though they were my views and the voice of Judy Wood ridiculing the position I was describing (of two mostly empty buildings). This was truly bizarre. I would later mention it in passing in a letter to Eric Larsen, which probably led to its removal. The cynicism and duplicity of this is staggering.

      EXAMPLE (3): March 11, 2011: “An Open Response to an ‘Open Letter’ from Eric Larsen”

      When I first read Eric Larsen’s “Open Letter to PatriotsQuestion911″, I thought it was fine. Then I reread it and realized that a paragraph which I had overlooked contained a double-smear against me: first, for having used her photos in “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”, which I have discussed above as EXAMPLE (1); and second, for publishing yet another blog, “New 9/11 Photos Released”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html which she claimed was deceptive because these photos were not really “new”. Well, we all knew that, but everyone was calling them “new”–which is easy to see if you do a search on that name–and I used the resequencing of the photos to tell the story of the conversion of the Twin Towers to millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which I regarded as background very favorable to her point of view. But she had evidently persuaded Eric Larsen to trash me on both grounds, where neither attack was justified, as I explained in my “Open Response”, even including a note from Jack White.

      EXAMPLE (4): May 18, 2011: The Bob Tuskin call-in. I have already explained that I called into the show to ask Judy why she denied she had “a theory” when her theory is stated on the cover of her book and why she misrepresented the relationship between theories and evidence in the sticker on the inside of her book. I have now discovered that this was used to create a pair of YouTubes, the first of which is “Jim Fetzer’s bizarre phone call to Judy Wood. (part 1 of 2)”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDxCazAQTU, where she claims that I was insulting her and that my questions were “off topic”.

      One of the comments posted about it by “knightschwartz” reflects my own reaction to her strange response:

      “The only bizarre part of this exchange is on Judy Wood’s behalf. She says Fetzer’s questions are just attempts to “cover up the truth”. Who are these people who go around defending Wood’s honor like she’s god. How dare you not say what she wants to say! She says Fetzer insults her. He never did. She’s delusional.” knightschwartz 1 month ago

      EXAMPLE (5): May 18, 2011: “Jim Fetzer’s bizarre phone call to Judy Wood. (part 2)”

      She says she not spoken with or emailed with Jim Fetzer for three years now, because “Jim Fetzer threatened me” to not reveal this technology, claiming that I am “attempting to suppress” this technology. She never answers the question of how I am supposed to have threatened her, which is false. She mentions Jesse Ventura, but has no idea that I am the person who recommended her work to him. How in the world would she think that he came to run across her work? Judy Wood is not that widely known and he would not know about it except for me!

      EXAMPLE (6): August 6, 2011: “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”,

      I was astonished that the image of the cover of Judy’s book was removed from my column at the request of Thomas Potter, who filed a formal complaint (at Judy Wood’s request, no doubt) because (she affirms “under penalty of perjury”) that the content is owned by her and that it appears illegally, where he claims, “Additionally, the author is associating Dr. Wood’s book with himself and with ‘Judy Wood is not correct’ and ‘no one knows what happened after reading her book…’ which damages Dr. Judy Wood’s reputation and her forensic investigation of the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001.” I had not used those phrases and I wrote to Mr. Potter for clarification, asking if he had read what I actually wrote about Judy and her book in this article:

      “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?,


      “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.”

      These are sketches of the kinds of bizarre behavior and attacks to which I have been subjected by Judy Wood and her followers. I have consistently supported her research, even after she had launched several attacks upon me. I must admit that the YouTube video in which I was ascribed the views of Phil and Larry represented a new low; but even long after that, I was still supporting her research and doing my best to make it better known. At this point in time, I am convinced that she as a person has gone off the deep end, which is especially well-illustrated by the claim she has made that I have “threatened her” to not reveal this technology, which is not only factually false but simply absurd, given my sustained efforts, through thick and thin, to encourage the study of her work and promote her book. I find this situation more than a little strange.


    • Matthew Naus  August 25, 2011 at 7:52 am

      I’m replying to your latest post (August 24, 2011 at 9:51pm) regarding a list of attacks by Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson. This post will be out of position due to the fact that I found no ‘reply’ button, for some reason, at the end of your latest post. I’m currently processing the 6 examples you gave and I noticed you mentioned Andrew Johnson in one of the examples regarding the posted photos. In my last post (August 24, 2011 5:13 pm) I asked you to give me a chock full of fabricated attacks by Andrew Johnson and please be specific so I can process them. I see nothing in your last post addressing Andrew Johnson attacks, except for the ‘posted photos paragraph’.You do mention words such as ‘Judy’s followers’ but that is not specific enough for me. It was your words in the (August 24, 2011 12:59 pm post) that said, ” Andrew Johnson’s book is chock full of fabricated attacks on me” and I have not seen you address these Andrew Johnson attacks, except for the ‘posted photo paragraph’. Please give me more specifics on Andrew Johnson attacks so I can process them and make an informed judgment.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 25, 2011 at 8:35 am

      What am I supposed to tell you? Most of what Andrew Johnson did in his book concerned uncharitable interpretations of email exchanges over extended periods of time, where the contexts had changed. I should think that, for attacks on me, Judy’s own direct involvement in EXAMPLES (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) would be more than sufficient to meet even your critical standards. Does it not affect you that Judy herself participated in the YouTube attack in which my summary of the views of Phil Jayhan were presented as though they were mine and then ridiculed by Judy in her own voice? That is such a stunning indication of the extent to which she has been willing to go to trash me when I have been among her strongest supporters and continue to promote her research– even in the case of my column, “The Debate about 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, where my discussion of her work was highly favorable, yet she had Thomas Potter insist that the image of her book BE TAKEN DOWN?

      Perhaps you do not understand in relation to EXAMPLE (1) that attacks like these–where I used Andrew’s initial attack as an illustration– are very much controlled by Judy and would not have taken place without her approval. I found the book you are promoting to be, in relation to me, unadulterated rubbish, but explaining why his convoluted and tortured arguments are wrong is a tedious and laborious process. If you don’t find the cases I have provided enough to convince you that something is wrong with Judy for launching them, then I doubt that the more subtle and nuanced misrepresentations in Andrew’s book are going to have more impact. So you are going to have to sort out some of this for yourself. Given the number of times I featured her on my radio programs and the amount of flack I have taken for supporting her, I am just the least bit baffled that you have any doubts about this.

      She apparently took offense when I asked John Hutchison about his background and training on the air–which he answered by saying he had “flunked crayons and coloring-books”, which Judy thought was hilarious–which I have explained in the discussion thread of “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”, in case you have overlooked it, and cut off any contact with me from that point on. So when she stated during her Bob Tuskin interview that she had had no communication with me for the last three years, that is the only explanation I have been able to infer. I invited her back on the show to discuss the Hurricane Erin connection, which I have always found to be obscure, and have written her about the misrepresentations of the facts in Eric Larsen’s “Open Letter” as well as in Thomas Potter’s demand for the removal of the image, but if you are studying this in detail, you should be able to sort that out for yourself.

      If you can’t grasp the “big picture”–that I have always been in Judy’s corner and promoted her work, including publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and featuring her as a speaker at the Madison conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″, for an unprecedented THREE HOURS, then I don’t know what else I can do for you. The manifest absurdity of her allegation that I had “threatened her” to NOT DISCLOSE HER RESEARCH is so far beyond the pale of rationality that the relatively obscure issues teased out by Andrew Johnson have vanishing significance. If you, Matt Naus, want to resurrect email exchanges from 2006-07, for example, be my guest. But I cannot imagine why there should be doubt in your mind or that of any reasonable person who has the least familiarity with my efforts to advance her research–not because I believe she has settled the question, but because she had made enormously important contributions to elaborating the evidence that has to be explained–that I have strongly supported her and I can’t imagine why anyone would take that kind of trivial carping seriously.

      So if you want to summarize whatever impresses you from Andrew’s book, by all means, do that here and I will do what I can to explain what was going on. I am not a flawless person and, if there were occasional misunderstandings about this issue or that, no doubt some of them were because I had not taken enough time to explain what was going on in detail–and that apparently offended Andrew, who used this book to settle some scores. Well, even if you took all of his allegations at face value, they would not fill a thimble in relation to the repeated, unwarranted and reckless assaults that she has launched against me, even if you restrict consideration to EXAMPLES (2) through (6). I hope you will give this more thought, because we have passed the point of diminishing returns. If you want to address “old news”, which is obviously comparatively trivial, then do that. I am worn out from having to cope with attacks from others BECAUSE I SUPPORT JUDY and from Judy APPARENTLY BECAUSE I DO NOT SUPPORT HER ENOUGH. It’s such rubbish!

    • Matthew Naus  August 25, 2011 at 8:00 am

      Correction: My post did go into the right position so I was wrong about that in my last post.

    • Matthew Naus  August 25, 2011 at 10:18 am

      This discussion started between us with your post where you wrote this paragraph,

      “Well, the same group that managed the mutiny at Scholars late in 2006 has also brought you “explosive nanothermite”, trashes anyone who discusses what didn’t happen at the Pentagon, and does its best to denigrate research on unconventional explanations, including mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, or any other form of directed energy technology, especially the work of Judy Wood, Ph.D., who may be the single most qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science.”

      My first reply post informed the readers that using the words lasers, masers and plasmoids had nothing to do with Judy’s research and that the reader should not get confused and be aware of this when it is used in the same sentence with Judy Wood’s name and her research on directed energy. I then informed the readers of this blog of a book (911 Finding the Truth) I read where these same words were addressed by Andrew Johnson in that book located here: http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

      Andrew Johnson writes about ‘perception management of 9/11′ in chapter 19 of his book and uses Jim Fetzer’s use of the words lasers, masers, and plasmoids (page 190 of the book) as an example of perception management. As I processed the information Andrew Johnson was writing about I came to an informed judgement that Andrew Johnson was RIGHT, and that using these words can be confusing to the reader in the way you use them in the same sentence with Judy Wood’s name and her directed energy research.

      Jim, in your reply to my (August 24, 2011 9:22 am post you state, ” Andrew Johnson’s book is chock full of fabricated attacks on me” and my reply to that was to be more specific and give me examples of this so I could process it and make an informed judgement. Asking for specific information about fabricated attacks by this author, Andrew Johnson, is the proper thing to do so I can make an informed judgement about your claim.
      At the end of your 2nd paragraph you state, “I am just the least bit baffled that you have any doubts about this.”

      I must say, I am baffled that you would make such a statment as this when all I asked for was specific information regarding the statement you made regarding attacks by Andrew Johnson so I could make an informed judgement. All I was asking for was your side of the story regarding specific attacks by Andrew Johnson which is part of the critical thinking process which you are so educated in. After reading your last post, I will say at this specific time that I have doubts because in processing what you wrote in your last post I feel you avoided the question I asked about giving me specific examples of Andrew Johnson’s attacks on you. I will leave it up to readers of this blog to decide who I now have doubts about. For your information this is my last post on this specific blog. Take Care Matt

    • Jim Fetzer  August 25, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      Good God! You quote a paragraph which ends with my observation that Judy Wood, Ph.D., “may be the single most qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science”, and you suggest that I am trying to MANAGE PERCEPTIONS? You really need to get a grip. I thought you were serious so I provided examples that were serious. You, however, are consumed with trivia arising from email exchanges years and years ago! If you think that Andrew is onto something, then SPELL IT OUT! I have been promoting and supporting Judy’s work for so long and taken so many hits for doing that that I am incredulous that you, whom I have known for several years now, would be so easily taken in. I started looking at those email exchanges and realized it would take hours and hours to explain their context and that, ultimately, they did not amount to a hill of beans. I really thought you were smarter than this, Matt, but you are being played. Judy has a form of paranoia according to which THE WHOLE WORLD–NOT JUST ME–IS AGAINST HER. If you thought about the examples I provided of SERIOUS ATTACKS ON ME by contrast with the trivial that Andrew sets forth, I can hardly imagine how you could be taken in. But there it is. Collectively, everything that Andrew alleges (of my failing to appreciate him as a member of Scholars steering committee, for example) is so incredibly trivial that I am having a hard time believing that you have been duped. But you have, alas. And just out of curiosity, have you asked Judy Wood or Andrew Johnson to justify Judy’s claim that I had THREATENED HER NOT TO REVEAL HER FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY? If you believe that, then I have no respect for your cognitive abilities and can see that you are far more vulnerable to manipulation than I would have ever surmised. If I wanted to keep her knowledge in the dark, why did I feature her fifteen (15) times on radio shows? why have I stuck up for her on endless posts and relentless attacks? why am I STILL featuring the cover of her book in a recent column of mine? why did I recommend her work to Jesse Ventura? why did I suggest to George Noorey that she might make a great guest for Coast-to-Coast?

      I have news for you, Matt. I AM NOT THE HEAD OF THE JUDY WOOD FAN CLUB. I am the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I realized from the beginning that it was necessary to consider a wide range of alternative theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed. Steve and I split because I had featured JUDY WOOD on a radio program, when he wanted to keep the focus on nanothermite. Maybe you missed all of this. But my willingness to entertain her theories seriously was the cause of the split in Scholars. The use of the phrase, “lasers, masers, and plasmoids”, is a partial reflection of the society’s willingness to consider, not just directed energy weapons, but mini-nukes, 3rd or 4th generation weapons (fission or fusion), as well as lasers, masers, and plasmoids or other forms of directed energy weapons! Masers are the obvious examples, but the list of alternatives like these is meant to reflect THE WIDE RANGE OF THEORIES THAT SCHOLARS IS WILLING TO CONSIDER, unlike the thermit-thermate-nanothermite crowd, which is not willing to consider any other alternatives. That list does not imply that lasers, masers, or plasmoids are aspects of Judy Wood’s work (which should be obvious to anyone who understands those concepts, since plasmoids are explosive gasses and not directed energy weapons). I can’t imagine anyone mistaking that list as representing JUDY WOOD’S WORK. It represents THE RANGE OF THEORIES SCHOLARS IS WILLING TO CONSIDER. Only someone who had been drawn into her net of paranoia could make a mistake of this caliber. Which means that your complaint is BASELESS. And if you want to spend your time dealing with endless drivel, then bury yourself in Andrew Johnson’s book, which is not a lot more than an excuse to attack me. I know how meaningless those attacks are: they amount to little more than speculation and rumor about what I meant by this phrase or what I was doing by sending that out! Egad, man! Get a grip. How could I possibly be UNDERMINING HER WORK when I have been PROMOTING IT? Don’t you have a brain in your head? I FEATURED THE COVER OF HER BOOK, WHICH I DESCRIBED FAVORABLY, in “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, which was only published on 6 AUGUST 2011! So as recently as 6 AUGUST 2011, I was STILL promoting her work. But I am apparently not deferential enough to suit Judy Wood, who had the image of her book REMOVED! So one of us has lost his way. Judy lost her grip long ago. I just didn’t expect that someone like you would be unable to sort this out.

  15. Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Except, of course, for the four points I made in response, which are the issues we are addressing here. And, as Mark Hightower explains above, it was Jones who first drew the comparison between RDX and “superthermite”, which, if I were keeping score, means you are wrong on all counts, including the “explosive nanothermite” myth.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 6:28 am

      Well, the same group that managed the mutiny at Scholars late in 2006 has also brought you “explosive nanothermite”, trashes anyone who discusses what didn’t happen at the Pentagon, and does its best to denigrate research on unconventional explanations, including mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, or any other form of directed energy technology, especially the work of Judy Wood, Ph.D., who may be the single most qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science.

      The numbers you are being fed are as mythical as “explosive nanothermite”, by the way. I would guess that perhaps 1/3 took the bait. The methods they used to damage Scholars in 2006 were on a par with those they are using to defend “explosive nanothermite”: they commandeered the society’s membership list, conducted a fake poll with slanted questions (falsely identifying this message as having come from the “membership administrator”), and froze the web site at http://st911.org, which I had managed from scratch and had made world-famous. The history of these sordid activities may be found under “Founder’s Corner” at http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=70.

      But their smears, which have no foundation, have continued unabated. See, for example, “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”, http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/987, and, of course, right here at Veterans Today, “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/ Anyone is free to decide who are the “kooks” and who is discrediting the 9/11 Truth movement, but those who have deceived and misled the 9/11 community about “explosive nanothermite” look like strong candidates, not those of us who are doing what we can to keep the movement honest.

  16. Daniel Noel  August 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    VT has perhaps been the anti-war outfit most open to 9/11 Truth. Apparently it has decided to open itself to intra-9/11 controversies. Why not? But let us keep 9/11 Truth on track…
    1. The contention that thermite would be the principal agent in the 3 WTC demolitions has been made, but not by AE911Truth. In fact, their analytical demonstration of the demolitions is essentially over as soon as they finish reviewing the video evidence.
    2. AE911Truth’s slide show, available at http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=1&hires=1, suggests that their thermitic excursion serves the primary purpose of demonstrating obfuscation by the U.S. technical investigators: they deliberately went to great length to not find forensic evidence that seems to be straightforward to find.
    3. The article does not suggest that AE911Truth would have opposed testing WTC residues for explosives. What the article suggests is that AE911Truth would have made some internal decision to not do that themselves with the powder in their possession. This is consistent with the above-mentioned fact that the video evidence alone demonstrates the demolitions.
    4. Should the WTC powder be tested for explosive residues, Roberts’ alleged remark stands: irrespective of the test results, the demonstration of the triple demolition is not affected. In fact, per the above, a putative new finding that there would actually be zero clue of thermitic activity would not challenge the demolitions either.
    5. The contention that thermite was not used to demolish the twin towers would be a leap of faith. To AE911Truth’s point, there is much evidence that it was actually used. And the demolition’s chief engineers were evidently masters of innovation. The twin towers’ demolition broke through several barriers, such as the building’s size, the need to prepare the demolition under the occupants’ nose, and the constraint of absorbing other terror attacks shortly before the demolitions. It stands to reason that should the engineers find some compelling reason to use thermite, they would find a way to make it work.
    6. Building on this last point, the choice of the expensive and hard to procure nanothermite could be due to some specific technical need identified by the demolition engineers.
    7. It bears remembering that the finding of nanothermite is not needed to prove the twin towers’ terrorist demolition. Its main advantage is the juicy detail that “our brave troops” let facilities under their control manufacture and send to the twin towers large quantities of novel hi-tech ordnance.
    8. It is well known that the official 9/11 myth makes little sense from A to Z (from the hijackers’ resume to their failure to die in the attacks). The Pentagon’s story is no exception and has correctly generated numerous valid objections and a couple of respectable alternative theories. This is the time to remember—or learn—that 9/11 Truth, in and on its own, is a puny issue: the arbitrary extrajudicial execution of 3,000 honorable middle- and upper-class U.S. citizens is not that big a deal. Neither is its U.S. cover-up. Single-payer healthcare or pro-life activists, to take just two examples, will multiply this horror by high coefficients to argue that their causes are much more pressing than 9/11 Truth. 9/11’s unique lesson is its censorship, the conspiracy against 9/11 Truth itself, the process by which countless watchdogs—including all Peace leaders with very few and small exceptions like Veterans Today—who should scream “false flag” have instead parroted the official myth as an irrefutable, undisputable, absolute truth and summarily dismissed 9/11 Truth. The analysis of the 9/11 censorship (available at http://www.global-platonic-theater.com) yields the demonstration of the so-called “global Platonic theater,” a subtle but sinister system by which “we the people of the world” receive information that is systematically biased against our benefit. It also shows that the global Platonic theater will cancel itself once enough people are aware of its existence and leave it, i.e. stop trusting the watchdogs who should but do not bark over 9/11. This will presumably usher the whole human community into some highly favorable paradigm shift.
    9. As such, discerning 9/11 truth-seekers will view themselves as world-fixers, or even world-saviors, and will focus their activism on teaching the 9/11 censorship.
    10. A 9/11 truth-seeker can certainly attack the official 9/11 fairy tale at any point. The Pentagon is a very valid one. But it is difficult to find a method to teach the 9/11 censorship without going through the twin towers’ terrorist demolitions before their complete evacuation. This makes the demonstration of the twin towers’ demolition a cornerstone of 9/11’s outreach.
    11. AE911Truth precisely has the merit of focusing on an analytical demonstration in layman’s terms of the twin towers’ terrorist demolition and of its U.S. cover-up. They use Building 7 only as a necessary stepping stone, as its demolition is easier to teach. They come very close to providing the fundamental essential 9/11 teaching, which is the global, enduring, cross-disciplinary, self-healing 9/11 censorship, as explained at http://www.911censorship.com/twin%20towers'%20censorship.htm. This makes them a prime resource for discerning 9/11 truth-seekers, who are really, as explained above, world-saviors.
    12. The question of what happened at the Pentagon is important, but not essential. So is the question of what kind of exotic technologies were used to demolish the twin towers. So is the question as to why 9/11 Truth investigators have not come up with a trove of twin towers’ occupants who complained about the demolition’s preparation. So are a myriad other questions. However, the urgency is to get humanity out of its global Platonic theater. Once the global Platonic theater and the 9/11 censorship are out of the way, these questions will be much easier to answer.
    13. 9/11 Truth leaders are welcome to use the Pentagon and other events as points of entry into 9/11 Truth. They are welcome to formulate alternative theories to any segment of the official 9/11 myth. 9/11 truth-seekers are welcome to follow the leaders and the theories of their choice. Those who understand the unique connection between 9/11 Truth and the global Platonic theater will focus their choices on the swiftest and easiest way to teach the 9/11 censorship under the radar and in spite of the watchdogs who don’t bark. AE911Truth’s message, as it is, is arguably the best such tool available now. But the competition is open.
    14. 9/11 truth-seekers and 9/11 Truth leaders would be well advised to remember that they have much in common. Their real enemies are the 9/11 censors, the numerous watchdogs who intentionally fail to bark and refuse to consider their findings. Accordingly, 9/11 Truth activists and leaders ought to accept the existence of different alternative 9/11 theories and focus their competition on how to best outsmart the 9/11 censors, i.e. how to best teach one-to-one the enormous 9/11 censorship under the 9/11 censors’ bully pulpits. When they do this, grand positive change is bound to take place.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 7:38 pm


      This is very well reasoned and represents an idealized conception of A&E, which Steve and I support. I would observe, alas, that the real A&E does not yet quite live up to that conception; in particular,

      (1) On April 5, 2009, for example, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth published “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust”, presenting its ringing endorsement of its findings:

      “A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

      “The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations. . . .

      “Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.”

      (2) As Steve has reported, discussion of alternative theories about the demolition of the Twin Towers has been proscribed within A&E; and,

      (3) Discussion of what happened at the Pentagon has similarly been prohibited and characterized as “off topic” within the organization; and,

      (4) There has been resistance to testing for conventional explosives, which appears to be something that should have been done long ago.

      I admire Richard Gage and believe he is taking steps to improve A&E, including being more qualified in its endorsement of nanothermite.

      Mark, Steve, and I are firmly committed to the success of the 9/11 Truth movement, provided that its efforts are consistent with the appropriate principles of scientific inquiries and its commitment to truth.


    • ronisrael  August 24, 2011 at 4:46 am

      This is how painted Tharmite reacts on a steel beam :

      We should have observed WTC light up like a Christmas tree while collapsing.
      But we clearly don’t :

      Stop trying to promote this SNT ludicrous and easly debunkable theory already.
      This is precisely what’s hurting the 911 truth movement. (and it is being done deliberately)

    • ronisrael  August 24, 2011 at 5:25 am

      Contrary to the SNT fantasy the evidence for an underground Nuke event is actually visible on video as well.

      The tower shakes 12 seconds prior to collapse.
      same from a different camera view

      Testimony accounts validate the the observed video:

      (taken from Khalezov free eBook , pages 103,104)

      4) The most important group of witness for our particular case are those whose testimonies are consistent with the real causes of the Twin Towers demolitions – i.e. those, whose testimonies could confirm that the two underground nuclear explosions have indeed taken place a moment before the upper parts of each of the Twin Towers begun to fall down. As you probably understand after all extensive explanations above as to the nature of deep underground nuclear explosions, such an underground explosion is not really noticeable, because there are no visible factors of a nuclear explosion: no fireballs, no air blast-wave, no sound, no radiation in either visible or invisible spectrum and no Electromagnetic Pulse. There is actually only one thing that you could notice: a shaking of the earth. If this explosion was so powerful that it even managed to send the “crushing zone” several hundred meters upwards and the “damaged zone” – even higher than that, it would be reasonable to presume that people in the immediate vicinity to the WTC should feel something like a major earthquake with a magnitude of at least 5.5 – considering that the charge was 150 kiloton.

      One witness account which proves that it was apparently much more than 5 in magnitude we have just encountered in the previous section. Here are some more witnesses’ accounts to the same effect. “EMT Joseph Fortis is heading across West Street, when, he says, “the ground started shaking like a 50 train was coming.” He then looks up and sees the South Tower starting to collapse.” What we could say? A feeling of a passing train is a sign of an earthquake stronger than 5 in magnitude – probably, close to 6.

      “Lonnie Penn, another EMT, is outside the Marriott Hotel, which is adjacent to the North Tower. He and 51 his partner “felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway and then it just came down.”” “

      Bradley Mann is at the EMS staging area on Vesey Street. He says, “Shortly before the first tower came down I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying 52 everywhere.””

      When CNN producer Rose Arce reported from the WTC site at 10.30 AM how the North Tower has collapsed, she mentioned, besides of all, extremely important information: the top of the Tower before its collapse “suddenly started to shake”.

      Here is one more interesting account of events:

      “Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty is walking into the lobby of the Marriott Hotel. He says, “I hear a noise. Right after that noise, you could feel the building start to shudder, tremble, under your feet.” He then 53 hears the “terrible noise” of the South Tower collapsing.”

      Now it is very clear that the earthquake was definitely over 5 in magnitude, because when you feel that a building shudders and trembles – this is an indication of an earthquake close to 6 or even over than that. Note, that the Marriott Hotel (the WTC-3) has not been pulverized at the moment of the South Tower’s collapse – so at that moment described above the building has not suffered any explosion intended to demolish the actual Marriott Hotel, but another explosion intended to demolish the neighboring building, because it was the second charge under the North Tower which would finally destroy the Marriott Hotel 30 minutes later. Here are some more witnesses’ accounts describing the earth’s shaking prior to the North Tower’s collapse.

      “Fire Patrolman Paul Curran is in front of the US Customs House (WTC 6), next to the North Tower. He says, “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.… The 54 next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.””

      “EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann is heading toward the EMS staging area on Vesey Street. He’d felt the ground shaking prior to the first collapse. He says, “The ground shook again, and we heard another 55 terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down.”” Besides of all, an unexplainable shaking of the top of the North Tower moments before its collapse is distinctly visible on video footage – made by professional cameras fixed on tripods and riveted to the top of the North Tower. Several movies of this kind are widely available on the Internet – particularly the 56 famous 9/11 footage by Etienne Sauret, which is available, for example, on YouTube .


  17. ronisrael  August 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Prof’ Fetzer.

    I have admired you for facing the SNT nonesense, and your fantastic scholarly work supporting the NP reality,

    Let us first refute the strikingly obvious erroneous theories :

    1. Super Nano Thermate (and lets assume this magic stuff even exists) :

    Do you know how much SNT is needed to sustain underground heat of 1500 degrees for 15 weeks?

    “invisible super top secret super thermate’ would have to have been 2.14 Million miles long and would to have weighed approximately 1.176 Billion pounds. ” (!!!)

    Beautifully calculated here:

    2. Mini Nukes down the towers:
    One very simple demonstration – proves it was not mini nukes detonating down the tower

    And this is only a 0.1 kiloton single nuke explosion

    Where was that boom (at least 1 mini nuke) in the wtc demolition ?
    Where was that huge light flash?
    Where was that ball of fire?
    not to mention no EMP .

    On the other hand we have Dimitri Khalezov testimony :
    1. As an Officer he had knowledge that there were emergency underground demolition nukes placed under the towers in advance (the soviets new this as part of the 1970s USSR-USA nuclear disclosure treaties) .
    2. He was approached by ex(?) Mossad Mike Harri in Thailand for that reason exactly – Harari wanted to know if the Russians are aware that these devises are indeed under the towers
    Khalezov has photos of Harri and court cases numbers sued by US government against Harari

    Dimitri Khalezov Nuclear Demolition explanation fits the crime scene evidence,
    And it takes only 7 short points to see it clearly :

    2/3 of mass of Towers turn into microscopic dust
    LIDAR photo (aerial laser mapping)
    including 1000 people pulverized

    2.Molten rock Crater :
    (Silverstein Properties comes out with a “surprising” announcement in 2008)
    more photos

    This is where WTC 4 is in position to other towers
    This is where Khalzov Places the Nukes (screen shot of part 16)
    and http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d7f7d433cb.jpg

    Does WTC4 get pulverized closest to the nuke? absolutely. but further away corner from nuke stays standing
    Does WTC3 get damaged too from wtc2 falling debris (first tower to collapse)? absolutely. but is not pulverized to the ground
    WTC3 will get pulverized when WTC1 nuke is detonated. once again further away corner stays standing
    See the first LIDAR photo for the placements of the remains of WTC 4 and 3
    Does WTC6 which is severely damaged ,pulverize completely too ? (its right next to wtc1) – it doesn’t. its way off the nuke radius.

    3.Fission Evidence :
    Elevate Tritium levels X55 more than background levels and raise levels of Strontium and Barium.

    4.WTC Bathtub:
    A 90 foot hole in the deep underground bathtub wall

    5.WTC Responders cancers:
    1000 + rescue workers die due to exotic cancers .. many of leukemia (classical ionizing radiation)

    6.Underground temperatures:
    1500 degrees heat under rubble for over 15 weeks regardless of continues water spraying

    7.ground zero definition:
    every dictionary from 2001 and beyond – the term ground zero
    which up until 2001 is the scientific phrase for a place of nuclear detonation?

    Why did WTC 7 collapse different to WTC 1,2 collapse :
    (in a nutshell)
    The destruction of the towers is not being done by nuke heat – but rather by mechanical pressure,
    Turns all matter instantly to solid dust (the form still keeps its shape like a sand castle).
    underground nuke creates 3 phenomena:
    1. cavity from vaporized rock – white area
    2.crushed zone (solid dust) – blue area
    3. damaged zone – green area
    But regarding WTC 1,2 even the nuke couldn’t reach all the way up the tower
    That big chunk falling down – scatters the already dustified tower beneath it – hence a collapse for the top is observed .
    That is why WTC7 looks so different- it is much shorter, the pulverization effect reached it all the way to the top.
    So it falls down “normally” there is no solid material to fall on top of it.

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

      This is quite fascinating, ronisrael. You make a powerful case. I will have to give this more thought. I featured Demitri on “The Real Deal” but thought turning the bottom 60 floors to solid dust was a stretch and that it would have had to demolish the bathtub. I will give this more thought. Thank you for posting this.

    • ronisrael  August 23, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      You are most welcome dear sir.

      Indeed I have listened to your interview with Khalezov

      Further more:
      In my opinion AE has been hijacked since 2007 , and virtually has stalled the entire truth movement.

      Since Khalezov testimony we can also put 2007 timeline in context and perspective :

      Surely enough in 2007 here comes Dimitri Khalezov approaching the FBI with his book – wanting to tell the truth (Khalezov reveals this in the famous WTC nuclear demolition video)
      He is an Eye witness and knows personally the main player.
      you can read his testimony here regarding “who did 9/11″:

      And guess what…
      Right after that – Super Nano Thermite Jones Evidence pops up in America.
      This was US government way of preventing Khalezov truth to be heard and spread.
      Khalezov mentions this fact on the Kevin Barrett’s radio show

      Has Steven Jones played the roll of a Government shill before?
      He certainly has – and its well documented in the case of cold fusion
      Steven Jones job was to sabotage this new technological breakthrough

      Keep up the good work Prof’.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 5:51 pm

      Steven Jones was already working on thermite in late 2005, when I invited him to be co-chair of Scholars. It was during 2006 that he and I began to drift apart, where I was inclined to consider alternative theories, including DEWs, but he was not so inclined. With Kevin Ryan and others, he and I parted ways at the end of 2006. So Steve was actually doing his nanothermite thing earlier than your timeline. But that’s a minor point in relation to the very nice case you have made for the use of nukes at the WTC. I will be giving this more thought.

    • ronisrael  August 24, 2011 at 5:29 am

      I thank you for your input and look forward reading your conclusions.

  18. Ned Delaney  August 23, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    It is my personal understanding that A&E was founded with Building 7 specifically in mind with issues pertaining to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers left to other researchers. If I understand the writer’s concerns about explosive testing, there are numerous analyses by professionals in the field unattached to A&E that, regardless of means, determine some kind of controlled demolition was used. The discussion, as it drifts onto the Pentagon attack, is muddled by the fact that few educated researchers question a 747 was ever involved in the attack. Basic research pretty much bears that out. Point in question, 911 Truth simply wants the events of 9/11 to be investigated by a public commission with judicial powers – opposed to the white washed 911 Commission fiasco with claims that their work was handicapped, hence relieving them of accountability. Let the facts speak for themselves, let witnesses speak “freely,” clean house where deserving, and lets get on with life. These arguments are elementary when compared to the matter at hand.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm

      Ned, while WTC-7 is virtually unanimously agreed to have been a classic controlled demolition–see the YouTube sensation, “This is an orange”, for example–the society has focused on the three buildings that were demolished that day, WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. I am a fan of Richard Gage, by the way, but acutely disappointed that A&E has the policies that Steve describes of proscribing discussion of the Pentagon (where, not a Boeing 747, but a Boeing 757 did not crash, as the government claims) and not allowing discussion of non-nano-thermite based theories about their destruction, which of course includes mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids or any other form of directed energy. The only way to conduct a scientific investigation is by comparing the explanatory powers of alternative hypotheses, as I explained in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK”, which anyone can google. A&E has clearly not been following that practice but rather something more akin to protecting a dogma from potential refutation. That is inappropriate and unscientific.

  19. Morris Townson  August 23, 2011 at 1:45 pm


    Here is a 2 hour interview (no commercials!!!! Yeah!) with Dr. Judy Wood. Excellent information.

  20. Morris Townson  August 23, 2011 at 1:42 pm


    Dr. Judy Wood, professor at Clemson University ,
    Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her * B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), * M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and * Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. ETC. ETC..

    She did NOT believe the 911 story on the day it happened.. And Neither did I.

    I encourage you to review her site and read her book.

  21. munkle  August 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    looking at the conclusion of the key paper you cite, true it is ambiguous as you say:

    “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” (page 31);..”

    They do say “or”; so it sounds to me like they are saying: “We don’t know WHAT the heck it is but there should not have been one SPECK of it there!”

    But thank you, will study further.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm

      My suspicion is that they (Jones, Ryan, Harrit et al.) were aware of the ambiguity, but the movement had been so energized by what was taken to be the import of their message that they never explained it to the 9/11 community. What bothers me is not that Steve Jones made a mistake in his research a long time ago but that, when Mark began explaining to them what he had discovered, they–with the exception of Dwain Deets–dismissed him and reaffirmed their original position. When David Ray Griffin wrote back and told him, “We are happy with our formulation, that it can be tailored to work as an incendiary or [as] an explosive. We cannot be responsible for the fact that many people may equate ‘explosive’ with ‘high explosive’”, his answer raised a number of rather disturbing questions about the ethical implications of allowing these enormously misleading impressions to linger. And this was very late in the exchange.

  22. munkle  August 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    I have never heard the hard science group say explosive nano-thermite was the cause of the shock waves which propelled the steel like cannon balls. I have heard them say very carefully only that thermite residue was found present. They are actually rather sticklers about sticking only to what they know, without advancing a demolition scenario, which I sometimes wish they would.

    Like Jim Hoffman’s rather brilliant one, which he very scientifically says is probably wrong in its details. Like Arthur C. Clarke said “the truth is always far stranger.”

    Hoffman Hypothetical Blasting Scenario

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 12:51 pm

      Well, yes, sometimes the message is more qualified and other times not. I thought we covered the bases well in “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” David Ray Griffin is about as careful a scholar as we have in the 9/11 Truth movement, where his work is taken by most as virtually definitive. Look at it from both points of view: it is not only scientifically wrong to claim that nanothermite could have done what its proponents have said it did–and Steven Jones affirmed that it could do those things to me personally in the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel in Los Angeles during the American Scholars Conference, when he was still one co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and I was the other–but Steve discovered that A&E was enforcing the dogma within the organization. So you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Steven and Kevin and others were not promoting the view that Griffin articulates. Mark even wrote to all of them about it before publication, but they were unpersuaded and unwilling to change their tune, where Gage was a bit more receptive and Griffin a bit less, but Kevin Ryan was quite dismissive and continued to promote the myth even on the date of the expiration of “The Nanothermite Challenge”. You should also read, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, which I had thought was going to bring about a change in their presentations. But it did not have that effect at all, alas, apart from Dwain Deets, who accepted the results of Mark’s research and even provided him a diagram that makes the crucial points.

  23. munkle  August 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    I don’t understand the problem. The use of thermitic compounds and conventional explosives is not mutually exclusive, in fact it quite nicely explains the little magician’s touch of causing the perimeter columns to bow before the onset of collapse. This gave the illusion of the structure sagging from the weight of the upper floors. That puzzled me until the presence of the incendiary thermite was presented to me. So the core columns are melting rapidly at the points of impact (maybe throughout the building but more rapidly there), thus transferring all load to the perimeters. Nice touch. These guys are smart.

    Then the conventional sequence kicks in from the top down, exploding cutter and kicker charges which explain why steel is scattered all the way to Bankers Trust.

    Seems to me the debate over describing an incendiary as an explosive is a straw man. Chemists please correct me. Anything refined to the nano level has much more reactive surface, which is the whole point. At some point the thermal reaction will take place so rapidly it will have characteristics of an explosion. The difference is as between a room full of wood chips set on fire and a room full of sawdust. Saw dust go boom, but it’s still just wood.

    What chemical signature does reacted conventional explosive leave? If they didn’t test for it, they should have. But that’s no reason to split up the movement.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      The problem is laid out in “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, which I linked in the first paragraph here. None of us–Steve, Mark, or me–is denying that combinations of explosives/incendiaries may have been used. That’s fine as far as it goes. But the explosive properties of nano-thermite have been exaggerated beyond reason. With a demolition velocity of only 895 m/s, when the destruction of concrete and of steel would have required shockwaves of 3,200 m/s and of 6,100 m/s, respectively, is a fantasy. Contrary to the prevalent belief within the 9/11 Truth movement, nano-thermite cannot have blown the buildings apart, pulverized concrete or shattered steel. That is not possible. We explain all of this in that article, which I co-authored with T. Mark Hightower, who is a chemical engineer. So while you may be right about how it was actually done, the “hard science” group has been promoting a myth about “explosive nano-thermite” that leaves the entire movement vulnerable to public ridicule and defeat in any court of law as long as it is basing its public relations on a false theory. These divisions have existed for some time, but it has only become a matter of public discussion and debate in the relatively recent past.

    • Steve Fahrney  August 23, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      Thanks for clarifying that for me Jim. I theorize that thermite charges were used to weaken the structure between the time the planes hit, to the time the buildings were demolished in order to soften the visual and audio effects of the controlled destruction sequence. At that point, actual explosives, but less of them than usual, were used to finish the job. Perhaps the fires in building 7 were caused by the incendiaries going off while 7 was being weakened. You cant rule out a 3rd mechanism though with those strange cars, which is why we should hear out Dr. Judy Woods to see if she can shed some light on this.

    • T Mark Hightower  August 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm

      I think Steve Fahrney’s theory here of how thermite (possibly even an incendiary form of nanothermite) could have been used is very reasonable. I really appreciate the dialog that Steve Fahrney coming forward has generated with this article and the comments.

    • Matthew Naus  August 24, 2011 at 7:21 am

      Her correct name is Dr. Judy Wood. There is no ‘s’ at the end of Wood.

  24. Albury Smith  August 23, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I’ve urged Dr. Harrit, et al. to demonstrate that painting MICs on steel columns is a way to cut through them, Steve, despite the fact that no suspiciously-severed columns were found in the WTC debris. Simply concluding that sulfur, silicon, rust, aluminum, etc. “remind” someone of something is insufficient, especially when no exemplars are provided for comparison, and their concluding hypothesis is unproven.

    • Albury Smith  August 24, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      You weren’t involved in my discussions with Dr. Harrit, Ben, and obviously have never read the “Active Thermitic Material…” paper if you think my comments regarding it are “pure fiction.” If you have any evidence of suspiciously-severed columns found in the WTC debris, please feel free to post it here. Photos, eyewitness accounts, or even reliable rumors of columns or other structural steel cut with explosives would be considered evidence.

  25. Steve Fahrney  August 23, 2011 at 10:44 am

    @Chris Sarns,

    Chris, you should really read the blog, and listen to the interview before restating things I already addressed. I support AE911Truth’s STRATEGY….let me repeat, STRATEGY of focussing on the strongest evidence they/we have. I do not support their POLICY of excluding the pentagon, which suffered a structural failure, and strict “Off-Topic” policy which is counter productive to the scientific process. Please stop repeating the same straw man argument over and over.

    @ Jan, I agree. Dust samples should be thoroughly tested for everything, not just incindiaries. AE has a Controlled Demolition hypothesis, but refuses to test for explosives? That makes no sense at all.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      You know that Mark made repeated efforts to convince the “hard science” group that they should be concerned about this. And Steve made many efforts to convince A&E that their policies were seriously mistaken. He came to me because I was speaking out and he had matters he wanted to get off his chest. Starting one’s own “independent group” is a bit more daunting a task that you imply. He got his message out!

    • T Mark Hightower  August 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm

      This is worth reposting here as well. Steve Jones was the first to compare nanothermite to RDX.

      In 2006 Professor Steven Jones wrote,

      “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. “Superthermites” are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2)

      (2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006

      Now ask yourself, what is the most reasonable interpretation of “Superthermites are also explosive” in the above context? Would it be that superthermites are explosives in like manner to the high explosives HMX or RDX?

      This seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Jones has defined what he is talking about when he first uses the word explosives by saying, “such as,” and then citing two “high explosives,” HMX and RDX. In the next sentence when he uses the word “explosive”, is it not reasonable to assume he is using it in the same sense that he just used it and defined its use in the previous sentence?

      Jones is definitely differentiating “superthermite” from “thermite,” and putting superthermite in the category of explosive rather than incendiary like thermite, but it also seems clear that he is putting superthermite in the category of high explosive because he defined his use of the term “explosive” as high explosive.

    • Steve Fahrney  August 23, 2011 at 11:58 pm

      Why should I re-invent the wheel Ben? We have a perfectly capable body of willing scientists, architects and engineers in the truth movement already. All I am asking is for AE911Truth stop putting politics before science. Disband the notion of “Off-Topic” no matter how much Gregg Roberts and friends insist it is too controversial. Stop resisting testing, and critique the pentagon report. Why has this not been done yet?

    • Steve Fahrney  August 24, 2011 at 9:23 am

      I should “Simply” start my own organization of experts? I am a college student who volunteers for 3 local organizations. I should not have to organize a new group, only to be smeared like Fetzer, Barry Zwicker, CIT, etc… The responsibility falls on AE911Truth to test for explosives if they are promoting a Controlled Demolition hypothesis. The responsibility falls to AE for analyzing the Pentagon report, and critiquing their AE peers who produced it. Please stop defending bad policies.

  26. Tom Valentine  August 23, 2011 at 10:35 am

    Back to basics! all this wheel spinning takes us nowhere except into confusion mode, which is part and parcel of our enemy’s plan. For what it’s worth, Smitty, I’m with you. Why usher in tangents as Fetzer is prone to do? The film by Ryan Dawson, which I reviewed months ago in here, and the excellent summary by Alan Zabrosky are all sanity needs for a trial. Truthers do not have the burden of proof; the bleeping establishment does; our side’s cross examinations in a real trial will filter the evidence. Of course expert witnesses are subject to cross as well. Think about the trial, and hope/pray one can be forced. Fetzer, you protest too much, and expect new readers to have read your previous stuff. This penchant for scientific integrity you purport to serve, serves only dilution.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm

      Just when I think I’ve seen all the drivel I can expert, more pours in. Really unbelievable! Apparently, anyone who does not understand the science of nano-thermite thinks they are entitled to take a whack. Mark, Steve, and I are trying to sort out what happened on 9/11. As for some of you, I haven’t a clue.

    • Steve Fahrney  August 24, 2011 at 9:08 am

      Tom, would you like to comment on the concerns I introduced, or did you come here only to attack Jim? I am not sticking up for Jim, just trying to get people back on the issues. Do you think it is appropriate for AE to exclude the Pentagon despite suffering a structural failure on 9/11 from their mission statement, then classify it and many other things as “Off-topic?” Do you think it is appropriate to have a Controlled Demolition hypothesis while refusing to test for explosives? These are serious concerns that should be addressed Tom, regardless of your opinion of Fetzer.

    • Chris Sarns  August 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm


      You have a right to your opinion and Richard Gage has a right to his. AE911Truth has been about the destruction of the three towers since its conception and your getting up tight because he won’t change and do it your way is unjustified.


  27. Albury Smith  August 23, 2011 at 4:48 am

    I think it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they’ve already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242′, of the collapse of WTC 7’s facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire 610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
    How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:


    yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:


    How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
    Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s main collapse was over.
    We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”


    • Gordon Duff  August 23, 2011 at 6:36 am

      I hardly know what to say about this. I have heard about people who believe things like this but weren’t sure they existed. We have photos of the cult columns, photos of the molten steel, temperature readings on the ground as late as december…too hot for work boots to walk on. Funny thing, we published all of it and you commented there too.
      You workin’ for someone?

    • Albury Smith  August 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      Mr. Duff-
      Please list all of the explosives and incendiaries that could possibly keep steel molten for 3 or more months, and all of the known controlled demolitions where that has occurred. The temperatures recorded in the WTC debris fires were sufficient to melt lead and possibly aluminum, both of which were in abundance in the WTC buildings, and those fires weren’t completely extinguished until December. Needless to say, they were hot enough to melt work boots.
      If you have photos of molten steel at the WTC site, along with a qualitative analysis of it, please post both here. I’d also like to see the photos you have of WTC columns cut by explosives, since I’ve only seen the ones of columns cut with oxyacetylene torches and dripping gray slag. For obvious reasons, demolition explosives don’t leave loose material like slag around the cuts they make.
      I’d also like to know how Richard Gage and others came up with the time of 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire collapse of WTC 7. I’ve looked at all of the available videos, and found none that show the bottom clearly enough to determine it to the nearest 1/10 second, but it appears to have taken 8-9 seconds.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 8:33 am

      Albury, although most students of 9/11, even those who follow it closely, are unaware of some of the points you are making, the evidence that has been cited about the molten metal and enormous heat is far more equivocal than the “hard science” guys want to admit. Judy Wood has been very good at raising points about this, including that those who were overtaken by the “pyroclastic clouds” were not complaining about the intense heat. She has also remarked, in relation to reports of “flowing molten metal”, where was it “flowing to”? There weren’t a lot of places for any liquid of any kind to “flow”. For this and other reasons, including reliance upon what appear to be faked photos, I have focused attention on these problems in several of my presentations. I would appreciate it if you were to watch, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?”, which I presented in Buenos Aires, archived at http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html, and especially “Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories”, which I presented in Portland, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html I would be interested in having your response to the issues that I am raising there so we can discuss them further. Thanks for posting this.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      “the molten metal and enormous heat is far more equivocal than the “hard science” guys want to admit.”
      How can you say that? Do you think the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum are daft or lying?

      At 7:36 of “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7″ the screen shows the quote from the RJ Lee report.
      “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.”
      Iron melts at 2,800 degrees
      And at 9:54 the screen shows a gun encased in concrete that had been melted.
      Concrete melts at 3,200 and up.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      I gave some links to where I discuss it. Steve Jones and I have had more than one encounter about this. You might also want to review my critique of his paper, “What indeed caused the WTC buildings to collapse?”, http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf , where I was raising questions about nanothermite back on 17 May 2007. One would have thought that enough time had passed since then to get their act together. A second critique of Steve’s work by a physicist, Stephen Phillips, is at http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.html

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm

      I’m not talking about Steven Jones, I’m talking about the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum confirming temperatures in excess of 2,800 degrees. One step at a time.

      Do you think the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum are daft or lying?

      Or do you accept this scientific conformation of temperatures far in excess of what office fires can achieve?

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:09 pm

      We were addressing the explosive properties of nanothermite, of course. But I have found the RJ Lee Group’s “Damage Assessment” at http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf
      Since Mark is the chemical engineer, I will share this with him and we will let you know if this affects any of our conclusions. On its face, that seems rather unlikely, since it can’t turn a 895 m/s detonation velocity into something higher. But their dust study may prove informative. Thanks!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm

      Chris, Is this about WTC-7? I was addressing the use of nanothermite at WTC-1 and WTC-2. Have we had a failure of communication? WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition. If that’s what you are about, we may not be joining issues. Perhaps you can clarify.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm

      I see it’s The Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street in New York City, United States, adjacent to the World Trade Center (WTC), opened in 1974 as Bankers Trust Plaza. OK. Let’s see what we find here.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 3:28 pm


      There was molten steel/iron under all three towers. The hottest spot in the thermal images taken September 16 by NASA was at the east end of WTC 7 where the demolition began. 727 C = 1,340 F This surface temperature indicates far hotter temperatures under the debris pile despite the firefighters pouring water on that area for 5 days.

      The RJ Lee group and the NYPD Museum confirm temperatures that are only attainable by some form of thermite. Floors 5 and 6 of WTC 7 were mechanical floors and the three columns under the east penthouse [79,80&81] could have been rigged with a thermite cutting device with only a few people knowing about it. The Army had such a device in 1996.
      They have an unlimited budget and a lot of weapon technology they keep classified.

      The evidence points to a thermite device being used to take out columns 79, 80 and 81.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      Chris, Thermite (or nanothermite) may have been used in WTC-7. We were not even discussing WTC-7. And if the “hard science” group was basing their theory on “secret technology”, then they should have said so, instead of attacking Judy Wood, among others, for basing HER theory on “secret technology”. If this study is all about WTC-7, then I don’t see why you are recommending it. If you take a look at the links I have given you, moreover, you will find that the evidence for molten metal and high temperatures long after the event is rather equivocal.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      You cannot separate WTC 7 from three trade towers when discussing thermite.
      The evidence of temperatures that only thermite can attain is not equivocal unless you want to call the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum liars.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm

      Chris, Mark is not even home from work yet! Give us time to take a look at this. Is that OK with you? And while we’re looking at what you recommend, try my “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?” or my longer “Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories” video.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 4:09 pm

      Pardon my typo: three trade towers > the trade towers

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 4:42 pm

      No worries. I would like to hear what Mark has to say.
      I’ll get to the videos you asked me to view but right now I’m looking into – Fukushima may have gone China syndrome.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 10:16 pm

      I tried to read your “Was 9/11 an inside job?” but the type is too small for me. Furthermore, that’s kinda like saying “I you want my position on the RJ Lee Report confirming melted iron and the NYPD conformation of melted concrete, go to Hellen Hunt fot it.” ;-)

      This is not rocket surgery. The RJ Lee Group was crystal clear:
      “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” (2,800 F)
      The NYPD was crystal clear:
      “The temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around everything in its path.” (3,270 – 4,500 F)

      Do you accept this scientific forensic evidence as fact?

    • T Mark Hightower  August 23, 2011 at 9:22 pm

      My conclusion from the technical literature about iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite not having a very high detonation velocity does not depend on disputing the high temperatures. Further down in the comments, Steve Fahrney theorizes that thermite could have been used to weaken columns, or take out some columns, prior to conventional explosives finishing the job. I think there is a lot of merit to this theory of his, so the high temperatures could have been due to thermite reactions. However, I want to add that I do not necessarily think it is correct to say that thermite is the only possible explanation for the high temperatures, even though it seems a likely explanation. About 1 year ago I read The Anonymous Physicist’s books on his nuke theory, and he felt that nukes were a better explanation for the molten metal and high temperatures than thermite.

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm

      It is my understanding that the smallest nuclear device possible would have vaporized the entire WTC complex. Is there any scientific evidence that a nuclear device or devices could have been used in the destruction of the trade towers and building 7 or is that just speculative theorizing?

    • Chris Sarns  August 24, 2011 at 12:09 am

      It would take a very large number of devices planted throughout the buildings to achieve the destruction observed. Even if there could be mini-nukes, any nuclear device would leave behind enough radiation to cause burns and radiation sickness. Quite frankly, the mini-nuke theory is simply not viable.

      Some form of thermite is the only known explanation for the molten iron and concrete.

    • T Mark Hightower  August 24, 2011 at 10:30 pm


      Calculations can help define the magnitude of various theories. I am referencing a calculation that Niels Harrit emailed to me and various others on 7/26/2011. He calculated the amount of thermitic material that would have been necessary to account for the quantity of iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust, assuming of course that the iron reaction product of the thermite reaction was the source of the spheres. The range of thermitic material that he calculated was from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons per Twin Tower, depending on the iron oxide concentration assumed for the thermitic material. These numbers are unrealistically high in terms of the quantity of thermitic material that could have or would have been loaded into a Twin Tower by the perpetrators before its destruction, in my view, but that’s not what I want to get into right here. I want to use this huge quantity of iron-rich spheres to illustrate an alternate explanation for their presence.

      An intermediate value from Harrit’s calculation referenced above was that conservatively 11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower.  If we assume that the iron-rich spheres were mostly iron, with the iron source possibly being the structural steel rather than thermitic material, the energy required to convert this much iron to the molten state can be calculated.  (It is assumed that the iron-rich spheres required a prior molten state for their formation.) Furthermore, if we express the energy in terms of the quantity of TNT equivalent based on its heat of explosion, these units can give us something to relate to in terms commonly associated with specifying the magnitude of nuclear explosions, kilotons.  So if the calculation is done for just the energy necessary to melt the iron, on the order of 1 kiloton of TNT is the energy equivalent required.  If we also include the energy necessary to heat the iron from room temperature to its melting point, then on the order of 4 kilotons TNT equivalent would be required.  Of course there would be more kilotons than this to account for all of the other destruction in addition to just producing the iron-rich spheres, so we are definitely talking about something in the multiple kiloton range. This helps to illustrate the magnitude of what we may be dealing with in the destruction of the Twin Towers and points towards the possibility of nuclear devices or even possibly some more esoteric directed free energy technology such as what Dr. Judy Wood hypothesizes, in her book, “Where Did the Towers Go?”  All WTC destruction hypotheses are speculative, and these are no exception, but these do seem to fit the magnitude of the iron-rich sphere data better than the nanothermite hypothesis. Dr. Judy Wood’s hypothesis is also a nuclear hypothesis of sorts, in that she refers to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions as a possible part of the esoteric technology used.

    • Prien  August 26, 2011 at 11:29 am

      Well, whether it was 100,000 or 400,000 cubic yards, the plain fact is that almost all of it was turned into fine dust that covered NEW CITY, especially the area around the WTC where it was very thick on all level surfaces.

      As I have also mentioned before, an official from the Mayor’s office confirmed to me that VERY FEW concrete pieces were found in the rubble, which had them puzzled. Where did it go?, they were asking.

      Turned into dust that rained down on the city is the answer.

      And that wasn’t done by any kind of conventional explosive, and least of all by fires.


  28. Steve Fahrney  August 22, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Listen everyone, I did not mean for this to be an attack on AE. In fact, I stated several times that I STILL SUPPORT Richard and his team. The purpose was to expose the fact that we, as a movement have not tested for explosives, and that there is an unacceptable policy at AE that discourages new discoveries, or analyzing alternate theories. I was hoping that everyone would continue to support AE, but insist that these problems be rectified immediately. I dont want the evidence to degrade another year without testing, and I would like to see A/E’s critique the pentagon paper, as well as make new discoveries since they are the most qualified to do so in the Truth movement.

    Please accept my sincere apology if you feel this is an attack,
    Steve Fahrney

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 11:41 pm

      Steve, there is no need for you to apologize. You simply reported your experiences as a volunteer for A&E. I think you did the right thing–and that those who are critical are less critical of you than they are taking this opportunity to attack me, because I am willing to address the complex and controversial aspects of the political events that matter to our nation’s history–whether that is the assassination of JFK or the atrocities of 9/11. As the saying has it, “You did good!”

    • Jan  August 23, 2011 at 4:37 am

      Hello Steve,

      The WTC I and II towers were pulverized into dust. I would recommend to test the dust for all kinds of radiation as well. Mr Khalezov said in an intererview I saw that it was in the US press that the buildings were prepaired for demolition via nuclear devices. Therefore I would like to make a request to all the US readers of VT to investigate the archives of the newspapers for this info. Someone else already asked for this on the forum I hope this information can be retrieved.

    • Matthew Naus  August 24, 2011 at 6:39 am

      Steve Fahrney,
      I felt the same way about your comment “that there is an unacceptable policy at AE that discourages new discoveries, or analyzing alternate theories. I also want to thank you for the article you wrote. I have studied Judy Wood’s research for some years and read her new book. I was a volunteer for ae911truth and organized their recent 10 city midwest tour. Just yesterday, I had my name taken off as a petition signer and my website will no longer be one of their action groups due to the unacceptable policy you mention at AE.

    • Steve Fahrney  August 24, 2011 at 8:59 am

      Thank you for the support Matthew,

      It’s unfortunate that so many people see this as a smear, despite my unwavering support for AE, while others on this thread keep distracting from the issues I have presented with their own personal rhetoric, and attacks against Jim. It would be nice to see more comments supporting transparency, and addressing the glaring problems I brought forward.

  29. Chris Sarns  August 22, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    Steve Fahrney is interested in the Pentagon and Directed energy Weapons. I wish him all the best but I don’t think that is the best way to get a new, truly independent investigation of 9/11.

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth focus on the controlled demolition of the three towers because there is sufficient scientific forensic evidence to make the case. They have just released a video about World Trade Center building 7 that lays out the case. Please watch and decide for yourself.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 11:44 pm

      Well, that’s the official explanation. My opinion is that the attack on the Pentagon–which I have addressed in “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and here in “Seven Questions about 9/11″–is far easier for the public to understand than esoteric explanations about how an incendiary is supposed to have been converted into an explosive using nano-technology! If anyone has any doubts, just try explaining it to someone who doesn’t know.

      Look at the evidence I present in those studies and tell me how anyone could fail to appreciate that (1) no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and (2) our government has lied to us about 9/11. Those who are steering discussion away from the Pentagon are not doing the 9/11 Truth movement any favors. The situation is quite the opposite. We need to keep it simple. The proof no plane hit the Pentagon is vastly simpler–and has the advantage of being true!

    • Chris Sarns  August 23, 2011 at 12:58 am

      Nano-thermite is not the mainstay of the controlled demolition evidence. The free fall acceleration of WTC 7 for about 100 feet, established by David Chandler and confirmed by NIST, can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed synchronistically on 7 floors by some form of incendiary or explosive. Temperatures in excess of 3,000 degrees, that can only be explained by the use some form of thermite, have been confirmed by the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum.

      My own research has been focused on finding a number of blatant frauds in the NIST reports on WTC 7. These include:
      1) The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse and therefore it could not have started the collapse as NIST posits.
      2) NIST lied about there being shear studs on the floor girders.
      3) To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST heated the beams but not the slab giving an unrealistic result.
      A complete analysis of these and other NIST frauds can be found at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

    • Albury Smith  August 24, 2011 at 4:21 am

      1) These numerous live eyewitness accounts contradict your claim that “The fire that supposedly started the [WTC 7] collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse and therefore it could not have started the collapse as NIST posits”:




      I’m unaware of any office fire that’s ever self-extinguished in that time period with no working sprinklers or firefighting efforts.

      2) The final Cantor structurals and approved Frankel submittals show that the beams east of column 79 were composite, but not the 44/79 girder.

      3) It is unrealistic to assume uniform heating and resultant expansion of W24 X 55 beams and the thick concrete slabs supported by them from room temperature to ~600 C. The shear stud failure began at ~103 C, and 25 of the 28 shear studs on each ~53′ beam had failed at ~300 C, indicating that 3/4″ X 5″ bolts welded to top flanges cannot withstand any significant differential expansion of these elements. Coupled with the obvious asymmetrical loading of the 5 beams east of the 44/79 girder, and the in-plane stiffness of the concrete floor slab, it’s not at all realistic to claim that the studs would not have failed. Given that only four 7/8″ ASTM 325 bolts secured the non-moment connected girder to column 79, it’s quite realistic to posit that they sheared in an office fire scenario without sprinklers.

      4) Even if you had a critique of the NIST findings that was legitimate, you’ve still provided no evidence for any controlled demolition hypothesis.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 5:26 am

      Albury, Let me get this straight. You are DEFENDING the official account of WTC-7, which was not hit by any aircraft and had no jet fuel based fired? which was among the most robust buildings ever constructed by the hand of man, having been constructed over two massive electrical generators that provided electricity for lower Manhattan? that the fires in the building were very modest: that its collapse–and this WAS a “collapse”–cannot have been brought about by the explosion of diesel fuel tanks, because (1) diesel is non-explosive and (2) burns at a relatively low temperature? where we have the reports of Barry Jennings, who was INSIDE THE BUILDING that morning and reported explosions taking place and feeling himself stepping over bodies in the dark? where the BBC reported the building had collapsed at least 23 minutes BEFORE it would happen? where the collapse has all of the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions? Haven’t you ever watched “This is an orange?” by Anthony Lawon on YouTube? And YOU are asking for a critique of the NIST “FINDINGS” that is “legitimate”? Surely you can’t be serious, Aubury? Say it ain’t so!

    • Albury Smith  August 24, 2011 at 6:34 am

      Column 79 was a W14 X 730, i.e. 730 POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT, as were other interior columns in WTC 7. The flanges were 4.9 INCHES THICK.
      1) What “classic controlled demolition” of that column would only have been heard by one guy inside the building? (There were 12 transformers just on the 5th floor alone, plus a ConEd substation below them. Transformers explode very loudly when their secondaries are shorted by things like plane crashes across the street.)
      2) How would it have been severed without leaving evidence of explosive cutting on its ends?

      I’m not sure why you think a report that was misread by a BBC news team on a hectic news day is significant, but the collapse of WTC 7 was deemed likely by the FDNY and other observers as early as mid-afternoon.
      note: If Jennings heard explosives at ~10 AM, no one was discussing at ~2:30 PM WHETHER to blow up WTC 7, so the “pull it” story’s suspect, to say the least.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 6:43 am

      Albury, so you REALLY ARE standing up for NIST’s account of WTC-7? I am astounded. And that you think Jane Stanley’s announcement that the “Solomon Brothers’ Building” (which was another name for WTC-7) had collapsed 23 minutes early was a “misreading”? This is one of those classic cases in which the BBC got a head of the script, which reveals in a striking fashion complicity between the government, the intelligence agencies, and the mass media. I am stunned. But, then again, after appreciating who you are from what you have been posting, I suppose I should not be surprised.

    • Chris Sarns  August 24, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Some of the firefighters overstated the fires. The photographic record clearly shows when and where the fires actually were. See pages 200 – 242 for photographs and 242 – 246 of the final report on WTC 7 for detials.

      In the NIST appendix L report (2004) NIST states on pg 26 that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

      The photographs in the final report clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the north east corner where the “collapse” supposedly began by about 3:45 p.m. Please read my complete analysis at: http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

  30. Kolnidre  August 22, 2011 at 10:38 pm


    Assuming my vote counts it goes to Smitty as the genuine one. You poisoned the well of Scholars, push science no one is prepared to believe or accept (and thus is irrelevant), and merely give lip service to supporting those offering mounds of evidence of involvement by Israeli and Jewish Crime Syndicate assets and operatives. You associate yourself just enough with this information via your tepid endorsement to enable those with ulterior motives to smear the research through association with you.

    And your appeal to authority regarding publishing and speechifying is impotent. These days one publishes either autonomously on the Internet or through controlled media, so in the first case being published on Web sites is no big deal and in the second it is grounds for suspicion that you are being used to associate those doing serious research on 9/11 with the lunatic fringe. I’m not saying alternate theories are invalid, even, just that the forensics should take a back seat to fingering the perps. Constant emphasis on alternate theories regarding what happened distracts from that vital work of smoking out who planned and did it, and closes off larger media to such information – except where they use it to paint everyone questioning the official conspiracy theory with a broad kook-coloured brush.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 10:46 pm

      For stupid posts that fail to consider the importance of the difference between the true and the false, this one takes the cake! Do you really believe that the 9/11 Truth movement BENEFITS from supporting a false theory? Has it ever crossed your mind that those who have brought us to this predicament may have wanted to lead us into an impass? Do you really think that those who are advocating positions that are PROVABLY FALSE are doing the community a favor by continuing to promote them? My background is in scientific reasoning, where I am doing what I can to make sure that the science supporting the movement is sound.

      But I am not neglecting the politics of 9/11. Have you even bothered to read, “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”? The evidence, even here on VT, I am afraid, is against you. Those who “poisoned” Scholars are the same ones who brought us “explosive nanothermite”. Try “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”, if you want to understand just a bit better what happened there. Or “The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan”. And I am not “pushing” any theory, since we don’t know how it was done, which you would know if you actually read my articles. But you have found a “soul mate”: Smitty and you are two peas in a pod.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 8:20 am

      Well, Ben, not all of your posts are wroth reading, frankly. So sometimes we delete them instead of wasting everyone’s time. Neither Gordon nor I, to the best of my knowledge, has any problem with the use of themite/thermate/nanothermite at the Twin Towers as an incendiary that can be used to cut steel. That, I think, is not seriously in doubt, which means that, if there is evidence of its use in the dust, then that is proof that something was not as we have been told. It is the OVERSELLING OF EXAGGERATED CLAIMS about “explosive nanothermite” that’s the problem, because, as we have explained very carefully in “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, nanothemite is not a high explosive and, in fact, the claim that it is properly qualified as an explosive is open to doubt. That’s the problem. No post of your was no published on the ground that you were talking about thermite, but you have submitted several that were not worth posting.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 9:52 am

      This is another in an endless string of drivel posts. There are several studies here about JFK and RFK as well as 9/11. To the best of my knowledge, you have not shown that anything I or my collaborators have established in any of our research is wrong. Our discoveries about JFK–including the alteration of the X-rays, the substitution of another brain, and the revision of the home movies of the assassination–are in three books and dozens and dozens of articles. You might actually take a look at some of them, which include the identification of those who were behind the assassination and even those who appear to have fired the shots. See, for example, my presentation, “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html You really are displaying your ignorance.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 8:24 am

      You seem infatuated with your own posts, which is interesting. Since the title of this new A&E documentary is “Explosive Evidence”, what do you suppose its theme will be? Anyone want to take a wild stab and suggest “explosive nanothermite”? Which means we have a problem whose solution is going to challenge us. Perhaps the solution is to acknowledge that nanothermite is not “explosive” but that it should not have been there anyway, assuming we can show that its presence was from the destruction of the Twin Towers and not from the clean-up. Our objections have been to the exaggerated claims that have been made on behalf of nanothermite, which, by the way, Mark explained to the leaders of the 9/11 movement, including Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, before we published “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” But the response we received was not encouraging, so we published our study.

  31. John Friend  August 22, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    Great article Steve! Discussing alternative theories about 9/11 is very important if we are going to find out exactly what happened. What’s funny is that the one group with the expertise to test for explosives and review the Pentagon report mentioned by Steve has completely failed to do so. This is simply inexcusable.

    Jim, keep up the great work! You are, hands down, doing the best work relating to 9/11. And you are not afraid to delve into controversial issues and theories about 9/11. I and many others out here really appreciate your work.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 10:36 pm

      You have no idea how much I appreciate a few words of sanity in the midst of an ocean of irrationality. It is as though my critics think its better to have a false theory that sounds nice than to admit that the “hard science” crowd has made a mistake! As Mark Hightower has put it, Steven Jones made a blunder early in his research, from which the 9/11 Truth movement has yet to recover. I would like to believe that there are others, like yourself, John, who appreciate that Steve and I are on the side of 9/11 Truth and cannot remain silent when the presumptive scientific leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement are not using science to discover truths about 9/11! Surely we can do a lot better than that!

  32. Smitty  August 22, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Exactly. This is yet another straw to deflect from what’s important considering how close to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 we are getting. Make everybody look like a kook, flame them, calling regular Joes who comment here ‘cointelpro’

    We don’t need theories, we need a new investigation that isn’t dominated by Zionists or Jews or Israelis or Neocons. Or rapturious fundies either. Or anybody who is a racist anti-Islam “Sharia Law” kook. Give them access to some of that classified evidence. Why is it classified? Oh because Michael Chertoff classified it. Or somebody else like Israeli US citizen of the devil Richard Perle. Could he even do that? His initials are on this thing where it says it is classified:


    Could be a coincidence though. The truth is hiding in plain sight and if you choose to see it you find it everywhere and it doesn’t pain a pretty picture.

    Be wary of the psychopaths. Psychopaths dominate the government and Hollywood and Wall Street. Oh and Israel too. Patsies like Breivik are psychopaths as are these disinfo trolls like Fetzer. Think of them as biological robots. There is no conscious entity upstairs and they all operate the same way. They don’t know how to operate when you call them out and derail their argument. It isn’t in their programming. Just don’t use their tricks against them. Psychopaths are interspecies predators and IMHO they are not even human. You can’t be a human if you lack the empathy/moral/conscious/emotional area of your brain. These psychopaths staged 9/11 and don’t like to revise history (especially if they get caught). They basically put on an elaborate show that cost 3,000+ human lives and are not supposed to get caught which is why we’ll have to work harder and spread the word so we can take back our country before we get an investigation but it doesn’t hurt to try.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 9:44 pm

      I am supposed to be a “disinfo troll” because I have done more serious research on nanothermite and am more open-minded about alternative explanations of how the Twin Towers were destroyed than the “hard science” group that has led us to this impass? I think you need to give this more thought, Smitty. If we can’t figure out how it was done, how can we possibly expect to bring the perps to justice? And if we embrace false theories about nanothermite and do not test alternative hypotheses, we are going to fail. You should be able to understand this.

    • Debbie Menon  August 22, 2011 at 9:59 pm



    • Phil Dennany  August 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Thanks Smitty. Fetzer’s ego agenda is more important than finally getting truth and justice.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      This is silly beyond words. What I am (or Steve or Mark and I) supposed to have wrong? These piddling ad hominems are pathetic. If that is the best you can do, you really should find more productive ways to spend your time. VT demands just the least bit more! Are the mediocrities holding a convention at Veterans Today?

  33. Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Unless you condone irresponsible stances about 9/11 research, your position makes no sense. Steve and I are both dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There were early signs that something was wrong with the nanothermite theory, which I doubted as long ago as 2006. But they bulldozed their way ahead: Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who would later be joined by Niels Harrit. Even an article in The Rock Creek Free Press (2009) did not dissuade them from going full bore with a false theory, namely: that nanothermite was the principal agent in blowing apart the Twin Towers because it was a high-explosive comparable to RDX and others. Mark Hightower, who is a chemical engineer, discovered that nanothrmite is less than 13% as powerful as TNT and that it cannot pulverize concrete, much less shatter steel.

    Now it turns out that what we have supposed was the leading scientific society, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has never even tested for the presence of conventional explosives! I find that rather shocking. If you are dismayed, it should not be with Mark or Steve or me but with those who led the 9/11 Truth movement down a primrose path, where any legal proceeding based upon explosive nanothermite would be effortlessly refuted. I think you are suffering from a conceptual confusion: the problem lies with those who did not do their homework on nanothermite, not with those of us who did. Just as it should not be necessary to frame a guilty man, it should not require shoddy science to demonstrate government–and Mossad–complicity on 9/11. Our enemies know when we blunder and we run grave risks if we do not critique ourselves.

    • hersch  August 23, 2011 at 8:18 am

      Truth, in this case as a social ‘fact’, can only come via a legal finding. Without a proper criminal investigation one truth can be made to seem as good as another. For instance “they hate our freedoms” and “We fight them there so we do not have to fight them here” are two mind numbing “truths”. Anyone who believes these, like a US president lets say, is not going to take even the most demonstrable finding of the most pristine research as ‘fact’ if they are told by their handlers of TV friends not to or if it is ignored altogether by them.

      THE provable FACT about 9/11 is that 9/11 happened. Two cities, the nation’s capital and it’s largest city, were not defended. There is no other relevant legal fact here, yet. This pivots 9/11 and is impervious to misinformation and spin. Who ‘really’ did this is still secondary. It is nearly self-evident that the federal government was and is still guilty of either criminal neglect or incompetence if not, given these two, complicity. Having a hearing which begins with “we are not here to point fingers” is not a criminal investigation, more like some grade school playground.

      Sadly it is also a fact, or seems to be, that because this criminal process was not actualized the truth movement is left to stew in theory without the benefits and riggers of legal examination of evidence. Material facts or truth is left without due process. So naturally, as per every human being human, splits begin to happen. Nothing new here.

      This fight over the type of explosives is profoundly trivial and destructive. However, the FACT that explosives, whatever type, can better reasonably account for how those building fell the way they did is not trivial. Making an issue over what specific type is just diversionary geek speak to most people, myself included, until it is brought into a trial.

      Anyway, thank you Jim Fetzer and all your colleagues, those agreeable to you and those not so much, for you courage and tenacity in facing this issue with disciplined thought rather than media made emotion and political conditioning.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 8:49 am

      Thanks for an unusually thoughtful commentary. Of course, legal decisions are not infallible and innocent men have been found guilty. The judicial process in this case appears to be extremely biased against those who would challenge the government’s “official” account. So the findings of a court would not settle the matter, especially when the indefensibility of what we have been told about New York, the Pentagon, and even Shanksville has been well-established. Your major point about the nation’s Capitol and its largest city being left undefended, by the way, is impeccable. And the attack on the Pentagon could not have taken place without the complicity of the Department of Defense.

    • Matthew Naus  August 26, 2011 at 6:49 am

      I agree with your blog when you discuss the need for a criminal investigation. The only word I would change in what you wrote is the word ‘explosives’ in this sentence.

      However, the FACT that explosives, whatever type, can better reasonably account for how those building fell the way they did is not trivial.

      I would change this sentence and say it this way:

      However, the FACT that destructive energy forces, whatever type, can better reasonably account for how those building fell the way they did is not trivial.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 26, 2011 at 11:39 am

      Nice point, Matt. The use of the term “explosives” could be interpreted as excluding directed energy weaponry, for example.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm

      We quote Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin in the first parts of our paper, “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” I would have thought that you had read it carefully by now. Why am I not surprised? This is virtually a dogma within the 9/11 community.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 1:11 pm

      Well, he told me that personally in Los Angeles, as I have already explained, and, while his written work was usually more cautious, he has allowed the belief that it was done using nanothermite to become a dogma of the 9/11 movement, where even Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin have endorsed the “explosive nanothermite” myth. Why don’t you reread our article and tell me which sentences we have that you regard as false and why. Thanks!

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      I have responded to this by inviting you to demonstrate what we have wrong in our study by citing the sentences that you regard as false and explaining why. You have no done that. To allege I have made a “FALSE claim” when you have not shown it is called begging the question.

    • OS  August 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm


      You are getting close, ask yourself a simple question. The story was terrorist hijacked these planes and flew them into these buildings. My specialty in the military was counter-terrorism, “specifically hijacked aircraft”, so when was investigating for explosive residue suddenly “stopped”? This would be the normal operating procedure, because you don’t know if the so-called terrorist planted explosives on the aircrafts. And many can be analyzed and traced to the source, this is critical evidence.

      Sounds like normal operating procedures weren’t followed. Don’t you think a counter-terrorist investigation team would test for explosive residue, “of course they would”. Unless they were told to stop the investigation, otherwise it’s a must. For two reasons, attempt to trace the source, and to chemically understand the substance as to monitor or detect the movement of these types of materials, i.e. airport scanning.

      And that’s also where you will be stopped…..so start, stop, and dig.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm

      Very interesting, OS. And of course you are right. Another symptom that we are dealing with a carefully controlled “inside job”!

    • OS  August 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

      Also include Senior Mechanical Engineer who has experience with compression, to work with your Chemical Engineer. You may wish to perform some basic tests for the affects of materials under compression. When using explosives, there is difference between cutting charges and compression.

    • OS  August 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm

      If the aircraft debris tested positive for explosive substances, then aircraft and airports would be monitored and specific alerts made. This among others is standard procedures for preventing future incidents…


      If building debris tested positive for explosive substances, there would also be alerts made and security procedures established to ensure this incident was not repeated. Building inspections would be made to prevent this from occurring in the future, as stated above.

      Otherwise, how would you know there’s no other buildings in the US presently rigged as well?

    • T Mark Hightower  August 23, 2011 at 8:42 pm

      Below is from a post I had made of July 22 at the July 17 article that should at least address the issue of Jones claiming that nanothermite is a high explosive like RDX.

      In 2006 Professor Steven Jones wrote,

      “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. “Superthermites” are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2)

      (2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006

      Now ask yourself, what is the most reasonable interpretation of “Superthermites are also explosive” in the above context? Would it be that superthermites are explosives in like manner to the high explosives HMX or RDX?

      This seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Jones has defined what he is talking about when he first uses the word explosives by saying, “such as,” and then citing two “high explosives,” HMX and RDX. In the next sentence when he uses the word “explosive”, is it not reasonable to assume he is using it in the same sense that he just used it and defined its use in the previous sentence?

      Jones is definitely differentiating “superthermite” from “thermite,” and putting superthermite in the category of explosive rather than incendiary like thermite, but it also seems clear that he is putting superthermite in the category of high explosive because he defined his use of the term “explosive” as high explosive.

    • Prien  August 24, 2011 at 3:06 pm

      Well, you just plain wrong it shouldn’t be necessary to frame a guilty man. If the reral evidence isn’t good ebnough to get the one the police thibk did it, they will darn right find it most necessary to make uop enough to be sure to get him. It’s the rationale behind the evidence framing the police did against Simpson. The rub, of course, is, that when you make stuff up, who canb really tell if the accused was actually guilty, in which case the made up evidence frame an innocent man, a la Simpson.

      As I said before, this issue about nanothermite and other explosives is a road to nowhere. The plain fact is that neither RDX or other explosive would be no more able to pulverize concrete and shatter steel any more than nanothermite could. So we would indeed be talking about en entirely different form of explosuives that could accomplish this, and testing for RDX or other know explosives will get you no nearer the trtuh than testing for nano thermite.

      I don’t think there is any real doubt that nanothermite cannot explain the pulverizatiion of the towers. But there is clear evidenceof its use in the columns cut at an angle and molten steel flowing down from the cuts. Nor does the fact that it cannot explain the pulverization of the towers prove it played no role in the destruction of the towers. The either or context in which this argument is phrased is a typical example of linear, idealist science that is grounded in Aristotelian logic that brooks no contradictions or dialectics.


    • Jim Fetzer  August 24, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      Well, I infer you do not understand imperatives. It SHOULD NOT be necessary to frame a guilty man means IT IS MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. You respond by saying that police often do that anyway, which is not a denial of the point I was making, which concerns ETHICS and not occasional PRACTICE.

      Your remarks about nanothermite and other explosives are similarly beside the point. The myth of “explosive nanothermite” has constipated the 9/11 Truth movement for five years now. Some believe it’s simply because Steve Jones made a blunder in his research, but others are not so sure. If so, it has been a costly blunder.

      TNT, which has a detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s, has the ability to pulverize concrete and shatter steel, so you are wrong on the facts. And, as Mark, Steve, and I have all explained in earlier posts, it is entirely possible that mixed methods were used. The challenge is to sort out how precisely it was done, why and by whom.

    • Prien  August 26, 2011 at 11:48 am

      Great about the detonation velocity. And how fast does it degrade, and how much of such detonation velocity is transmitted to, say a concrete slab floor as opposed to the air above it? And when that occurs, how much TNT would be required to pulverize 100,000 or 400,000 cubic yards of concrete?

      Your statistics on the detonation velocity proves nothing about the ability of explossive to pulverize concrete. The simplest evidence of that anyone can see with their naked eye is that most of the concrete structure of the building that was exactly at ground zero in Hiroshima is still standing. So you have demonstrated nothing with your statistic about the pulverization of the concrete in the WTC towers by conventional explosive.

      I guess it is you who doesn’t really graps imperatives. Should is not an imperative because it merely point to a something preferred. To be an imperative, it must command a particular action. SHALL is an imperative that directs that something be or not be done. You did not say one SHALL NOT frame a guilty or innocent man – that’s an imperative. You instead said you SHOULD not.



    • Jim Fetzer  August 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm

      Prien, I think that you may have missed the crucial causal connection between detonation velocity and destructive effects: a shock wave must travel at least as fast as the speed of sound in a material to be able to destroy it. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, but the speed of nanothermite is only 895 m/s, which means it could not possibly have pulverized the concrete or shattered the steel.

      So I think you should (as I use the term in this context, ought to) take that crucial consideration into account. I appreciate that you are versed in the distinction, but there may be a few subtleties between us. Here are some additional common definitions of “should”, which is not usually defined as synonymous with “shall”, but where I would agree that the use of “shall” can express imperatives, as in “Thou shall not kill”:

      should   [shood] Show IPA
      auxiliary verb
      1. simple past tense of shall.
      2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
      3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
      4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

      “Should” is most commonly used to make recommendations or give advice. It can also be used to express obligation as well as expectation.
      When you go to Berlin, you should visit the palaces in Potsdam. recommendation
      You should focus more on your family and less on work. advice
      I really should be in the office by 7:00 AM. obligation
      By now, they should already be in Dubai. expectation

    • Prien  August 27, 2011 at 1:43 pm

      I indeed did take into account your commets about detonation velocity. And I need to point out that your mere statement about detonation velicity made no claim at all about its destructive effect when that velocity is transmitted thorugh concrete, which is the point i made when I asked how fast it degraded, and how it would likely go mostly in the air when detonated over concrete. the fact is that detonation velocity would matter only if it was entirely transmitted solely at the point of impact on the concrete. The puny effect that detonation velocity has on concrete is demonstrated by the many chunks of concrete scattered about at Point du Huc from the 14 inch shells that impacted on German pullboxes, or the photos of the concrete slabs in a parking garage after a car bomb blew up over it. The fact is the car bomb barely scratched the surface of the concrete because most of the detonation velocity flew off into the surrounding air. that was my point that you obviously missed. Therefore, the detonation velocity you speak of has no import for whether such explosive could pulverize concrete as it happened at the WTC unless you have some evidence it was well muffled by surrounding material that none escaped into the air.

      As for your comments on should or shall, the issue you raised was about should being an imperative. An imperative, per my dictionary, having the nature of or indicating power or authority, commansding, absolutely necessary, urgent. Should, on the other hand, expresses preferences or expectations. To explain the difference, I would laugh if you ever tried to convict someone of violating a law in which you commanded no one should drive faster then 55 miles per hour. There is not a law I have seen that is written hat way for the obvious reason it would command nothing to anybody.


    • OS  August 29, 2011 at 10:24 pm


      Get security clearance then request information for Composition (4) and ribbon charges, there’s specific formulas for configuration and used to calculate the amount of material needed for cutting I-beams (small amount). As stated before composition (B) or D-cord is also used with C-4 and can be configured to eliminate blasting caps. You can also validate this information with the clearance as well. You may discover it doesn’t require as much material. That’s all, can say anymore…..good luck.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 23, 2011 at 2:28 pm

      Here is another study of Flight 175 allegedly hitting the South Tower, which Joe sent me today: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_michael_hezarkhani/ Those who have yet to take a good look at this issue might do well to start here.

  34. Smitty  August 22, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Retrieved via FOIA, the FBI file on the Israelis arrested on and around 9/11. Juicy bits are redacted, still some good stuff. Mainly more vans than we were aware of. With explosives.


    Interestingly includes a focus on antiwar.com, uses laughable evidence to consider them terrorists (because they say so, that’s why!) kind of like the laughable intelligence that was used to push for war in Iraq. Antiwar is quite shocked:


    As all Americans should be. It should be noted that the verbiage used in that particular section is very ‘Kosher’ and even uses the acknowledged terrorist organization JDL as a source to label criticism on antiwar. It also tries to smear it with a neo-Nazi remark. Why not include JDL? JDL is the same as ADL which is the same as AIPAC who controls our media and lawmakers and answers to Israel. They also did 9/11 so of course anything against the OS is terrorism.

    How is this relevant? Because there are photos of trucks and vans on fire on 9/11 and a bunch of Israeli vans in the vicinity with traces of explosives. The same explosives used to take down the WTC. Nano thermite is a straw an unimportant.

    When you spend all your time analyzing the ‘science’ behind a theory you’re not only wasting time, but you set yourself up for failure when evidence comes out to prove it wrong. That appears to be what the author is doing. He’s made a career off it. Similar smear tactics to what the FBI uses in the above doc. What took down the buildings? Explosives? What kind of explosives? Who cares? It obviously wasn’t jet fuel. Expose the lie and spread the good word, don’t fixate on a strong. You’re not helping.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 9:38 pm

      Smitty, I think I agree with you. Certainly, the CIA/DoD/Mossad appear to have been responsible. I have discussed the role of the DoD’s neo-cons and the complicity of the Mossad in my articles, “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, and my London presentation, “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/. If you watch it, you might find that we are not that far apart. But a “truth movement” must be based upon serious science and not upon false theories or wishful thinking.

    • Smitty  August 22, 2011 at 9:55 pm


      A “truth movement” needs to be based on getting to the bottom of the truth. You’ve said the same thing multiple times like a robot. When somebody mentions the Zionist involvement you say you agree, post a link, and dismiss it.

      I see you insult people and use rhetorical tricks and most of your stuff is accompanied by an army of sock puppet cheerleaders. Your standing within the ‘true movement’ is outside it. You’ve been banned for ages, same with JFK. I used to work with a psychopath and you remind me exactly like him. There is no sense in arguing with you because it’s a waste of time. You won’t learn anything, there is no light on upstairs. You’re a biological robot. Just like the real terrorists in control of our lives.

      Forget science. The evidence was all destroyed, it’s a waste of time to argue over such things. The demolition method is irrelevant. Based on the evidence of secondary explosions and also building 7 which was not hit by an aircraft, it was a controlled demolition. Go ahead and waste your time with ‘science’. You try to sell media fakery and insult everybody you work with. It’s a joke. I guess the CGI guys forgot to draw a plane to hit building 7, eh?

      Again, I repeat, a ‘truth movement’ needs to be based on getting to the bottom of the truth. The overwhelming evidence that shatters the OS and points to the Israel involvement with Zionist/Neocon is not a theory because the evidence is circumstantial. When you put it all together it says enough. Investigate 9/11 again, don’t waste time on ‘serious science’ that isn’t relative to truth seeking because Jim ‘mind control’ Fetzer shunned by the JFK/9-11 community says so

    • Jim Fetzer  August 22, 2011 at 10:01 pm

      Smitty, You seem to be obsessed with smears, when you apparently do not realize how dumb they are coming across. Don’t you realize that I have published a series of articles here about both 9/11 and JFK that belie your false allegations? I have probably made more public lectures and given more interviews about both of those subjects than anyone else in the history of Veterans Today. So let’s let everyone else read my studies, which are easily accessible here, and let them decide if the phony posting here is you or is me. It’s not a close call.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login