LISTEN VT RADIO | JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings

The focus of the hearings

by Jim Fetzer

 

In “The Pros and Cons of The Toronto Hearings”, Joshua Blakeney observes that, in spite of its admirable format and procedures, where many of its presentations contributed toward its ostensible goal of promoting the cause of 9/11 Truth, there were at least four areas in which it was at best only a qualified success or even an abject failure, where, by restricting the focus to those areas regarded as least controversial, it did not come to grips with the who and the why of 9/11; what did or did not happen at the Pentagon; and different theories of how the Twin Towers were destroyed. In what appears to have been a lapse by one of the participants, both “let it happen” (LIHOP) and “made it happen” (MIHOP) positions were advanced by two of the most prominent speakers present.

But, perhaps most surprisingly, even though the so-called “hard science” group was in charge, during the discussion of how it was done, what should have been the strongest aspect of the conference about nanothermite, was compromised by deliberately ignoring the serious criticisms that have called into question the theory of “explosive nanothermite”. The most serious of these inadequacies and shortcomings can be explained by adopting a policy that placed the politics of 9/11 ahead of the science. But even beyond reliance upon unsound research, the 9/11 movement is not going to capture the imagination of the American people without a compelling narrative about who was responsible, how it was done and why.

Consider, for example, the criteria of selection that were originally posted on the website announcing the Toronto Hearings that delineated the basis for decisions that would be made about what would and would not be presented during the hearings, namely:

Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty;  importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established. Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation. (my emphasis)

This sounds admirable, until you consider that what is and what is not controversial within the movement tends to depend upon and vary with the evidence that is available to various parties, the alternative hypotheses they consider, and their capacity for reasoning.

These are not only properties that can vary from person to person at the same time but can also vary for the same person from time to time, such as before and after they have acquired new data, where an explanation that satisfies one set of data points may not also satisfy a revised or expanded set of data points.  And those who do not have a firm grasp of the principles of scientific reasoning are not likely to be able to apply them properly to derive the conclusions that are best supported by the evidence.  Much of the controversy over what did or did not happen at the Pentagon, for example, appears to be a consequence of the failure of members of the community to take into account the same data points, which requires ACTUALLY LOOKING AT EVIDENCE, a practice that has not always prevailed within this community.  And when those who are responsible for conducting the hearings deliberately exclude crucial evidence that undermines what they are presenting, it should come as no surprise if what should have been its greatest strength should turn out to be its greatest liability or, as Joshua suggests, its Achilles heel.

The clear, green, unblemished Pentagon lawn

In this commentary on the hearings, I shall contend that the LIHOP/MIHOP controversy was of the least moment and has, in effect, already been resolved, where exchanges between Joshua, Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin have ironed them out, where Scott has graciously conceded that remarks of his that appeared to endorse LIHOP, which Griffin had dispatched in the presentation before his, were lapses on his part and require revision to conform to the available relevant evidence.  Would that all members of the 9/11 community were so objective and rational in their response to criticism.  But the suppression of discussion about the Pentagon, where there is no longer any good reason to doubt that a Boeing 757 did not hit the building, and of nanothermite, where there are now very good reasons to doubt it could have played a crucial role in the destruction of the Twin Towers, are another matter entirely.  So far as I can see, ignoring new data about its lack of explosive potential has to have been deliberate as a form of saving face, when the history of this matter suggests that Steve Jones made an early blunder from which the movement has yet to recover.

The Who and the Why

Although the indications of Israeli involvement in 9/11 are abundant and compelling, ranging from the transfer of ownership of the World Trade Center to private hands, the replacement of the firm that had provided security since it had opened for occupancy in 1970 by an Israeli company, Kroll Associates, the airport security at the 9/11 airports by another Israeli firm, ICTS, which was also in charge when the “shoe bomber”, Richard Reid, was allowed to board and which was granted immunity from lawsuits with the passage of the PATRIOT Act (which prevents them from having to produce surveillance videos from 9/11), “the Dancing Israelis”, Urban Moving Systems, the Odigo messaging service (which sent warnings in advance of the attacks), the 200 Israeli “art students”, the list of hijackers provided to the FBI by the Mossad, and more.  This is all common knowledge to serious students and creates the framework for a narrative that explains who and why these atrocities were committed.  Indeed, there are many articles about all this by Alan Sabrosky, Christopher Bollyn, and others, with which members of the organizing committee had to have been familiar.  If the hearings were intended to promote 9/11 Truth, then it appears inexcusable that all this was omitted.

The strongest element of the “official account” of 9/11, which we find in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), is the narrative about 19 Islamic fundamentalists, who hijacked four commercial carriers with box cutters, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan. This may be its most compelling dimension, especially when combined with the stories of heroism on those planes, such as Flight 93, the calls to their loved ones, including by Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, and the crashes that took the lives of 125 at the Pentagon, apart from any passengers aboard any of those planes.  All of this makes for a moving and emotional narrative of what unfolded on 9/11, which is what we would expect from its own Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow, whose area of academic specialization prior to becoming engaged in public service was the creation and maintenance of “public myths” which was surely his prime qualification for that position, where, as Kevin Barrett has also observed, he completed a draft outline of the commission’s report a year before he would share it with other members of the staff and has now been promoted to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, where he can cope with 9/11 criticism, a nice example of putting “the foremost expert” in charge!

What converted the towers into dust?

The fact that the alleged “terrorists” were not devout Muslims but partook of strip shows, hookers, alcohol and pork, is not among the few reports we learn about their activities, not to mention that none of them was qualified to fly Boeing 757s and 767s, which is not a trivial task.  We even know (from Elias Davidsson) that the government has never proven that any of them were actually aboard any of those planes and learn (from David Ray Griffin) that all of the phone calls from those four aircraft were faked. And we know from Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) that, even though there are millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one.  And we learned from an FBI agent that the reason why the NTSB did not investigate any of those crashes (for the first time in its history) is that, “It wasn’t necessary because we saw them on television!” But we actually didn’t see what happened in Shanksville on television.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We didn’t see the Pentagon crash on television.  And what we did see on television about the hit on the North Tower and on the South were laden with anomalies that make them highly suspect as examples of video fakery.  And these are hardly the only indications that the events of 9/11 were fabricated.

The 9/11 Truth movement has to provide a competing narrative as a necessary condition for it to gain traction with the public.  We know the “official account” cannot be sustained on multiple grounds, including that it violates laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics.  This means that accepting what we have been told is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things.  But we also know far more than that the “official account” is false. We have ample justification to conclude that the neo-cons who ran the Department of Defense and were prominent participants in the Project for the New American Century were concerned that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, there was an unprecedented opportunity for the US, as the sole remaining superpower, to seize its chance to create a world-wide empire for the next 100 years, if only the American people could be persuaded to support the wars of aggression that would be entailed by invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq in its initial effort to take control of the Middle East for the sake of oil, Israel, and ideology. They feared that the moment would be lost because American values and traditions oppose attacking nations that have not attacked us–unless there were to be a traumatic, catalyzing event on the order of “a new Pearl Harbor” that would convince the public to support these actions and curtail civil rights in the face of a foreign threat.

What didn’t happen at the Pentagon

There was no “foreign threat”, however, which meant that one had to be invented. This is a scenario we all know, from David Ray Griffin’s first book, THE NEW PEARL HARBOR (2004), to his latest, THE NEW PEARL HARBOR: TEN YEARS LATER (2011), where I myself–and I am by no means unique in this respect–have published about it and made presentations in 2008 (“9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”), 2009 (“Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”), 2010 (“Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”), and 2011 (“False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State”), where one difference between my presentations and those of many others is that I openly discuss indications of Mossad and Israeli involvement, while most of them do not.  Even Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin, to the best of my knowledge, steer clear of addressing the abundant and compelling evidence that Israel was profoundly involved in 9/11.  The only instance in which the subject was broached during the Toronto Hearings, as I understand it, was when Griffin was asked after his lecture whether five Israelis had been arrested on 9/11.  He replied, “Yes.”  So 9/11 Truth has the world’s stage during this conference and THAT is the only mention of Israel?  What’s wrong with this picture?

CIT witnesses contradicting the "official account"

But if Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin say too little about Israeli complicity in 9/11, others, such as Alan Sabrosky and Christopher Bollyn, claim too much.  As Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR: MADE IN THE USA (2006, revised edition), has observed, there were as many as 17 anti-terrorism drills taking place on 9/11–a number that he has recently increased to 27!–which disrupted normal channels of communication between the FAA and NORAD.  These drills are not something that 19 Islamic terrorists could have arranged, where either they were incredibly lucky to have chosen the one day that the US Air Force would not be in any position to respond or else there was high level duplicity in making sure that no USAF fighters would intercept any of the allegedly hijacked planes. Even more incredibly, one of them is purported to have traveled at more than 500 mph, barely skimming above the Pentagon lawn and encountering several lampposts en route to its target on the ground floor of the West Wing of the building, where two civilian lime-green firetrucks would arrive in short order and extinguish the very modest fires.  Yet there was no massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton aircraft with a wingspan of 125′ and a tail that stood 44′ above the ground.  No wings, no tail, no bodies, seats, or luggage were found there.  Not even the engines, virtually indestructible, were recovered from the Pentagon.

An even more stunning indication that officials at the highest levels of the Department of Defense had to have been involved than arranging those convenient “anti-terrorism” drills is that we have abundant and compelling proof that no plane hit the building or, to be more precise, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. The best witness at the scene, April Gallop, walked through the hole in the wall on the ground floor and has reported seeing no signs of debris from an airplane having crashed there.  Jamie McIntyre of CNN, among the first reporters to arrive, explained to his anchor that, from his close up inspection, there were no signs that any large plane had hit anywhere near the Pentagon. Flight recorder data provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth as having come from Flight 77 by the NTSB has turned out to correspond to a plane on a different, due east, trajectory, which was too high to have hit any lampposts and was 100′ above the building one second from impact. CIT realized that a Citgo station was situated between the two trajectories, where on the “official account” it would have flown SOUTH of the station, but on the alternative NORTH, and located more than a dozen witnesses who reported that the plane had approach the building NORTH of the Citgo station.

That a plane was used to create the misleading impression that it had actually hit the Pentagon (by setting off explosives as it passed over it) has also been confirmed by the report of Dave Ball, the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, who told Roy that he had been in front of the Pentagon at the time and watched a large plane fly toward the building and then swerve over it. When we take into account that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to depart that day (which Gerald Holmgren discovered) and that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005 (as its own records revealed), pursuing the planes (like following the money) would appear to offer some of the most fertile ground to promote 9/11 Truth among the public. How can planes that were not even in the air have crashed and how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years after 9/11?  And the very idea that the government would mislead citizens of the United States about what happened at the Pentagon, which is our nation’s center for national defense, provides proof beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was “an inside job”! It is therefore profoundly disturbing that this line of inquiry was not pursued with the greatest vigor during The Toronto Hearings, which thereby forfeited a major opportunity to reach the public.

On how it was done

Mark and I had hoped that those who were running the shop at the Toronto Hearings would be responsive to what we had reported to them over and over again.  Even before publishing “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, for example, Mark had written to the leading figures in the “hard science” group, including Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Niels Harrit, who were either non-responsive or dismissive of his findings.  Even David Ray Griffin reaffirmed that “we are happy with our formulation” and denied that they–the leaders of the movement–should be held responsible for the belief that nanothermite is a high-explosive, which is stunning considering that he himself has been among those who have perpetuated that belief! In “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, for example, we quote Richard Gage and Griffin’s enthusiastic endorsements of (what we call) “explosive nanothermite” or “the nanothermite myth”, which those who have been offering rebuttals to Joshua in posts about his column, such as WearechangeAtlanta and Camron Wiltshire, whom I believe are one and the same, have either overlooked or are deliberately distorting. Without suggesting that Camron falls into that category, a technique well known to political advisers, advertisers, and disinfo ops is having one of their group publish something another of them can enthusiastically endorse!

Kevin Ryan answering questions in Toronto

We certainly agree that, if the “thermite sniffers” (as Rosalee Grable has humorously referred to them) were to exclude contrary evidence from consideration, the case can be made that nanothermite MIGHT be explosive.  But the facts show otherwise, where its detonation velocity of 895 m/s in conjunction with the acknowledgment that destroying materials by means of shockwaves requires velocities at least equal to the speed of sound in those materials, 3,200 m/s for concrete or 6,100 m/s for steel, demonstrates its impossibility. How much more proof is required to establish the point that the explosive properties of nanothermite have been oversold? Mark issued his “nanothermite challenge” on 1 May 2011, which should have been ample time for a serious response from the “hard science” group.  Instead, on the day “the challenge” expired, 20 June 2011, Kevin Ryan published “The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”, a shoddy piece of research that not only did not come to grips with the problem but actually implicitly cited an article that affirmed an even lower detonation velocity of 300 m/s for nanothermite!

Ryan, like the Toronto Hearings, appears to be driven more by considerations of public relations than he is with the integrity of their research on nanothermite. The most striking example of rational response to Mark’s findings has been Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, who has even provided a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials to illustrate the dimensions of the problem, published in “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” We are talking about laws of nature–in this case, laws of materials science–which cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The “hard science” group has now made several moves to save face by suggesting that nanothermite can become explosive if it were combined with explosives, which is also true of toothpaste (my example) and of breakfast cereal (Mark’s). So that claim is true but trivial.  The other has been to suggest that classified military technology may exist that makes nanothermite explosive.  But, since there is no available proof that that is the case, the “hard science” group is then trading in speculation of the kind that it has used to pillory those who have advanced alternative theories, such as the use of directed energy weapons, for which, I dare say, there is less doubt about the existence of corresponding weaponry.

If the objective was to concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established, therefore, then these hearings were a failure, even with respect to the core issue of explosive nanothermite. The claim that nanothermite can become explosive when it is combined with explosives is true but also trivial, while the claim that nanothermite is explosive is either false or merely speculative. This means that The Toronto Hearings were focused on “evidence” that is either false or trivial or speculative, which is hardly the premium standard with which these hearings were advertised and falls far short of accomplishing the objective of reassuring the public that the 9/11 Truth movement is based upon a firm foundation. If anyone still harbors any lingering doubts about all of this, consider that, even though Mark and I had contacted those who were controlling the hearings some five months or more before they would be held to inform them of the nature of the problem, MARK’S DISCOVERIES WERE NEITHER REPORTED NOR DISCUSSED.

What was really going on?

Science cannot proceed by papering over problems or evading their consideration.  I am therefore perhaps most perplexed that Camron Wiltshire and others are attacking me and Mark rather than FOCUSING ON THE FAILURE OF THE “HARD SCIENCE” GROUP to have done its homework.  This issue is not going to go away and this would have been the perfect time to deal with it.  The pretense that there really is no problem simply cannot be sustained. I am reminded of the children’s story about “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.  How can a 9/11 research group that identifies itself as the “hard science” group leave the movement in such a precarious position?  Perhaps they have a solution to the problem.  But if they have a solution to the problem, it would have been appropriate to present it rather than feign that all is well with respect to 9/11 science, where Harrit’s suggestion that perhaps the distinction between incendiaries and explosives may no longer matter in the age of nanotechnology reveals the depths of denial into which the movement has sunk.


YouTube - Veterans Today -Video fakery in New York

The suppression of discussion of what didn’t happen at the Pentagon may even be outweighed by the lack of willingness of the 9/11 Truth community in general to admit the evidence that substantiates video fakery in New York, which is objective and scientific.  As an illustration, the plane shown in the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos passes though its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its entire length in air.  Ascertaining that this is the case can be replicated by anyone using frame-by-frame advance.  That, of course, would be impossible unless this massive 500,000-ton building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.  Science requires testing hypotheses on the basis of observation, measurement, and experiment; but that is exactly what is taking place in this case on the basis of observation, calculation, and comparisons as an experiment, which refutes the hypothesis that the videos are genuine on the presupposition that videos displaying impossible events cannot be authentic.  It may have been done using CGIs, video compositing, or even a holographic projection. In our visually dominated culture, where movies and television are pervasive, I believe the public would be fascinated to learn that it had been deceived on 9/11 by video fakery!

Were I even more cynical than I have become in dealing with the members of the “hard science” group, I would suggest that, by excluding discussion of the who and the why and by omitting evidence with the greatest potential to convince the public at a single stroke that 9/11 WAS “an inside job”–which includes what didn’t happen at the Pentagon but also the use of video fakery in New York–the effect was to present an atrophied version of “9/11 Truth” that will not cause a ripple in the world’s understanding of how all this was done.  The evidence of Israeli complicity is abundant and compelling, yet hardly a word about it was mentioned during these hearings (apart from a single answer to a single question).  The Pentagon was discussed in passing, but the evidence that no Boeing 757 crashed there did not receive the emphasis it deserved.  These are among the elements that could be used to create a compelling narrative about what really happened on 9/11.  The focus on how it was done, where the myth of nanothermite remained “front and center”, alas, represents a betrayal of the standards of science to which the “hard science” group professes its dedication.  In crucial respects, therefore, this conference appears to have been an exercise in politics and public relations, not scientific research or 9/11 Truth.

Jerry Mazza and I recently reflected on The Toronto Hearings during a conversation between us on “The Real Deal”, the radio program I host on M/W/F from 5-7 PM/CT. He resides in New York and has frequently written about 9/11. In 9/11 Truth splits its impact he raises the question of “whose bright idea it was to take some of the best minds of the 9/11 Truth Movement and go to Toronto to conduct International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001. Its linked position paper reads like a statement restating the now obvious findings of the last decade.”  He thought that 9/11 (or a substantial part of it, at least) had happened in New York and deserved the whole of 9/11 Truth’s presence.  But it was not to be.  The ceremonies at “Ground Zero”, astonishingly enough, excluded the survivors of those who died that day and even the first responders!  If a miscarriage of justice of this magnitude can take place in New York, perhaps I should not be surprised that events in Toronto were at least equally disconcerting.  The nation and the world has been subjected to an elaborate hoax, a staged event replete with Hollywood-style special effects, which is not going to be exposed by half-hearted efforts by the 9/11 movement to stage events of its own that, like those of 9/11, were used to achieve political objectives and manipulate the opinion of the public.  I am sorry to say it, but the dead deserved far better.


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

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=143737

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. Legal Notice

Posted by on Sep 28 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for VA Loan Now
Education
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now

COMMENTS

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback


Comments Closed

62 Comments for “The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings”

  1. I must first admit my bias. I have always “known” from the time Dr. Steven Jones first came on the scene that he was operating in dishonesty, not in truth. I still know that and it applies to all of his spawn organizations and shills and lackeys.
    The “Toronto Hearings”(TH) was totally a creation and product of the “thermite gang” (T Gang), Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan et al. Regardless of what the Hearings’ ostensible goal was, we know from too many long years of observing the T. Gang’s behavior that their entire operation is NOT about, and never has been about, seeking truth about the event of 9-11-01.
    From Dr. Jones’ somewhat late arrival on the 9-11 truth scene in late 2004, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Wood and many other scholars have written about and criticized Dr. Jones’ basic and found wanting “scientific” methods. Dr. Fetzer wrote a paper showing that Dr. Jones does not even understand the basic steps of scientific inquiry and Dr. Reynolds wrote a paper asking where is Dr. Jones’ “proof of concept”, to name only two early examples.
    What fruit has the T Gang’s operations borne? Nothing good has come from their “work.” They have only “run out the clock” and stolen scientific and scholarly inquiry time and attention away from those who do seek 9-11 truth. Also, I believe they have deliberately created division and dissension and destroyed honest dialogue.
    It was easy to see why they held the TH outside the USA. They want to subtly convey the idea that they are pursuing justice in the international venues of justice, such as the International Criminal Court. Never outright claimed, only implied.
    Gage held interviews in England and those videos were widely publicized on the web. Dr. Harrit and the Open Chemical Journal are European / and Scandanavian. More subtle indications that “9-11 Scholars for Truth and Justice” have gone international to make a strong play for “truth and justice.”
    Additionally the TH were timed to coincide with the tenth anniversary ceremonies in New York City, sort of putting a false anti-thesis out there at that time.
    Also, the TH mark the advent of having the Thermite Gang presenting themselves as holding general 9-11 truth Hearings, as opposed to their historial records of focusing strongly on thermite and nanothermite and “controlled demolition” and “Building 7” and “molten metal”, avoiding talk of the Pentagon and “planes” and “directed energy” and “mini nukes” ad infinitum. Now, all of a sudden at this momentous event, the T Gang’s is about “full and open” truth seeking regarding every aspect of 9-11, not their heretofore very narrow and directed efforts.
    I do not quite understand Dr. Fetzer’s mention of the T Gang’s “inadequacies and shortcomings” regarding all they have put forth regarding the now proven false idea of “explosive nanothermite.” I do not see any true inadequacies or failures or shortcomings at all here. The T Gang always knew their “hypothesis” of “explosive nanothermite” was not based on scientific truth at all, but they were most adequately and proficiently able to pawn off that farce upon most of those in the so called 9-11 truth “movement”. (Oh how I hate that word “movement”!)
    The Toronto Hearings were no surprise and no disappointment. They came off exactly as planned and probably most of those mesmerized by the antics of the T Gang over the last six years feel very happy and satisfied with the Toronto Hearings.

    We have not moved forward toward 9-11 truth and that is why we are just as enslaved as ever.

  2. The in-fighting continues and makes it less and less likely that justice will ever be served for the murder victims.

    Dimitri Khalizov says he knows the truth.

    Mike Herrari ( Israeli Mossad) masterminded 9/11.

    A recovered Soviet Granit missile was fired at and hit the Pentagon.

    The 3 towers were all destroyed with thermo-nuclear devices placed 77 meters below ground surface. The towers had this demolition plan in place at time of their construction.

    There was video fakery regarding the planes hitting the towers.

    And whoever did 9/11 had the ability to control the cover-up, make fun of all skeptics, and continue the brainwashing of the American public, i e those who own and control the media. Bush and Cheney do not control the media in America, sorry.

    Therefore. I submit that people with loyalty to Israel are, most likely, the perpetrators.

    • Well, we can’t bring anyone to justice until we know how it was done and by whom. While I strongly agree with your conclusion, I very much doubt that Khalizov knows how it was done, since the effects of the destruction of the Twin Towers and of WTC-7 were very different, which suggests they did not have the same cause; and his theory would imply that the buildings were destroyed from the bottom up, when the towers, at least, were clearly destroyed from the top down. I do not know about Herrari, but the plan was clearly in the works for some considerable period of time. Of course, I agree about video fakery and that those responsible also had the ability to continue to conceal how it was actually done, where the neo-cons and the Mossad appear to have had the leading role in these events and where Joshua Blakeney has done excellent work on this. See “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”.

      • Dr. Fetzer,
        I wrote to you many years ago, about needing to keep it simple, KISS principle, and how the American people will have a collective heart attack when they eventually find out we MIHOP. The Who and Why are what matters to me, but people have got hung up on the What and How.

        So I will bring up a simple observation, following my dedication to KISS: If one looks at photos, never mind videos, of the Twin Towers crumbling vs. WTC7 crumbling, a child could tell they are completely different. As a matter of fact, try it with some small kids. Show them 3 photos, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. They would be able to tell you this: the Twin Towers erupted like volcanos, or they opened up like flowers, or something like that. They would also tell you that WTC7 simply fell straight down, no eruption, no drama.

        So the next step is to figure out what makes a building erupt like a volcano, and what makes a building fall straight down? If necessary, do experiments. Hollywood can do this pretty cheaply. Make up some 9/11 movie sets, and blow up some buildings. Replicate those photos, and you replicate what happened on 9/11. To me, What and How don’t matter that much, but this would give the hard science guys something to do.

        • I could not agree with you more. I wrote about it some time back and posted it several places. Here is one, “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1 where I have emphasized the differences between them. I am inclined to believe that the use of mini-nukes, possibly involving pure hydrogen explosions, may have done the job. An early study that advanced that theme by Ed Ward, M.D., “The Bogus Science (BS) of ‘Explosive SuperThermite” versus the Facts of a ‘Deflagration Compound’, http://www.rense.com/general77/gteddno.htm Any further comments of yours are welcome.

          • Yes, I read Ed Ward’s study, and I also read the comments by Dimitri Khalizov, both some time ago. I believe that Bill Enyart has misunderstood Khalizov, or has twisted what Khalizov said. I think that you and Khalizov are pretty close together in your analyses. As for Ed Ward, I recall that it was an interesting set of elements that were found in the air. The presence of Tritium, at the top of the list.

          • Actually, we don’t need to make up any 9/11 movie sets. There are a lot of photos and movies of controlled demolitions, similat to that of WTC7. There are fewer photos and movies of buldings demolished in the same manner as WTC1 and WTC2, but there are enough photos and movies NOW, that someone could do a comparison. Mini-nukes, pure hydrogen weapons could do it, and what else? There are photos and movies out there. Someone can put those together, make a slide show. There is no need to go to the extra time and expense of making a Hollywood 9/11 set and blowing up some buildings.

  3. Prof Fetzer and Joshua,
    I admire you both for your patience, tolerance and civility in the face of utterly moronic attack from the lowest type of imbecile that infests what could be a great medium were it not for them.
    I don’t have your qualities nor humility and would not therefore dignify these imbeciles.
    You don’t need to be reminded by me that one should “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.”
    Thank you both for your outstanding work.

    • At risk of “censorship” on this forum given Mr. Fetzer’s previous overtures I will be brief.
      Eamonn (anagram for noname perhaps) do you have anything to add to the discussion above outside of kissing up and indulging in ad hominem attacks?

      Also Mr. Fetzer you have not answered my very basic request. Do you plan to ignore it forever and just presume you have?

      “I don’t have your qualities nor humility and would not therefore dignify these imbeciles.” Translation, I don’t deserve to stand in your shadow and thus am exonerated from providing intelligent response to the questions raised, your humble majesties…. You don’t sound like a sychophant one bit!

      • What anyone can learn from Camron Wiltshire’s ceaseless repetitions of his straw man–which I have answered time and time again–is that no one would be doing this if he did not have an agenda. It would be insane if reason and rationality were at stake. This is purely political propaganda, also known as “disinformation”, I am sorry to say. And it is apparent that I am not the only one who sees through him.

  4. It’s apparent you have no intention of answering my simple challenge to provide just one direct quote from any of the penners of the Bentham Nano Thermite paper, where they state unequivocally that nanothermite alone was responsible for destroying the 2 towers.

    Anyone willing to read through my comments will understand that I have only steadfastly asked for proof for the basis of your challenges.

    For those who want to understand the actual positions of the scholars in question. Please make yourself aware of their actual positions and research at any of the following web-sites.

    ae911truth.org
    rememberbuilding7.org
    911blogger.com
    http://stj911.org/

    • Camron, you desperately want to save some face. Fine. Let this be your final post. I have answered your question several times now. I invite anyone to read my most recent replies, in which I offer quotations, citations, and references and where I also explain why appeals to nanothermite in this context are either false or trivial or speculative as follows:

      (1) nanothermite alone CANNOT have been responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers, since it is non-explosive and only has a detonation velocity of 895 m/s, while the pulverization of concrete or the decimation of steel requires those of 3,200 m/s and of 6,100 m/s, respectively. So we KNOW that it cannot have been done using nanothermite alone;

      (2) nanothermite COMBINED with explosives can become explosive, about which there is no doubt; but that is also true of toothpaste (my example) and of breakfast cereal (Mark’s illustration), which also become explosive when they are combined with explosives; so, as I have explained repeatedly, while this is TRUE, it is also TRIVIAL; and, finally,

      (3) there may be new, high-tech, secret and classified versions of nanothermite, such as by its mixture with sol-gel, that turn it into an explosive; but while you have cited some studies from 2004 and 2005 that seem to imply as much, you have NEITHER shown that they have the necessary detonation velocity NOR that they were available in 2001!

      Indeed, option (3), which seems to be your position, qualifies as a form of SPECULATION. Certainly, you have offered no PROOF that even mixed with sol-gel it could pulverize concrete or decimate steel. So I trust you can appreciate why Mark and I continue to maintain our position that nanothermite has been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community.

      The consequences of the unwarranted promotiom of the myth of “explosive nanothermite” has had the effect of inhibiting research on how it was done (since allegedly we already KNEW) and of attacking alternatives using mini-nukes or directed-energy weapons that are at least as deserving of consideration. Nanothermite has not panned out.

      A nice example of the kind of research that we need has been provided by Dwain Deets, who has applied four theories, which include controlled demolition, exotic accelerants (including nanothermite), nuclear devices, and directed energy to WTC-7. This seems to me to be a welcome development, which I encourage every one to review at http://vimeo.com/29575849

  5. Whatever you need to tell your self Mr. Fetzer.
    Anyone can look me up online. I have nothing to hide. Perhaps projection is getting the better of you?

  6. Nowhere did I smear Anthony Hall. I have the utmost respect for him.

    I infer you admit the point that you are in fact unable to present a quote establishing any legitimacy for your elaborate straw man.

    I also see how you have again avoided all of my points and continue to presume victory while not having dealt with my challenges. It’s kind of funny to watch actually.

    So just to be clear. What constitutes your definition of explosive exactly and why are Dr. Steven E Jones’s and the national defense laboratories versions apparently so radically different than you and Mr. Hightower’s interpretation of the meaning of the word explosive? As for collapse, again this is you enlarging the importance of your own semantical hair splitting and nothing else. Obviously it’s foolish to insinuate that Steven Jones is advocating that there was some type of natural collapse versus one enabled by oh I don’t know, Nanothermite… Collapse is also defined above so I don’t have to restate that and obviously it works for Mr. Jones’s argumentation if one follows the official definitions of the verb.

    I find it incredibly ironic (but not surprising giving) that you would tax the scholars you misrepresent with also determining the exact make up the explosives utilized and the exact method for the “deceptive demolition” as though it were prerequisite for gaining either a new trial, or disproving the government’s version of events or fire induced collapse hypotheses. As I’ve stated before there is ample evidence demanding an immediate and new investigation without your “help”…

    First of all it’s not there responsibility to do so (as mentioned in my previous posts) and to assume so is absurd on it’s face. Secondly you yourself champion theories with ZERO evidentiary support which are composed entirely of wild speculation. So you have no issue with the fact that DEW as a theory is completely unfalsifiable (read unscientific) and would be thrown out of a court of law if brought up. Didn’t that happen once already? Oh yes, thats right it was thrown out with prejudice as a matter of fact.

    Don’t take my word for it kids at home. Read em and weep Fester.

    Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs [The third plaintiff is Ed Haas. -rep.] explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality from the capacity to do great damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops [psychological operations] purposes.”

    “Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government.”

    “Plaintiffs’ theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief.”

    “Plaintiffs merely allege the existence of a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion. They name all defendants as coconspirators. They therefore conclude that all defendants’ work records and the services they performed are fraudulent because they are tainted by the illegal conspiracy in which they participated. Such generalized attempts at fraud pleading fail to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). See, United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 556-57 (8th Cir. 2006)”

    The above is extracted from Judge Daniels’ dismissal.
    https://sites.google.com/site/reynoldslitigation/100Judgment-Dismissedwithprejudice.pdf?attredirects=0

    So you would with your verbal sleight of hand replace the unchallenged peer reviewed nanothermite paper and the implications of these findings (holds up as forensic evidence of malfeasance) with a completely discredited theory that has already failed miserably to gain any traction in a court of law as detailed above.

    Sorry you are fooling no one at this point. I’m surprised VT let’s you publish this nonsense.

    PS> Still waiting on that one verbatim quote…. Surely in all of your research you would have come across just one little quote to support your argument? I went through the video you linked to above, didn’t see nor hear anything supporting your arguments again. Correct me if you feel I am in error by giving the exact time code, phrase and video title. If you can that is…

    PS> Sticks and Stones may break my bones but transparent fallacies will never hurt me.

    • So now you want to talk about DEWS? That’s a bit much. And call me names? That’s sophomoric. I am sorry, Camron, but I have no more time or patience for you. I have observed the deterioration of the tone and quality of your posts, which are becoming more and more infantile and hysterical. Jones, Ryan, Harrit et al. have had ample opportunities to respond appropriately. The feeble post by Ryan, “The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”, was dismembered, piece by piece, by Mark Hightower when we discussed it on “The Real Deal” (6 July 2011) at http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-nanothermite%20challenge.mp3 You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel and are making an indelible impression in your role as an op. This has been revealing. Sorry, but you have worn out your welcome. Your posts have reached the level of spam and I am not going to impose them on our readers any longer. You gave it your best shot, but you fell short. Enough is enough.

  7. *CORRECTED*
    Again you are avoiding the issue.
    No where in any of the sources that you cite do you have a quote where they say that nano thermite *ALONE* is responsible for the destruction of the 2 towers on 9/11.
    If you want to talk about reading comprehension please look at my original question and see that I have repeated it at least 5 times previously and still you avoid this simple request.
    You are arguing the semantics of whether or not nano-thermite can be considered “explosive” as Steven Jones responded very clearly in his article, “Responses to questions regarding and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction”
    Your position is that , …”JONES (is) CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES.
    He clarifies very well why the above is again another misrepresentation of his position here. Keep in mind he is clarifying this so as to avoid the ad nauseam debates. Why do you not seem to be able to comprehend his clarification below? Obviously anyone who reads it understands that your arguments are meaningless and again strawmen.
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction
    1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
    The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
    Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.”
    [ Please explain to me what is dissatisfactory with Dr. Jones' assessment here please]
    “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” {Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech }
    I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.”
    It appears the national defense laboratories have no issue with describing the capabilities of nano or superthermite as explosive. Why should we take you and Mr. Hightower’s extremely limited definition of thermite/nano thermite’s explosive capability instead of the defense laboratories who actually create the explosive materials?
    Again “What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive?” Can you answer this question? On what authority? Where is it defined? You and Mr. Hightower have apparently granted yourself the ability to determine when someone can use the word explosive or not apparently without consulting the national defense laboratories, that you have decided to change the definition of the term explosive (to fit your arguments) and that they must apparently update their findings to include you and Mr. Hightower’s edict.
    Just for your records here is definition of “Explosives”.
    1. (Chemistry) a substance that decomposes rapidly under certain conditions with the production of gases, which expand by the heat of the reaction. The energy released is used in firearms, blasting, and rocket propulsion
    What definition exactly are you and Mr. Hightower using again?
    “Since I have not been maintaining that Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Neils Harrit, et al. were maintaining that ALL THREE BUILDINGS were destroyed by means of nanothermite, your attribution of that position to me is indefensible. I would like to have some supporting quotations, references, and citations from you about my having made that claim, because you are exaggerating my position.”
    You’re right. Let’s be clear then. Change Three to read the Twin Towers and go find me a direct quote already.
    Or maybe it just doesn’t exist….
    “Since you have yet to give detonation velocity numbers for the sol-gel mixture you have cited, you, too, have failed “the nanothermite challenge”. This seems to be consistent with your practice here, which has included claiming to have read papers you apparently have not read, overlooking multiple quotations, references, and citations that substantiate our claims, and exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack. On the basis of your performance here, therefore, I agree with you that one of us is engaged in disinformation, but that person isnt’ me.”
    Your challenge is laughable at best. A foolish extension of your ridiculous and simple attempts to misrepresent the arguments of those actually pursing 911 truth.
    You have again set up a strawman / circular logic argument as I stated above. Are you not understanding your just avoiding the issue all together. It has to be obvious to everyone reading at home if not you.
    Here again is why the ‘nanothermite challenge’ is complete illogical.
    “You are also presuming that it is up to them to prove that even though they HAVE NOT speculated as much, (that nanothermite alone was responsible for the destruction of the 2 towers on 911), that they are now bound to produce evidence without subpoena power that would require high level security clearance and access to the defense laboratories which are capable of producing superthermite composite explosives/incendiaries,
    (Steven Jones answers more than adequately the semantical quandary with such distinctions here by the way, http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction)
    for testing to produce the results of the exact detonation velocities your straw man/circular logic would require, you do this even though the burden of proof is not on them as they have never presented that they know exactly how the towers were destroyed, and they needn’t to demand a new investigation.
    It’s ironic that if you wanted to enable them to gain such access that strategically it would be better if you helped them by supporting the research and voluminous evidence they have already amassed that is more than enough to reopen the investigation. The only way they will ever gain access to the inner workings of the defense labs responsible for creating the nanothermitic mixtures that ended up in the dust is for a new investigation to be launched with subpoena power and whistleblower protection for witnesses. This push is already gaining momentum with the likes of Senators Graham and Gravel openly calling for a new 911 investigation.
    As professor Anthony J Hall so aptly stated when answering Michael Shermer’s similar illogical question as to “who he thought did it”, in a shallow attempt to goad him into speculation, professor Hall responded “When a murder is committed you don’t have to say who you think the murderer is.” (or the mechanism for the murder) This is not the job of the scholars you are questioning. They are letting the science speak with the hopes that the awakening American population will carry their work forward and enable this evidence to be heard in a court of law.
    Now why is it that you expect them to produce calculable definitions of a substance they obviously cannot access without subpoena power to substantiate your interpretation of the word explosive when again even national defense laboratories define superthermite/nanothermites as explosive?
    Especially given that this is not their responsibility and that they are well within the actual meaning & definition of the word explosive when they describe the characteristics of nanothermite as in fact being explosive in nature.
    No where do they ever state that you have been able to pin down or satisfactorily supply that NanoThermite ALONE is responsible for destruction of the Twin Towers.
    I’m sorry if you can’t understand the contradictions in your logic than you have a vested interest in not understanding them.
    Your arguments are entirely fallacious, built upon your own misguided and created definition of explosives coupled with fabricating entirely the position of your would be opponents.
    You should know also that the word collapse is defined as
    1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
    For all of your self congratulatory credentialism and your blatant dependence on ad hominem/straw men/and semantical arguments, you seem incapable of producing one direct quote to substantiate the volumes of rhetoric you have offered here.
    I’m still waiting…

    • Asked and answered. We have explained (1) that nanothermite CANNOT have been solely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers, which Steve Jones has continued to describe as a “collapse” when the buildings were blown apart. I INFER YOU ADMIT THIS POINT. We have explained (2) that if nanothermite were combined with explosives, it could become explosive, but that is also true of toothpaste and of breakfast cereal, which means THIS IS TRUE BUT TRIVIAL. This seems to be the point on which you impale yourself. We have also explained (3) that alluding to secret, classified developments that make nanothermite explosive amounts to SPECULATION. Which means, as I have explained repeatedly, that the theory of explosive nanothermite is either false, trivial, or speculative. Q.E.D. You won’t admit it, but Mark and I have covered all of the alternatives.

      If you were serious–and it has now become obvious to anyone reading this thread that you are not!–then you would be responding to the obvious points that I have made about the dates of publication of the articles you are citing (in 2005 and 2007), which suggests that, even if you were right about new developments that might make nanothermite explosive, they were not available in 2001 (or these articles would have been old news and not publishable without repetition), and especially that you have not even told us the detonation velocities that are supposed to have been attained, which means that you have offered no proof any of this makes any difference. Those who may have thought I was surmising to suggest this is a disinfo op are going to be struck you are now generalizing your act to encompass smears against Anthony Hall and in defense of Michael Shermer!

      All your pretense of not having understood this or that, of having read books and articles you obviously have not read, and of misrepresenting Mark and me as having misrepresented Jones, Ryan and Harrit have been revealed as quite the opposite. I have been both very patient and responsive to your posts here, which I have not taken for granted from the beginning. You, however, have been posting under different names (WeAreChangeAtlanta and Camron Wiltshire), have been practicing special pleading, ad hominem, and especially the straw man. You have been unresponsive on the crucial question of detonation velocity and, in my opinion, anyone who reads through our exchanges on this thread will draw the same conclusion as I have. You are a fraud, Camron. You are here playing mind-games and sowing false information in defense of the mythology of nanothermite.

  8. Mr. Fetzer. Please answer my challenge from before.

    As I asked you from a few comments ago with no answer yet forthcoming.

    “just supply me with one quote, (not a difficult request) that NanoThermite only (alone) was responsible for destroying the towers when you state,

    ” (4) that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown the Twin Towers apart, pulverized the concrete
    and decimated the steel, which T. Mark Hightower has refuted in spades;”

    Where has anyone you are challenging ever said this outside of your supposed encounter with Steven E. Jones? Surely you can find just one quote where one of the scholars you are challenging has uttered such a direct determination that nanothermite alone was responsible for the destruction of the 3 towers on 911. I can’t imagine you would have penned, what are we at now, 4 plus articles on a misinterpretation or representation of their supposed argument without some type of foundational basis in the form of a direct quotes supporting your challenge.

    Please provide me with one verbatim quote where any of the scholars you are challenging have in fact made this exact presumption.

    If you are unable to provide one than it is more likely that you should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the foundations of your argument.

    You are also presuming that it is up to them to prove that even though they have not speculated as much, (that nanothermite alone was responsible for the destruction of the 3 towers on 911) that they are now bound to produce evidence without subpoena power that would require high level security clearance and access to the defense laboratories which are capable of producing superthermite composite explosives/incendiaries, (Steven Jones answers more than adequately the semantical quandary with such distinctions here by the way, http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction)

    for testing to produce the results of the exact detonation velocities your straw man/circular logic would require, you do this even though the burden of proof is not on them as they have never presented that they know exactly how the towers were destroyed, and they needn’t to demand a new investigation.

    It’s ironic that if you wanted to enable them to gain such access that strategically it would be better if you helped them by supporting the research and voluminous evidence they have already amassed that is more than enough to reopen the investigation. The only way they will ever gain access to the inner workings of the defense labs responsible for creating the nanothermitic mixtures that ended up in the dust is for a new investigation to be launched with subpoena power and whistleblower protection for witnesses. This push is already gaining momentum with the likes of Senators Graham and Gravel openly calling for a new 911 investigation.

    As professor Anthony J Hall so aptly stated when answering Michael Shermer’s similar illogical question as to “who he thought did it”, in a shallow attempt to goad him into speculation, professor Hall responded “When a murder is committed you don’t have to say who you think the murderer is.” (or the mechanism for the murder) This is not the job of the scholars you are questioning. They are letting the science speak with the hopes that the awakening American population will carry their work forward and enable this evidence to be heard in a court of law.

    We all agree that thousands of American’s were murdered on that day. We all agree that there is no reason that nanothermitic materials should be present in the dust whatsoever if we are to believe the gov’ts conspiracy theory that fires somehow are responsible for the destruction of all 3 towers. There is therefore no point in quibbling about proving a theory of destruction that has not actually been brought forward by any of the scholars presenting evidence for a new investigation.

    Therefore it is strange to say the least that you would devote so much time and effort to producing articles that attack a theory that is not purported by any of the scholars you are challenging.

    If I am mistaken, prove so by providing just one verbatim quote that demonstrates that they have pursued the theory that nanothermite alone is responsible for the destruction of all 3 towers on 9/11. If you have this quote in any of your articles, I have not seen it, nor can I say has Steven E. Jones or Frank Legge as covered in the above linked articles stating as much.

    This is a simple challenge. No need to deploy a litany of discursive points, (many of which are equally unfounded but let’s proceed one by one please, as I advocated as my preferred approach near the beginning of this conversation) Let’s start at the root. Just give me one quote, unedited substantiating the entire edifice of your argument.

    Who and Where have any of the scholars you are questioning ever stated that they believe that nanothermite alone was responsible for destroying all three towers on 911?

    • Something is wrong here. T. Mark Hightower has many quotes, citations, and reference in his studies of this question, which you claim to have read. But either you have not read them or you have diminished reading comprehension. A nice place for you to begin your remedial education would be “Has nanothermie been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html Consider, for example, the following passages which appear early in Mark’s discussion:

      EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

      Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones’ first paper. (2)

      “Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

      “I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

      Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

      Later in the paper Jones says

      “”Superthermites” use tiny particles of aluminum known as “nanoaluminum” (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “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) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.

      REFERENCES:
      (2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006
      (3) Jones, Steven E., “Answers to Objections and Questions,” Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, 18 July 2006

      An especially nice presentation may be found http://world911truth.org/steven-jones-on-nanothermite/ where even the introduction explains that he is addressing how the Twin Towers were destroyed and the use of "a high-tech explosive form of nanothermite", which was presented as "nothing short of conclusive scientific proof that explosives were used to detonate the skyscrapers on 9/11". (See around 5:00 into the first clip.) If these remarks did not represent his views, then, as in the case of any other responsible academic, Steve Jones would have retracted and corrected them when he began to speak less than three minutes later. And about 1:20 into Part 2 of this presentation, he puts up a slide that supports that the Twin Towers were destroyed below ground level, which is consistent with the conversion of those buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and inconsistent with any theory that maintains that these two towers "collapsed".

      So we not only have written confirmation from Steve Jones' studies (2) and (3) but visual and verbal confirmation during this presentation only a few weeks after the publication of the Bentham Science co-authored study. In addition, I have an extended critique of his then-current version of (2), "Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?", which you can find at http://911blogger.com/node/8790 and also on the Scholars home page under "The Science of 9/11", if you scroll down to

      Jim Fetzer, On Scientific Method and 9/11 Research (audio)
      "The Dynamic Duo", 17 May 2007, Part 1 , Part 2
      AKA "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community" (transcript )

      Among the points I make early on is that there is something wrong with Steve Jones' title, since he is talking about the Twin Towers and not WTC-7, where, while it would be correct to claim that WTC-7 "collapsed", it is not correct to claim that the Twin Towers "collapsed". So there are problems with the conceptual clarity of Steven Jones' paper from the beginning–and even including its title!

      Since I have not been maintaining that Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Neils Harrit, et al. were maintaining that ALL THREE BUILDINGS were destroyed by means of nanothermite, your attribution of that position to me is indefensible. I would like to have some supporting quotations, references, and citations from you about my having made that claim, because you are exaggerating my position.

      T. Mark Hightower, of course, is the chemical engineer who did the search of the scientific literature and issued "the nanothermite challenge", which can be found in "Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?" If Mark had been wrong, it would have been surprising that the only response to his challenge was the shoddy paper by Kevin Ryan, which I have already explained not only does not meet the challenge but cites a paper that references another in which the detonation velocity of nanothermite is given as only 300 m/s:

      THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

      Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

      1 May 2011

      Since you have yet to give detonation velocity numbers for the sol-gel mixture you have cited, you, too, have failed “the nanothermite challenge”. This seems to be consistent with your practice here, which has included claiming to have read papers you apparently have not read, overlooking multiple quotations, references, and citations that substantiate our claims, and exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack. On the basis of your performance here, therefore, I agree with you that one of us is engaged in disinformation, but that person isnt’ me.

  9. We have cited plenty of source and quotations. Even the Bentham study leaves it open as to whether nanothermite is supposed to be an explosive or only an incendiary. Reread the final sentence. And Harrit is clearly still in a quandary about it, where he suggested at The Toronto Hearings that, in the age of nanotechnology, perhaps the distinction between explosives and incendiaries no longer matters! But that is incredible, since their properties are completely different. So I think you are beating your head against a brick wall. You need to reread our studies. You claim to have done that but continue to misrepresent us. Unless you are going to get serious, there is no point in this exchange.

    There are three possibilities: (1) nanothermite is explosive and can have blow the Twin Towers apart, which is the predominant view within the 9/11 community, which has been reinforced by Gage and by Griffin, but which is false. DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS FALSE? (2) nanothermite could be combined with other stuff–in particular, explosives–to make it explosive, but that is trivial, since it is also true of toothpaste and of breakfast cereal. DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS TRIVIAL? (3) there is a secret, classified version of this stuff, nanothermite, which could do all those things that ordinary nanothermite cannot do. But this is speculation. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS SPECULATION?

    Mark issued his “nanothermite challenge”, which no one accepted. Ryan posted his shoddy piece “On the Explosiveness of Nanothermite” on 911blogger, but Mark took it apart. As I observe in several places, one of the reference he cites even attributes to nanothermite the detonation velocity of 300 m/s. Now I have asked you where in this sol-gel study to which you refer it specifies the detonation velocity of nano-in-sol-gel. YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. For a guy who claims to be exposing disinformation, you seem to be practicing it instead. You should come clean, Camron. You are looking very bad by ignoring points I have made and not supporting your position.

    Not to make the obvious point, but you are citing studies from 2004 and 2005, which suggests that, even if you were right about this development, it does not appear to have been available for the destruction of the towers, which, in case you missed it, occurred in 2001. If this was “new news” and worthy of publication in 2004 and 2005, it almost certainly was not available in 2001. So why don’t you do us all a favor and give us the detonation velocities that have been established for nano-in-sol-gel. I am rather confident that Mark already discussed it. In the meanwhile, you have not made your case. You have not established the detonation velocities and you have not shown it was available in 2001.

  10. Mr. Fetzer. Should I just take your word for it when you say that Dr. Legge is “unreliable”? Am I really supposed to suspend my skepticism with a wave of your hand? As for your citing Dr. Jone’s and your conversation as evidence, I would prefer to go with what he has written himself regarding these matters.

    I actually have read your studies. I’ve also read those of the scholars you are misquoting and misrepresenting. Anyone willing to do the work will realize this is the case. I’ve cited my arguments, which you in my opinion have not satisfactorily answered.

    For example. Again you are manufacturing a position (Straw Man Argument) that any of the aforementioned scholars have ever concluded anywhere (again just supply me with one quote, not a difficult request) that NanoThermite only was responsible for destroying the towers when you state,

    ” (4) that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown the Twin Towers apart, pulverized the concrete
    and decimated the steel, which T. Mark Hightower has refuted in spades;”

    If you are so sure please provide the exact quotes and the source.

    My name is spelled Camron not Cameron. I am not Kevin Ryan. You can google my identity to your hearts content, please do so we can avoid you attacking me via this route again. You can friend me on facebook if you like. Again I’ve nothing to hide.

  11. “(4) that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown the Twin Towers apart, pulverized the concrete and decimated the steel, which T. Mark Hightower has refuted in spades;”

    Where have any of the penners of the Bentham nanothermite paper ever stated that nanothermite alone was responsible for pulverization of the concrete or decimating the steel?

    Show me one quote where they have made this assertion. A supposed conversation taking place between you and Professor Jones does not suffice as evidence. This would be hearsay.

    “Then we read that nanothermite “served to pulverize the steel”. This is reminiscent of the disinformation which emanates from Judy Wood. You know the steel was not pulverized but was severed and fell in normal lengths. Why do you deceive?” – Dr. Frank Legge via the comments section of 911blogger.com
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite

    You can read the open letter challenge in it’s entirety in the post above.

    So if you take away the straw man argument that nano thermite was alone was responsible, what in fact are you arguing?

    “(6) that there may be explosive versions of nanothermite that the military has developed, which are classified and not available to the public, which makes this speculation.”

    Steven E. Jones adequately refutes all of the presumptions and mischaracterizations in his article,
    “Reponses to Questions Regarding Thermite, NanoThermite, and Convential Explosives Used in The World Trade Center Destruction”
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction

    Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

    1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

    The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
    Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

    “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” {Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech }

    I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.

    Next a reference to “explosives” based on nanocomposites involving aluminum and iron oxide from the large US Defense Laboratory at Livermore, California:

    “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives,
    propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in
    preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By
    introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials
    based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III)
    oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large
    availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of
    introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the
    generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can
    perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed
    throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to
    the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays
    energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport
    rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide
    nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.”
    (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

    Note in particular that Dr. Clapsaddle states that nano-thermite with organics can indeed perform pressure/volume work, key to their explosive capabilities. I understand that the organics are part of the production process and integral components of these types of nanothermites. One final corroborating quote from the same author:

    “We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]”
    B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” 2005.

    Kevin Ryan also cites 10 government and scientific sources to substantiate the explosive nature of nano composite materials such as nano or super thermite. This is not to say that you are correct in mischaracterizing him as stated they are the “crucial” or “sole” agent responsible for the destruction witnessed, nor that your opinion of the outcome of said destruction, “pulverized steel”.
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite

    • This is a joke, right? We have dealt with all of these issues several times in the course of our publications.
      And I even laid out for you the three interpretations that we have derived from Jones, Ryan, Harrit et al.

      As for the specific claims you have made about misrepresenting the views of Jones, Ryan and Harrit, for
      example, consider the three positions that they have now advanced:

      (4) that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown the Twin Towers apart, pulverized the concrete
      and decimated the steel, which T. Mark Hightower has refuted in spades;

      (5) that nanothermite could be combined with explosives to make it explosive, which is true but trivial
      (because it is also true of toothpaste and of breakfast cereal, alas); and,

      (6) that there may be explosive versions of nanothermite that the military has developed, which are
      classified and not available to the public, which makes this speculation.

      If you will go back and reread our articles about nanothermite, you will see that we have talked about
      all of these alternatives, including in the one above, in case you missed it, which includes debunking
      the ten sources that were cited by Kevin Ryan. HAVE YOU EVER READ OUR STUDIES? This is
      beyond the point of ridiculous. ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN OUR PUBLISHED WORK.

      IS KEVIN RYAN WRITING THIS? BECAUSE NO HONEST BROKER WOULD BE SAYING ANY OF IT.
      AND PRECISELY WHAT ARE THE DETONATION VELOCITY NUMBERS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT?
      WE KNOW KEVIN RYAN’S “TEN SOURCES” WERE RUBBISH. SO WHERE IS THE DATA FOR THIS?

    • And what kind of jerking around is your denying a personal conversation I had with Steve Jones? THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. THIS IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH. And, based upon my experience, Frank Legge is an unreliable source, who, as I recall, also claims that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Certainly, what he says here is false. The bulk of the steel was not severed and did not fall in normal lengths:

      “Then we read that nanothermite “served to pulverize the steel”. This is reminiscent of the disinformation which emanates from Judy Wood. You know the steel was not pulverized but was severed and fell in normal lengths. Why do you deceive?” – Dr. Frank Legge via the comments section of 911blogger.com

      I am fairly astonished you would cite this rubbish. The Twin Towers were destroyed BELOW GROUND LEVEL! Most of those buildings was converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. I think we are getting to the source of the problem, which is that you, Cameron Wiltshire, have no idea what you are talking about. Go to “New 9/11 Photos Released” on my blog for a refresher: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html

      This is quite incredible.

  12. Please post the response which answers many of the claims to Mark Hightower’s work that I submitted previously. I do not enjoy censorship and find that you are excluding information that brings into doubt the findings of Mr. Hightower’s findings.

    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite

    An open letter to T Mark Hightower
    T Mark Hightower

    You ask for corrections to your article “Has Nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community”. Perhaps it has by some. Who knows what various enthusiasts might have said. For your article to be taken seriously it must refer to the work by the authors of the “Active Thermitic Materials…” paper. Here are some errors.

    In your introduction, para 2, you refer to nanothermite as a “finely granulated form of thermite”. This gives the false impression that nanothermite is produced by finely grinding ordinary thermite. I have read your bio and see that you are capable of understanding the chemistry, thus I charge you with deliberately misleading the reader. You know as well as I do that nanothermite is manufactured by a sol-gel process in which the essential ingredients, aluminium and iron oxide, are combined at the molecular level in a matrix. You would also know that the matrix would be expected to generate gas.

    Then we read that nanothermite “served to pulverize the steel”. This is reminiscent of the disinformation which emanates from Judy Wood. You know the steel was not pulverized but was severed and fell in normal lengths. Why do you deceive?

    Your most egregious error is focusing on what various people might have said from time to time instead of studying the current clearly set out position. If you read through the “Active Thermitic Materials…” paper you will not find the phrase “high explosive” anywhere in it. You will find the word “explosive”, often in quotes from papers on the subject of nanothermites, where the authors of the various papers have no hesitation in using the word. It all boils down to how fast the material reacts as to whether it might be called a pyrotechnic or an explosive. It clearly states in the paper that nanothermite might have been used with some other explosive to bring down the buildings.

    It seems you want to know what might have been in the matrix. You will have read all the relevant papers so you already know that research has been done on the fluorine-containing compounds, viton and polyterafluoroethylene. You should know that the reaction of fluorine with aluminium produces more energy that does oxygen. You already know that the product of the reaction is aluminium trifluoride. You should know that this is a gas at the reaction temperature. It has a boiling point much lower than aluminium oxide. It can therefore do “pressure-volume” work. Other organic materials can produce gas when heated to the reaction temperature. What more do you need to know?

    You say your offer of $1000 is generous. It is not. You know that the highest propagation velocities in the literature are less than your cut-off level.

    You say that Prof Steven Jones made the error of placing nanothermite in the same category as the high explosive RDX. What do you mean by “the same category”? Did he say it had the same propagation velocity? I hardly think so. Please give me the quote. What he says now, and has always said as far as I know, is that nanothermite is tailorable and can be formulated with various properties. That comes straight from the literature, which you will have already read.

    You can read his current position here:

    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-ther

    In short your article is a magician’s trick. It is posing questions for investigation, but it is posing the wrong questions. You are trying to get your reader to think about the velocity of a nanothermite explosion. The proper thing to get your reader to think about is whether it is normal for nanothermite to be found in a building which has collapsed supposedly due to fire. And of course we have the work of Jon Cole which showed that even ordinary thermite, if confined, could cut through a steel beam, proving that high velocity flame fronts are not essential.

    Your strategy is very like that of CIT. Craig and Aldo try to distract their readers with the question of whether the plane came in to the Pentagon from the north or the south of the Citgo service station. If north it could not have done the observed damage and must have flown over. The proper question is whether the plane came in high or low. Every witness said the plane hit the Pentagon or was so low it could not miss. Not one witness has been found for overfly and hundreds were in a position to see it. It didn’t fly over – it hit the Pentagon.

    Similarly by distracting your readers with the question about whether nanothermite is a high explosive you appear to be hoping they will not give thought to the shatteringly important fact that nanothermite has no business in a building collapse due to fire. You appear to be mischievously spreading the myth that the Nanothermite paper is unsatisfactory. This harms the movement and does you no credit.

  13. Dear Josh.

    With all due respect I believe you are misreading my intentions and arguments.
    I am not arguing the merits of the article you mentioned. No where have I brought that in to my questions for him in this forum.

    I would also appreciate your response to the questions raised in the article cited above “9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples” http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

    I think it is imperative that on a point by point basis we consider the actual arguments brought by Mr. Fetzer and whether or not they are empirically sound. I have cited just a few examples of his having misrepresented the findings of the scholars responsible for penning the unchallenged nano-thermite paper.

    What is your opinion on his straw man attack which misrepresents the theories of the most prominent 9/11 scholars?

    I’m not jumping on any bandwagon. I am asking for him to explain why he is consistently misrepresenting the evidence and theories that supports the need for a new investigation immediately.

    Please consider the above information and most especially the research of Arabesque and Jim Hoffman in regards to this matter.

    Best wishes always,

    -Camron Wiltshire

    • Camron Wiltshire appears to be here to create as massive a distraction as he can from what most readers have found to be a penetrating and devastating critique of The Toronto Hearings. My discussions of the nature of information, of misinformation, and of disinformation are conceptual contributions that are not primarily empirical– where Camron may have no idea what “empirical” even means, since it entails appeals to evidence in the form of observations, measurements, and experiments–but are intended to clarify and illuminate the use of language that it might be utilized with greater precision and care. These clarifications are primarily intellectual, not empirical, though they do have connections to the use of those words within a language-using community.

      The term “empirical” refers to data derived from experience, where the studies Mark has uncovered about nanothermite are based upon empirical research. What we know about Israeli involvement in 9/11 is based upon empirical data. The work of CIT in gathering the testimony of witnesses to the plane that approached the Pentagon is empirical. And I explain exactly how the argument–first advanced by Joe Keith–about equal distances in equal times means equal speed in relation to the Hezarkhani and the Fairbanks videos involves observation (by counting frames using single-frame advance), measurement (which in this case is simply adding their number) and experiment (by performing these observations, summing them and comparing them) is also empirical.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with our research on nanothermite, but it appears that someone like you, who does not even understand the meaning of “empirical”, is not well positioned to understand it. I am stunned that you are persisting with these attacks, which show that you lack the intellectual ability to pursue any of these issues. I have also told you that, if you like, present specific arguments of mine (by laying them out so I can see you have not misunderstood them), explain what I have wrong (since you are presenting them to show that I am wrong), and I will be glad to reply to them. I have invited you to do this now several times.

      Do it–because otherwise you are making a fool of yourself and appear to be as intellectually inept as Bee Lee is morally corrupt. These are serious matters, where Joshua and I and T. Mark Hightower are doing our best to come to grips with the evidence. False theories about the explosive power of stuff like nanothermite do not advance the cause of 9/11 Truth. In fact, the aggressive promotion of exaggerated views about nanothermite by Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Neils Harrit, and others has had a constipating effect on the movement, where WE HAVE LOST FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH ON HOW IT WAS DONE to the “hard science” group. So get a grip!

      If you want to critique my work, then do that. But your ongoing repetition of baseless smears is wasting VT space, my time, and making you look idiotic. I concluded long ago that Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, and Victoria Ashley are among those who have done the most damage to the 9/11 movement, by the way. Perhaps you should spend some time studying what I have had to say about Jim Hoffman, for example, who appears to me to have been doing everything he can to derail the movement from presenting what we know about the Pentagon to the public. You have placed faith in false idols, which may go a long way to explaining your presence here. Take a look at the following:

      The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html

      What’s the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html

      If you had a better grasp of critical thinking, you would realize that Arabesque, for example, regularly employs the very practices of which he accuses me, including special pleading (by only offering evidence that supports his side), the straw man (by exaggerating my views to make them easier to attack), and the ad hominem (by trying to discount my arguments by attacking the person who presents them). If you want to understand how you are being used as a tool and have no idea of your function here, then you really need to study the history of attacks on me, which have by and large been based upon rumor, speculation and hearsay, which I have addressed in articles like these:

      “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

      “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/

      Give this a little more thought, Camron Wiltshire, because, I am sorry to say, you have been duped, big time!

  14. So you are not going to answer any of the assertions in the article then?
    I’m most definitely not “Arabesque”, I am simply presenting arguments and evidence that displays you have a seemingly irredeemable habit of misrepresenting the arguments of scholars in the 9/11 Truth movement.(ie Straw Man attacks) Coupled with simultaneously advocating the dismissal of key evidence (nano thermitic material) while substituting ambiguous evidence in it’s place, demonstrated in your article. “Is 9/11 based on a false theory”, it is only natural then that I should ask for your response to these serious questions about your authenticity as an agency for 9/11 truth.

    I’ve not accused you of lying. I’ve asked you to rebut the claims that you have been employing known disinformation techniques, while you are apparently in your own words well aware of these tactics. It’s hard to overlook this contradiction.

    I posted under We Are Change Atlanta as I volunteer with them and help organize. I don’t see how this is an issue whatsoever. I’ve nothing to hide. I’m an activist seeking the truth about 9/11 who posts as a representative for We Are Change Atlanta as well as myself. I also post on Disinfo.com, 911blogger, WeAreChangeAtlanta.com and on facebook.

    I’m not “desperate” to debunk you. I’m asking you questions. I will follow up on the articles you listed and get back to you. If you’ve nothing to hide then there is no need to take such an aggressive and defensive posture right? Relax Mr. Fetzer. If the links you provided exonerate you from the criticisms cited in the article by Arabesque than I will surely issue an apology. If not… well let’s just say you might want to consider the effect of your actions on humanity a little more deeply.

    I think you are asking me to personally restate the arguments implicating you as engaging in disinfo/misinfo as cited in the article. My question is how do you answer those claims. No need for me to restate the questions raised in the article “9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples”. Again if you have satisfactorily answered these claims then by all means please feel free to answer them point by point. I would be happy to copy and paste them point by point in this forum for you to answer if you like. Think of this as an opportunity to present your just nature by answering without utilization of ad hominem or other discursive logical fallacies your refutation of the evidence cited by Arabesque.

    I would like to talk with Arabesque though, perhaps we should invite him into this discussion?

    • Listen, it was rubbish then and it is rubbish now. I have replied already. If you think that I have committed disinformation–which is a form of lying with a political objective, which reinforces my assertion that you are a fraud, since you are accusing me of lying on one hand but also denying you are accusing me of lying on the other–then lay out your case against me. Pick whatever argument of mine you want, reconstruct it so we know you are not misrepresenting me, and explain what I am supposed to have wrong. Going back to ancient history in 2007 and 2009 is shabby. I have published quite a lot since then, none of which–before or after–qualifies as “disinformation”. I am convinced you are a mediocrity. If you want to concede you can’t do it, fine. Then man-up and admit you were wrong. Otherwise, state your case and I will deal with it. Pure and simple: put up or shut up!

      • To restate in my own words again.
        “http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter-about-subject-of.html
        Again what do you have to say to the evidence implicating you as intentionally spreading disinformation?”

        I have asked for you to respond to the above article. You have gone on to attack me for daring to do such a thing and again misrepresented me for issuing this query as accusing you of lying. Anyone who reads my words versus your interpretation of them will see this.

        I would prefer you pick any of the claims in the piece listed and respond. To merely brush it off and then dismiss it as “rubbish” without pointing to one particular claim is not satisfactory. Also I am not interested in parsing your latest misrepresentation of my argument, ie the claim that you have been misquoted or misrepresented by Arabesque who did nothing but quote your own words to substantiate that you are well aware of the tactics of disinformation. Thus it is very strange indeed that you would be employing them when apparently deliberately misrepresenting the positions of Steven E. Jones and the other notable scholars who penned the “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in regards to their theories as to the nature of the use of nanothermite in the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11.

        Case in point. Why do you pretend in your recent articles that Nano-Thermite is being touted as the only explosive agent responsible for the destruction of the twin towers?

        “. . . which has been widely construed to have established scientifically that nanothermite was found in the dust, that nanothermite is explosive, and that nanothermite was the crucial ingredient in bringing about the conversion of the Twin Towers into a few large pieces and millions of cubic yards of very fine dust,”

        Where at all is it ever stated by anyone other than you that Nano thermite is the “crucial” ingredient in the destruction of the towers?

        This is the epitome of a classic “Straw Man” argument or in this case as elucidated brilliantly by Arabesque it is understood as “Special Pleading” and being that you understand entirely the nature of these tactics as demonstrated by your own words here:

        DISINFORMATION and its Five Types by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.[36]

        Fifth Type of Disinformation:

        [Jim Fetzer:] “The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating—usually by writing—entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”[37]

        Jim Fetzer defines this type of disinformation as the promotion of misleading interpretations of evidence/data in a deliberate attempt to mislead. “Special pleading” is used to ignore relevant evidence without justifiable reason.

        You also imply throughout your article that this is the position of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
        “3) Will A&E admit that nanothermite cannot possibly be the “smoking gun” of 9/11 research, when the hard evidence contradicts that claim?”

        Again you are attacking your own strawman while also utilizing special pleading fallacies to ignore the actual theories as advocated by those you are misrepresenting.

        But don’t take my word for it. Let’s have a look at what they state versus what you selectively present as their perspective and theories.

        http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

        From the peer reviewed and unchallenged paper

        Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

        “for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).
        Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
        (about 900 ˚C or above) and gives a significantly broader
        trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the
        thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite.
        We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains”

        So they have made it obvious that they do not know as of yet exactly what forms of nanothermite were utilized or whether or not they were the sole agent. They all have speculated that there may have been the use of high explosives in coordination with the use of nano-thermite.

        “10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that
        an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to
        produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
        make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note
        that it is likely also an energetic material, in that

        the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
        exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

        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.

        Given that there is no reason if we are too believe the “official” conspiracy theory, for any thermitic residue whatsoever to have been found in the dust and that this alone serves as damning evidence requiring a new investigation, why are you apparently working to undermine their research and the yes, “smoking gun” nature of nanothermite conclusively discovered in the dust?

        Why do you ignore their actual claims and misrepresent their theories Mr. Fetzer?

        • How can the extensive research that T. Mark Hightower and I have done on nanothermite be a form of evasion? We have neither ignored their actual claims nor misrepresented them. Get a grip! Go back and reread “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” Apparently you have been so preoccupried with attacking me that you haven’t studied our work, even though it was published here at VT! I am more than appalled that you are persisting with this rubbish, Camron. You are the one promoting false theories, not us.

          It is not the discovery of nanothermite chips in the dust we are protesting (although there are those who think what they found could be an innocuous as paint chips or even rust from the building) but the exaggerated claims they have made on its behalf. Nanothermite cannot pulverize concrete or vaporize steel. It cannot possibly have blown those buildings apart and converted them into millions of cubic yards of very find dust. Go back and reread our work more carefully, Camron, because you are barking up the wrong tree. We are not the ones who have mislead the 9/11 Truth community about “explosive nanothermite”.

        • Have you even read our articles published here at Veterans Today? We not only quote from Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin but I also explain that, in June 2006, when I approached Steven Jones at the American Scholars Conference being held in Los Angeles and asked him if he was certain that nanothermite could explain all the data, including (and I said this to him) exploding the Twin Towers, pulverizing the concrete and disintegrating the steel, HE ASSURED ME IT COULD. Now this was a non-trivial conversation between the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and his co-chair. And it has become the dominant belief within the movement about how all of that was done. If they wanted to rein in exaggerated beliefs, they could have; but even the title of the latest from A&E, “Explosive Evidence”, reflects the myth of explosive nanothermite.

          Mark wrote to all of them, but the response was to brush him off or post shoddy research (“The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”). My guess is that you are being egged on by someone else–probably Kevin Ryan, but possibly Arabesque–who is using you as a dupe. Maybe I am wrong and you are simply unable to think this through, but a hoax has been perpetrated by those in the “hard science” group, which they perpetuated at The Toronto Hearings. Egad, Camron! If they were on the up-and-up, then why didn’t they even discuss Mark’s findings? How can they be up holding the standards of science if they won’t even explain what he has found and why (if they think he is wrong) he is wrong? You cannot be so dense that you cannot understand what this means. THEY WERE BOTH DECEITFUL AND UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT NANOTHERMITE. THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN OR DISCUSS WHAT MARK HAD FOUND. You need to stop shilling and start thinking for yourself.

    • Dear Camron,

      I think you should read Professor Fetzer’s arguments more carefully before you prescribe to the wrong interpretations of his work emanating from novices like Kevin Ryan. You are a smart chap and I appreciated you hearing me out the other day during our interview. But I am afraid to say that you seem to be ignorant of Professor Fetzer’s actual arguments.

      Professor Fetzer DOES argue that truth is not a condition for something to be classified as “information” but DOES NOT argue that wrong information ought to be taken as truthful which is the implication of your critique. Here is an illustration of Professor Fetzer’s classification of information: I could argue that Camron is a nice guy who has not read Fetzer’s arguments carefully and you could argue that Camron is a nice guy who has read Fetzer’s arguments very carefully. Professor Fetzer would argue that both propositions are information. He would also acknowledge that only one can be true, in this case seemingly the former rather than the latter. Hence we have two pieces of information; one true and one false. Some philosophers who disagree with Professor Fetzer would argue that truth IS a condition for something to constitute “information.” For them only the former but not the latter would be classified as “information.” This is merely a debate to do with semantics and vocabulary. There is no evidence that Professor Fetzer has been “employing known disinformation techniques.” Indeed when one reads Kevin Ryan’s mischaracterization of Professor Fetzer’s peer-reviewed writings on the subject of what constitutes “information” we see a classic example of “known disinformation techniques.” I can’t help wondering whether its because Professor Fetzer is such an exemplary academic that dilettantes who can’t keep up with him, many of whom have built careers based on false-theories (e.g. nanothermite-as-high-explosive theory), go to such lengths to denounce and discredit him.

      I encourage you to rethink jumping on the anti-Fetzer bandwagon. Increasingly genuine scholars are noticing that those who have been ostracizing Professor Fetzer are the ones who need to be critically scrutinized.

      Yours Sincerely,

      Joshua Blakeney

      • GORDON DUFF / JIM DEAN — Kindly remove this boor from posting at VT. He puts up drivel, insults serious people, and even lies here, as he has done by insinuating that I was posting under some name other than my own. He has worn out his welcome and does not deserve the privilege. Thanks.

      • Dear Ben,

        You have just defamed me by asserting that I accept money to propagate certain views. I can tell you that I have a very meagre income as a full time student. I do what I do because I want to end the 9/11 wars and liberate those imprisoned in Gaza. Sunstein and Zelikow are both ardent Zionists and therefore it would be odd if it was Professor Fetzer and I who were operating at their behest as we are among a minority of Truthers who openly speak about Israeli involvement in 9/11. Surely those who spread the myth of Saudi/al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 would be better for you to focus on as it is they who draw attention away from the real culprits of 9/11 which must be ideologically pleasing to Sunstein and Zelikow.

        Please provide evidence to support your assertions or retract them.

        Sincerely,

        Joshua

        • Camron,

          Let me give this one more go in a series of points, where, if there is one you don’t understand, then let me know and I will explain it. Be specific about the points by number.

          (1) The study of the nature of information, misinformation, and disinformation is a classic for philosophers, who engage in conceptual clarification as a professional activity.

          (2) That I am engaged in the study of disinformation no more implies that I engage in it than the study of cannibalism by anthropologists implies that they are also cannibals.

          (3) I would have replied to Arabesque at the time–as I am disposed to do–but for having been booted from 911blogger, which was being converted into a disinformation op.

          As for the specific claims you have made about misrepresenting the views of Jones, Ryan and Harrit, for example, consider the three positions that they have now advanced:

          (4) that nanothermite is explosive and could have blown the Twin Towers apart, pulverized the concrete and decimated the steel, which T. Mark Hightower has refuted in spades;

          (5) that nanothermite could be combined with explosives to make it explosive, which is true but trivial (because it is also true of toothpaste and of breakfast cereal, alas); and,

          (6) that there may be explosive versions of nanothermite that the military has developed, which are classified and not available to the public, which makes this speculation.

          If you will go back and reread our articles about nanothermite, you will see that we have talked about all of these alternatives, including in the one above, in case you missed it.

          So if there is something you don’t understand, then identify what that is point-by-point and I will do what I can to address it–even if I have already done that, time after time. OK?

  15. One of the 9/11 researchers most criticized for promoting false and misleading information about 9/11 is Jim Fetzer. A co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Fetzer has been harshly criticized for promoting information and theories about 9/11 widely regarded as disinformation.

    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter-about-subject-of.html

    Again what do you have to say to the evidence implicating you as intentionally spreading disinformation?

    I advise everyone who reads this article to do their homework and understand the patterns of ad hominem and straw man attacks regularly utilized by Mr. Fetzer against prominent scholars within the movement and their research.

    • Camron Wiltshire not only employs the classic disinformation practice of posting under different names (such as “WeAreChangeAtlanta” and “Camron Wiltshire”) but I strongly suspect has long been posting under the name of “Arabesque” as well. In this day and age, we all have to become familiar with the nature of misinformation and of disinformation or be vulnerable to the machinations of the likes of him. Look at it his way: If he had any arguments that would show I have anything wrong, he would not be citing rubbish posted back in 2007 and in 2009!

      I am not quite sure why he is so desperate to debunk me, but he is doing a very poor job of it. Bear in mind that there is a fairly precise parallel between lying and disinformation, where “lying” requires (a) making an assertion (b) which is false (c) when you know it is false, and (d) making it anyway with the intent to mislead your audience. I have been the target of attacks based upon rumor, speculation, and hearsay for years and years, as these attack from long ago illustrate. I have replied to them more than once. Here, for example, are two public rebuttals:

      “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

      “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/

      The second of these articles, which appears here at VT, includes links to my studies on the nature of information, misinformation, and disinformation, which were published in MINDS AND MACHINES, an international journal for artificial intelligence, philosophy, and cognitive science. It is a peer-reviewed journal of very high quality, which I founded and edited for ten years (1991-2001) and co-edited for one more year while making the transition to a new Editor-In-Chief. So I was not editing the journal at the time these articles were refereed and published there:

      “Information: Does it Have to be True?”, Minds and Machines 14/2 (May 2004), pp. 223-229.
      “Disinformation: The Use of False Information”, Minds and Machines 14/2 (May 2004), pp. 231-240.

      Now, in my opinion, Camron Wiltshire is a complete fraud who is projecting by accusing me of what he is practicing. So I hereby issue this challenge: Show any case in which you believe that I satisfy the conditions for disinformation (a) through (d) above so we can discuss it. Explain my argument and what I have wrong and cite your sources so we will have a basis for determining whether or not you are distorting my position in order to attack it. You have shown you are willing to lodge allegations that you cannot sustain, because that is your role here. Prove me wrong.

      • A fair challenge, one that will show that Mr Wiltshire is presenting the wrong analysis of the intent behind Prof Fetzer’s “video fakery” mania. The answer is simple, really, if one looks at the good professor’s decades of fruitful academic labors: he is a doyen of post-modernism. Thus anything and everything he says about science or reality is utter bunkum and unrelated to the real world. If our perception of the world, and of “reality”, is defined by texts, then those same texts can be used to manipulate the masses to accepting a false reality. But the professor tries way too hard to make the “facts” fit his preconceived idea of what were the actual events of 9/11.

        • This is complete bunk. Not only am I not “a doyen of post-modernism”, I am committed to realism and truth. Williamesque has no idea what he is talking about. My views are closely aligned to those of the movement known as “logical empiricism”, where my most recent discussion can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the entry for “Carl Hempel”, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/

          Not only does Williamesque fail at philosophy, he also displays confusion about “video fakery” in New York. Since I have given a concise argument that demonstrates its occurrence in this article, perhaps he would show what I am supposed to have wrong instead of misrepresenting scientific research on this matter as “”video fakery’ mania”. Where do you people come from? I find this all quite bizarre.

          • So I’ve failed the philosophy quiz. A shame. Yet you sound like a post-modernist, despite all your prognostication about presenting “scientific” explanations. If there was “video fakery” perhaps the planes weren’t that at all. The hell with what people claim to have seen that day, a few anomalies in some selected videos will do it… Who was that famous French post-modernist who questioned the existence of the first Gulf War on the grounds that we all saw on it TV so perhaps it was not real?…

            This is your “concise explanation”:

            “And what we did see on television about the hit on the North Tower and on the South were laden with anomalies that make them highly suspect as examples of video fakery.”

            And yes, I have examined your article – http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery–by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html – and find it wanting, despite your frequent and at times boastful references to “experts”, to Morgan Reynolds the “accomplished scholar” with the supposedly “exceptional study” (though perhaps it is “exceptional” given its serious treatment of an impossible premise), and your own modest resume. I note in particular your suggestion in your OpEdNews piece that:

            “Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, since, although the planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or might not have been present if the videos are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings. Although the absence of planes is even more controversial than video fakery, I would observe, there is considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to conceal the absence of planes.”

            So I take it that you and the highly esteemed Mr Reynolds have diligently tracked down each and every witness on the streets of Manhattan in the vicinity of the WTC before the second plane allegedly hit to see if they really saw a plane, or just thought they did… And that you have accounted for every single piece of video footage taken that day, not just the prominent media examples, but actually found instances of amateur footage which confirms that what occurred in your preferred examples was not possible?

            I guess not. But that is because the theory you promote, with admittedly sophisticated sophistry is even too much for the most ardent 9/11 Truthers, who have in a pleasing rediscovery of real science, as opposed to that which animates much speculation about controlled demolition, recognized that the “video fakery”/”no plane” theory really cannot fly:

            http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312764/pg1
            http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

            But I guess you knew that anyway. So when does Jim Fetzer the conspiracy academic suddenly fess up to the ethics committee that his long-running research project is over?

          • In response to your response below (October 4)

            Jim, thanks for the many kind and encouraging words – “ignoramus”, “dunce”, “fool” – it’s nice to be dealing with a professional academic not some deranged individual who thinks if he acts like someone who doesn’t suffer fools, his own massive ignorance will be concealed. You are truly a credit to your university. But I digress.

            I note in passing that you seem unable to give me an answer on whether or not you tracked down the video footage or the all the witnesses. Despite your petulant concede-nothing blustering, the fact is you have no facts: your theory of “video fakery” is not based on evidence of actual video fakery i.e. this video came from here and was modified by this person etc, but the opinions of others that the aircraft hitting the WTC as filmed is somehow impossible. Thus, in Jim Fetzer’s world of “science”, because the event is somehow impossible, therefore there is ample reason to suspect the video is faked, and by extension, there may not have been any planes, even if the last argument is offered sotto voice…

            I see nothing in your articles or your responses to other critics other than the same repetition of the same flawed claims, the same failure to acknowledge the facts that others, albeit mostly Truthers, have pointed out in regards to the serious empirical flaws that permeate your ludicrous argument. Facts such as: your failure to account for all video footage, your misunderstanding of basic physics, your inability to grasp that a large aircraft flying at 500mph will do a lot of damage to a skyscraper and not splatter like an orange against a wall, or an ultralight against a mountain; and simple reality that your theory, like David Ray Griffin’s various contortions, is based on disbelief and supported with distortions, omissions and shameless cherry-picking. You refuse to accept the basic facts of 9/11 so you have constructed your own alternate reality. You suggest no planes through the device of “video fakery”, while Griffin concocts an impossible scenario of faked phone calls from the doomed planes. But like Griffin’s utterly unfounded fake phonecall speculation, you have presented absolutely no – i.e nothing, zero, zilch – evidence that the video footage, all of it, was “faked”. You indulge in anomaly hunting and collating opinions, and seek to protect through puerile insults, declarations and evidence-free assertions, an ultimately impossible theory.

            If ALL the videos of the aircraft hitting WTC 1 and WTC2 are faked “who” faked ALL of them? And if the videos are faked, then there must be somewhere two sets of videos: the “faked” and the unfaked. If the former is true, then the latter must exist in some form. But I note some article suggest up to 40 pieces of video of the WTC2 crash exist. Where are they? Have you examined each and every piece; have you determined their providence?

            If your theory is true there must two sets. But I see no attempt to resolve this issue, instead you work from the wrong angle: you have decided the video is fake because you’ve decided to believe some opinions that what was witnessed and filmed was impossible. You’ve invented your counter-narrative based but on supposition, not clear evidence that footage was actually manipulated. You have not proven your case.

          • I have used those words only because they fit your degrees of ignorance. As I have explained many times, as I use the phrase, “video fakery”, any use of videos to convey a false impression of what happened on 9/11 qualifies. In this case, as I have also explained, the Naudet Brother’s film seems to show, not a Boeing 767 hitting the North Tower, but what may be a close arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles, as Rosalee Grable has suggested.

            In relation to the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks’ footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower, many sources, including Pilots for 9/11 Truth, have confirmed that the plane is traveling at a speed of around 560 mph that would have been impossible for a standard 767, where at such a speed and altitude, the plane would be unmanageable (in capable of being piloted) and come apart physically, as they illustrate in their latest documentary, “9/11 Intercepted”.

            Moreover, the plane enters the building with no collision effects, even though it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected to the massive core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and, at 208′x208′ square (minus the core columns), represented approximately an acre of concrete apiece. What would happen if a plane in flight were to intersect with just one?

            If that is too much for your imagination, then notice that I explain rather precisely how a frame-by-frame advance shows the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is physically impossible unless this massive 500,000 ton building posed no more resistance to its flight path than air. Since we are witnessing events that are impossible with real planes, we are dealing with one or another form of video fakery.

            What this means is that evidence INTERNAL TO THESE VIDEOS demonstrates that we are dealing with video fakery. There were not “two sets of videos”, as you have supposed, but only one, because these forms of video fakery appear to have been accomplished by the use of fake planes–an arrangement of UAVs, in the first instance, and some kind of holographic projection, in the second–which was used to convey the false impression of the towers having been hit by real planes. Q.E.D.

            While I mention the alternatives of video compositing, CGIs, and holographic projection in this column, I have explained many times, including in this discussion thread, that the more weight we attach to the witness reports, the more reason we have to conclude that it was some form of holographic projection. You should be more familiar with my point of view, which has been presented at VT many times now, even in replies to your own comments. So I won’t suggest that you are an idiot, but only that you are wrong.

          • To your response below: I acknowledge slightly fewer insults, but the greater clarity your provide only confirms why you find it necessary to resort to such insults. I note that can be no doubt you are a “no-planer” as you state: “these forms of video fakery appear to have been accomplished by the use of fake planes–an arrangement of UAVs, in the first instance, and some kind of holographic projection, in the second…” I admire your imagination, but I would suggest the technology to achieve such a feat was no more available in 2001 (or even now) than the instant voice-morphing technology that David Ray Griffin likes to fantasize about in his desperate attempts to eliminate the troublesome airphone calls from his narratives.

            You also write:

            “the plane enters the building with no collision effects, even though it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were connected to the massive core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete and, at 208′x208′ square (minus the core columns), represented approximately an acre of concrete apiece. What would happen if a plane in flight were to intersect with just one?”

            You know what happened Jim. We can see it on the videos. The aircraft had sufficient speed and strength to punch through the outer layer of the WTC buildings, but theyaircraft were ultimately destroyed in the process. QED.

            Keep spinning Jim,

          • This is another example of why, in my opinion, you lack the ability to think things through. Go to “Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”, and LOOK at the diagram of the South Tower and the eight (8) floors with which the plane was intersecting. It would have been physically impossible to have entered completely into the building–which the videos show–without massive crumpling, the wings and tail breaking off, and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. The fireball should have exploded at that point, not after it has completely entered the building.

            I have explained what was going on and why they had to fake it: (1) to get the plane completely inside the South Tower; (2) to actually hit the building at all, which Pilots for 9/11 Truth confirm was extraordinarily difficult; and (3) to have an explanation (of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts) to account for those explosions in the subbasements, which drained the water supply from the sprinkler systems. I have no idea why you cannot process all of this, since I have explained it many times. I don’t want to insult you, William, but you appear to me to be cognitively impaired.

          • Well it didn’t Jim. The plane punched through and then broke up into thousands of pieces. It was big, it was heavy, and it was very fast. The only person who is cognitively impaired is clearly you who in the face of reality concocts impossible explanations of holographic images and UAV arrays to account for what you have decided is impossible. The WTC buildings were office blocks, not fortresses. And what hit them on 9/11 was significantly bigger and faster than what had the buildings original engineers had modeled. What happened on 9/11 was the ultimate test for their 1960s modeling, and they appear to have been wrong.

            Interested readers can review all the footage collected at the NIST site as they contemplate your wild fantasies.

            http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=tags.VirtualAlbum&g2_tagName=2nd+Plane+Strike&g2_page=1

          • Williamesque, You really are something else–just the kind of guy that video fakery was designed to take in! And look at what a stunning job they have done with you. I would nominate you for the most gullible person posting here, which is a step above what we are getting from Camron Wiltshire. As I have often observed, the “official account” is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. Exhibit #1: Williamesque!

  16. The Straw Man Attack Continues. Mr. Fetzer what do you have to say about the following article?
    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

    • That I do philosophical research on the nature of misinformation and disinformation no more implies that I practice them than that cultural anthropologists who study cannibalism means that they are cannibals. It is rather ironic that you would use a classic “straw man” attack to claim that I am using straw man attacks. I presume you can do better.

  17. This will be a normal country agn when Bush/Cheney are sworn under oath and answering questions, Dominic Suter is extradited back here…Dov Zakheim, Silverstein and Lowy. Michael S. Goff…Mitre and P-Tech all need to be questioned and/or waterboarded….They seem to like doing it to innocent arabs so much so why not? For a long time we shrunk fm calling people like Lieberman and Cantor and Perle, Feith agents of a foreign govt…we were just Americans trying to be polite..we have no longer have time for that now..restraints of time and the displayed viciousness of our real enemies require real action…Gen Mattis? Someone, anyone…please help us.

    • no need to extradite Suter back, he’s back already. Buying real estate in Miami, but more or less based back in New Jersey where he was during his 9/11 mass murder days.

      so no extradition necessary. Just ask the corpse of John Wheeler III. he’d tell you if he could still talk.

  18. Israel may not have done it alone….they may have even planned the whole thing but certainly some Americans helped on 9/11.
    Was the primary war criminal Bush or Netanyahu?
    Votes?
    Anyone for Jonathan Kay?

    • I think Bush sr. is at the top of that pyramid, but full partners with the Jews.

    • No way Bush was the top dog. I never thought I’d say these words, but my vote’s for Cheney.

    • Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith…

    • I think you’re more or less correct, Gordon. Israel was fully in-charge that day, and Dick Cheney’s job was to be a fat pasty assed linebacker running the NORAD interference to make it all possible. But Israeli’s were fully in control as they are this very moment. But you knew that, obviously.

      In any case, it’s encouraging to see so many American’s wake up to the ISRAELI stench.

      I’m sure the fetid dank walking corpse known as Richard Bruce Cheney has phantom rope itch on his skanky neck every daybreak before he crawls into his sarcophagus and goes down for the day..

    • I think the most accurate and most useful way to say it is that 9/11 was planned and carried out by Jewish supremacists, with help from traitors in high places in the “U.S. government”.

  19. Somehow this muddling, mumbling rambling piece of shit writing, “clarifying revelation” has succeeded in further confusing an entire issue which I once thought was clear and straight forward… the 9-11 job done by the CIA/USAF and Mossad/Israel on the WTC and the Pentagon.

    What is the purpose here? , To hide and further confuse, or to bury even deeper the cover-up?

    Earlaiman

    • Earlaiman, are you cognitively impaired? Because that 9/11 WAS done by the CIA/USAF and Mossad/Israel on the WTC and the Pentagon is EXACTLY what I am explaining here, which was BURIED by The Toronto Hearings. Maybe reading with understanding is not your greatest strength, but you should be upset with those I am criticizing, not with me (or Mark or Joshua). Give this just a little more thought.

  20. Science at the Toronto hearings about 9/11? According to AE911, it’s been proven that if you look for other explosives in the dust rubble, you could suffer beri beri, head crabs, diahrrea, and maybe even get diagnosed with receding forehead syndrome and lock jaw. Let’s get real here. Anytime suppression of
    any criminal evidence occurs, it’s a cover-up campaign, pure and simple. It’s a wonder that Gage and Ryan didn’t drag out diagrams of Nibiru and Planet X from 2001 vintage and point the finger at an alien invasion rather than lay it at the feet of the Israeli government where it belongs, along with the U.S. shillitary via NORAD.

    Stay on script, exclude all non pre-vetted evidence that doesn’t solely support nano-thermite, and then declare there is evidence to support a B-757 striking the Pentagon, was all these hearings were about.

    You know it and I know it. They might as well have held the hearing at the Bush compound in Crawford, TX., for all the fluff and pomp and circumstance and virtually zero substance we didn’t already have in our hands anyway.

    • We Sunnis do hate us some Shi’ites, yes we do, uh huh, uh huh. We gonna git us some!

      A few years ago it was ‘Hezbollah cooperating with al-Qaida’. Debkafile says Libyan supplied MANPADs and antiship mines have already reached Gaza. Oy…

      Who writes this infantile crap, Michael Bay??

      And who buys it?
      Let’s see:
      1) The US
      2) Some Brits
      3) India (besieged by Islamic terror! Ally of Israel! Bharat Hind!)
      4) Singapore (surrounded by potential Muslim enemies/terrorists, forever living in fear of their darker neighbours and pissing everyone off, Israeli-style) “We are so great, hor…”
      Everyone who buys Dragon/Blue Box Toys Modern US Military action figures/ airsoft hobbyists who re-create JSOC/SEAL Team 6 operations (e.g. ‘Skull-faced Infidels’) against the Islamic terrorists etc.

      and of course…
      That little country in the Levant, perpetually under siege, krav maga-ing dirty suicide bombers into pieces with their bare hands?

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. The Kosher Trinity and Jewish Quantum Mechanics
  2. Iran to Hold First International Shakespeare Conference
  3. VA Researchers Receive Nation’s Top Award for Early Career Scientists
  4. Sandy Hook Elementary School: closed in 2008, a stage in 2012
  5. VetLikeMe Weekly 4/11/14
  6. Speculators, Cartels & Myths of Scarcity
  7. Lavrov – Kiev’s Illegal Use of Force Damages Talks
  8. Syria False Flags Exposed – War is Over
  9. Jonathan Pollard still Serving Israeli Espionage
  10. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – April 14, 2014
  11. All veterans eligible for VA dental coverage
  12. Reports: Idiot Jew-hater kills two Methodists and a Catholic in KC
  13. Why Are So Many Older Veterans Committing Suicide?
  14. Palestinians join Geneva Conventions on war rules – Switzerland
  15. The Blackman Appeal
  16. The Boston Marathon Bombing One Year Later: A Detailed Look
  17. West has no play over Kiev gas subsidy
  18. Validating the Second Amendment
  19. Malaysia Boeing 777 passengers safe and sound in Afghanistan: any odds?
  20. Saturn Eats His Children
  1. ani: all the while Australian MSM is going ga ga over baby George and Kate's gold/yellow dress and that, opines MSM, entrenches the decadent, exploitative/parasitic system. I see stunning, evolved babies every ...
  2. Simpsons Donkey: Putin needs to press the GO button, NOW. Donetsk region needs to be kept viable, or Russia is never going to be paid for its gas. The Nazi junta in Kiev ...
  3. ani: deranged, depraved deceivers is what 'they' are. failure??? You mean all those 'terrorists' out there? In the gutter? Threatening and murdering us?? We are the Champions, and don't youse forget it, peasants who don't know ...
  4. ani: mydogissick I do not know his (or even her-) story in fine detail. What I do know, is that my Dutch mother could easily be a descendant of the Danes ...
  5. leecahalan: (didn't get to finish as my laptop went wild and posted before finishing) Israeli Arabs may dislike or even hate the Israelis as this anger seems to be the currency of ...

Veterans Today Poll

When will the New World Order One World Government officially be announced?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives