9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery”

by Jim Fetzer


Perhaps no question within the scope of 9/11 research generates as much heat and as little light as questions that have arisen over the role of the aircraft on 9/11, which has come to be known by the name of “planes/no planes” and of “video fakery”. While I had long since concluded that no plane had crashed in Shanksville and that, while a Boeing 757 appears to have flown toward and then over the Pentagon, I was personally unable to bring myself to take the idea that no real airplanes had hit the North or the South Tower seriously until nearly two years of being verbally assailed by Morgan Reynolds, who understood these issues far better than I, where his studies can be found on his web site, nomoregames.net, especially a response to criticism he has received for raising the issue during a FOX News appearance. 

Morgan has also authored excellent critiques of alternative theories of how the Twin Towers were destroyed.  It was the dawning realization that video fakery and real planes were logically consistent, since video fakery could have been used to conceal features of the planes or of their entry into the buildings, that enabled me to take a serious look to sort out what was going on here.  Even I initially thought the very idea was quite bizarre.

During the research I have done on this question, some of the most important reasons to question the use of planes on 9/11 are (1) that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and, (2) that, according to FAA Registration records I have in hand, the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?”  We have studies (3) by Elias Davidsson demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research (4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were faked.  And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one.  My purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling to take it seriously.

Flights 11 and 77: The BTS Tables

The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 was the brilliant Australian blues musician, Gerard Holmgren, who was interviewed by David West on 27 June 2005.  Others, such as Nick Kollerstrom, “9 Keys to 9/11″, have also reported the same difficulty with the government’s official account.  If AA Flight 11 did not even take off from Boston’s Logan Airport on the morning of 9/11, then it cannot possibly have hit the North Tower around the 96th floor at 0846 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 92 passengers.  And if AA Flight 77 did not take off from Dulles International on the morning of 9/11, then it, also, cannot have crashed into the Pentagon at 0940 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 64 passengers.  Yet that is what the data that Holmgren discovered in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows to have been the case.  In his new book, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), Edward Hendrie has published the data tables for both of these alleged flights, where it turns out that the BTS subsequently revised their tables with partial data in order to cover up their absence.  For Flight 77, for example:

The tables for AA Flight 77 can be found in Hendrie’s book on pages 9 and 11, while similar tables for AA Flight 11 can be found on pages 8 and 10.  The case against the use of planes becomes even more powerful when we realized that, as David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), explains, Waleed al-Shehri, whom the government claims was aboard AA Flight 11, was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based newspaper and spoke with the US Embassy in Morocco on 22 September, which would have been remarkable for someone who had died when the plane he allegedly helped to hijacked hit the North Tower.  And the same is true of Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, both alleged to have been aboard Flight 93 and were interviewed by multiple sources, while the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., reported that three other alleged hijackers, Mohand al-Shehri, Salem al-Hazmi, and Abdulzaiz al-Omairi, were all alive and well and living in Saudia Arabia (page 19).  Salem al-Hazmi was supposed to have been aboard AA Flight 77 and al-Nami to have piloted AA Flight 11 (page 20), which reinforces the BTS data.

Flight 11: On-Site Evidence

If AA Flight 11 was not even in the air on 9/11, then we should expect to find indications of  one or another kind of video fakery in the evidence.  As the term should be properly understood, “video fakery” encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression to mislead a target audience.  Although Hollywood specializes in the presentation of impossible events, its films do not generally qualify as “video fakery”, insofar as they are not intended to mislead their audience.  The situation on 9/11, however, appears to qualify. Remarkably enough, Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”.

Indeed, as Leslie Raphael has explained and Jerry Mazza has confirmed, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, its improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, which may have been the trigger for a prearranged explosion to create a pattern of damage to the side of the building, which turns out to have anomalies of its own.

Both AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175, which is alleged to have hit the South Tower, were Boeing 767s, while AA Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were both Boeing 757s. While individual images are too blurry and indistinct even to be identifiable as a commercial carrier, much less as a Boeing 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—which was prepared by Rosalee Grable—reveals that it does not bear even a faint resemblance.  She has speculated that it might be an arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. How can four impact points–which suggest that it may be four UAVs–that constitute an extended “Z” have been turned into an impression in the side of the building that has now become an elongated “V”?  That video fakery was involved here appears to be difficult to deny.

Flight 77: On-Site Evidence

There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon, which appears to be a fantasy. This “hit point” was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125′ wingspan and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. The debris is wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines, which are made of titanium and steel, were recovered.

According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped the wing off and caused the plane to burst into flame. The aerodynamics of flight, including “ground effect”, moreover, would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which means that the official account is neither physically nor aerodynamically possible.  And the only image that the Pentagon has ever produced of an aircraft approaching the building cannot possibly be a 757:

The plane (in the red box) is too small to be a Boeing 757, which Jack White has sized for comparison. Russ Wittenburg in the DVD “Zero“, an experienced pilot who flew the planes alleged to have been used on 9/11, states that the Boeing 757 can’t go 500 mph hour at sea level because the air is too dense. Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller, in the same film, explains that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuvers attributed to it. The official story thus appears to entail violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, insofar as the damage to the building, the absence of debris, the clear, smooth, unblemished lawn and now its alleged performance are incompatible with a Boeing 757.

Moreover, if a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines. At this point, it appears to be “pilling on” to observe that data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and higher altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if the NTSB’s own data corresponds to the Boeing 757 that is alleged to have been flown toward the building, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.  For more, see “Pandora’s Black Box” and “Pentacon“, which offer additional substantiation.

What about Flights 93 and 175?

As Greg Szymanski observed, “Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The FAA ‘Active’ List” (26 November 2005), both of the United airplanes that were supposed to have crashed on 9/11 were  only ‘deregistered’ in September “after snoopy 9/11 researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier”.  And, indeed, Szymanski had it right.  FAA Registration data shows that they were not officially reported to have been taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which is more than four years after they had “official” crashing in Shanksville (United Flight 93) and crashed into the South Tower (United Flight 175):

Notice the “Reason for Cancellation” in each case is simply “Cancelled”.  No pretense that they might have been destroyed in crashes four years earlier.  Just as we discovered in the case of the BTS data for American Flights 11 and 77, where replacement records were created to add those flights to the data based where they were previously missing, that form of documentary fakery was also perpetrated in the case of the FAA Registration records, where both of the planes that were associated with those flights also appear, but with deregistration dates of 14 January 2002 and the purported “Reason for Cancellation” in their case of “Destroyed”:

As we found in the case of AA Flight 11 at the North Tower and AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon, the on-site evidence does not confirm that United Flight 93 actually crashed in Shanksville or that United Flight 175 hit the South Tower, which, as we are going to discover, is far and way the most interesting of the forms of fakery surrounding the planes that are supposed to have been “hijacked” on 9/11.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth Corroboration

Indeed, the evidence that United Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that United Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower has been considerably strengthened by new discoveries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.  By means of meticulous research on electronic communications between those aircraft and air traffic controllers, they have been able to establish that United Flight 93 was in the air in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, IN, and Champaign, IL, at the time of the alleged Shanksville crash.  Since no aircraft can be in two places at one time, it is difficult to imagine more conclusive proof that the Shanksville crash of Flight 93 was another fabricated event:

Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City.  This may come as quite a shock to those who watched as it entered the South Tower on television.  Indeed, when an FBI official was asked why the NTSB, for the first time in its history, had not investigated any of these four crashes, he replied that it wasn’t necessary “because we saw them on television”.  Well, we didn’t see the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon crash on TV, which leaves us wondering what we did see on television on 9/11.

Flight 93: On-Site Evidence

Just as America Airlines planes were supposed to be Boeing 767s, both of these United planes were supposed to be Boeing 757s. A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is the most eerie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

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

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

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

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

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

An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. There are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked, however, and that Ms. McClatchey has to have had reasons of her own for taking such a deceptive public stance. The plume in her photo (left) resembles those from detonation explosions (center) more than it does fires from crash sites (right), for example, and estimates of the location of the plume from where the photo was allegedly taken place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The virtually complete absence of any debris from the Shanksville “crash site” was explained on the basis of the claim that the ground had been used for mining in the past and was therefore “very soft”, where the plane completely disappeared into the ground. Some accounts even have it that the plane disappeared into an abandoned mine shaft. But we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts: we bring out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dig 24/7 in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might have survived. But that was not done in Shanksville, where no effort was made to save anyone or even recover the bodies–and for good reason. There were none.

Flight 175: On-Site Evidence

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

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

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

Image and video hosting by TinyPicIndeed, as John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, has observed, the plane in these videos does not even have strobe lights, which are required of every commercial carrier. Even more strikingly, as Ben Collet noticed, this “plane” appears to cast no shadows. How can a Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery.

The Use of Video Fakery

Since we all saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower on television–and many also claim to have watched it happen with their own eyes–what was actually going on in New York City? What did we see on television or, assuming we take the witnesses at face value, with their own eyes? There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively. That third alternative may sound “far out” until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes, which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that was used. Since we are dealing with visual phenomena, here are some videos that illustrate what I have been talking about in relation to “video fakery”:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“Totally fake! But you would still believe it!”

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe”

The serious question that has to arise at this point, of course, is “Why?” Would it not have been far simpler just to fly a real plane into the North Tower and another into the South? Where the answer turns out to be, “No”. Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that it is extremely difficult to hit an edifice 208′ across at more than 500 mph. After 20 or more tried it repeatedly, only one was able to hit it once. In addition, a real plane could not enter all the way into the building before it would explode. But that was a requirement of the mission, since otherwise there would have been no pseudo-explanation for the subsequent “collapse” of the buildings due to fire. And equally important, the explosions that were planned for the subbasements to drain the towers’ sprinkler systems of water so they could not extinguish the relatively modest fires that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. The plan was to explain them away as residual effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts–a flawed theory, but good enough for a gullible public.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“The Theory of a Ghostplane”

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“Proof Plane that Hit was Hologram”

The mission required something that looked like a real plane but could perform feats that no real plane could perform by entering the building before it would explode, which would have been impossible with a real plane. And that had to be timed to coincide with explosions in the subbasements that, even with the most meticulous planning, would inadvertently take place 14 and 17 seconds before the planes appeared to hit the buildings.  It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution.  But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton’s laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air.  As in the case of the Pentagon, they thereby violated laws of aerodynamics and of physics that gave their game away.  And those blemishes, subtle as they may have been, have provided the opportunity to expose a fantastic fraud, which has been used to justify wars of aggression and constraints upon civil rights that our nation continues to endure to this day.


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


Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

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

Related Posts:

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

Posted by on 8:44 pm, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

121 Responses to "9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery”"

  1. dirtus napus  March 6, 2012 at 1:42 pm


    This came out perhaps under the discovery process in an unrelated law suite. It shows a new angle of the pentagon strike, and glimpse of what I believe is a missile hitting the pentagon. This is real, and vetted.

    Compared to the vehicle sizes on the overpass and traffic below, I think it’s substantial in refuting a few details of the plane idealists.


  2. j0hn  March 1, 2012 at 7:47 am

    Jim, the aircraft nose coming through the other side of the building is definitely problematic. If in fact the nose hit one particular floor and then came out another I would agree with you in that would not seem to be possible. This is more true BECAUSE of my comparison to the Sandia test in that the nose should have disintegrated rather than had the ability to come out the other side.

    As for the speeds the NTSB and FAA said that 175 made it’s turn and descended from 28,000 feet. It is possible to get that aircraft up to that speed in a full power descent if you did not care about structural damage. Or to say it another way pilots are not sure one way or the other if these aircraft can go beyond VMO much less VNE which is really just a manufacturer recommendation.

    The effortless entry is due to speed. The nose coming through the other side? Hmmm.

    Holograms? Possible given how far black projects may be in advancement when compared to what is available generally. I may or may not have seen a picture of several YF-117s during the early 90s which was taken during the 70s…

    • Jim Fetzer  March 1, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      Well, Pilots has a study showing that the speed shown in the videos would be impossible for a standard Boeing 767. And the “effortless entry” is certainly NOT due to speed. You brought up the Sandia test, but didn’t notice that the plane did NOT pass through the barrier. The plane hitting the South Tower would no more pass through the building while intersecting those eight (8) floors than a car would pass through an enormous tree during a collision–no mater how fast you drive it! I really don’t get why someone who appears to be intelligent would advance an argument that depends on the violation of Newton’s laws of motion. And others have committed the same blunder. It really makes me wonder how our society could have become so ignorant about science and the laws of physics. You can find Pilots’ studies on pilotsfor911truth.com. I suggest you check out “9/11 Intercepted”.

  3. Steve  February 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Interesting info, uncertain conclusions. A couple of thoughts – if the footage of the impact is problematic, then in theory perhaps the footage itself could be fake wholly or partly, without it necessarily excluding the possibility of genuine impact (other questions aside). Also, regarding holograms, don’t they require a medium other than open air to be projected in? Eg smoke, gas (other than regular air), crystal, etc? Hard to see how the witnessed aircraft could have been a hologram, sophisticated or not. And apart from that, how could it have been (convincingly) projected (by multiple sources from multiple directions as required for holograms) over the witnessed course of flight to impact, at such a distance, with any known or plausible technology? And from what plausible physical points? Easier to suppose that what hit was actually a physical aircraft, albeit one with unusual properties, perhaps custom built for the job.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 29, 2012 at 7:14 pm

      Except that it was performing feats that no real aircraft–custom or not–could perform. I have interviewed many experts about this, including Stephen Brown, who had just completed a course at Cambridge about holography. I am sorry, but I have spent too much time of this to be impressed by casual opinions that do not take into account all of the available evidence. The interview with Stephen Brown can be found in the archives for “The Real Deal”, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

      And which conclusions are supposed to be “uncertain”? That Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day? That the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005? That Pilots has not established that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time it was supposed to have been crashing in Shanksville? That Pilots has established that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to have been hitting the South Tower?

      And do you believe a real plane could pass through its own length into a 500,000 ton building (intersecting eight floors in the process) in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? Does that make sense to you? That this massive building would provide no more resistance to the flight of an airplane than air? Have you ever studied physics, even the most elementary? Because the argument set forth here is well-founded both in logic and in evidence.

      Unless you believe the same plane can be in two places at the same time, we obviously have a fake crash site in Shanksville and whatever we see in the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower, it cannot be Flight 175. So tell me again which of these conclusions is supposed to be uncertain? Do you also challenged Pilots determination that the plane shown in those videos was traveling faster than a standard 767 could travel? Why don’t you give this just a little more thought?

    • Steve  February 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm

      The uncertainty I specifically referred to is regarding the points I made, that a) the ‘footage’ does not necessarily represent the actual impact accurately (agreed it is problematic ie the footage itself), but does not therefore exclude an impact of any sort in actuality and b) that a hologram was even possible let alone actually employed. Both points seem reasonable to me, and I have thought about them considerably (something you seem too ready to assume is not the case). B in particular seems to me to be beyond the realm of the credibly possible, for the reasons I stated. A hologram can’t just be projected into thin (and open) air, over a great distance, and convincingly made to double for a real jetliner blasting at high speed into a skyscraper, such as to convince many eyewitnesses that it’s the real thing. Or if it can, then please cite credible scientific references to prove it can. I doubt you will find any that even get 10% of the way.

      This does not invalidate some of the other points you have made, but as I said these particular points were uncertain to put it mildly. And render some of your other points in response irrelevent.

    • Steve  February 29, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      Btw I didn’t think you would take any great exception to the word ‘uncertain’ as you did not seem to be definitely asserting that a hologram was used, rather that it was a (logical at least) possibility, whilst the point about the footage you did not seem to be taking into account in your arguments, which if you did would lead to a different line of reasoning from those you were pursuing.

    • Steve  February 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      Also you claim that ‘it’ was performing feats that no real aircraft – custom or not – could perform (which I don’t believe), yet posit a hologram performing feats that no known hologram could perform. I don’t think you have thought enough about that aspect of it, perhaps you should look more into it, even if (somehow) to prove that it actually is possible after all. Then you might have a strong case.

    • Steve  February 29, 2012 at 8:57 pm

      To clarify I mean I don’t believe that no real aircraft could have impacted the towers powerfully in actuality, and convinced the eyewitnesses, not necessarily that the footage is an accurate depiction of said impact.

    • Jim Fetzer  March 1, 2012 at 5:55 am

      Well, let’s see. We have thirty or forty videos that show the same effortless entry. Since that is in violation of Newton’s laws, what we are witnessing in those videos cannot be genuine but has to have been faked. There are three ways that could have been done: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Either CGIs or video compositing would only have affected images that were broadcast over television, but not the personal experiences of eyewitnesses, a large number of whom have claimed to have seen (what they took to be) a plane. If you take their reports seriously, then it follows that this has to have been doing using a hologram–although it remains possible that some videos may have been “tweaked” after the fact. Some video broadcasts, of course, show no plane when originally broadcast, but show a plane when subsequently rebroadcast, so agree with you at least to the extent that more than one technique may have been involved here. But as long as we take any of the eyewitnesses who claim to have seen “a plane” at face value, what they have to have seen was a hologram. That appears to be inescapable.

  4. j0hn  February 29, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    The author and comments concerning *no Planes* seems spurious at best. First off it is possible for a 757 or 767 to make 500 kts down low. If at full power and in a decent 500 kts, should be attainable or at least 500 MPH. There was another post concerning how deafening the sound would be. A plane going that fast that high above the city would not be deafening. When you read vne speeds for the aircraft remember 250 kts is max allowable below certain altitudes for spacing (air traffic control) and also to prevent bird strike damage through the windscreen. This does not mean that an aircraft cannot fly well beyond those v speeds. This would be doubly true if you didn’t care what happened to the aircraft from a structural perspective.

    As to the dissappearing aircraft when hitting the towers google “f4 hitting a wall at 500 mph”. You will see that the aircraft disintegrates. This does no explain what hit the pentagon though as the windows are intact (around the impact hole), when in fact the windows should have been damaged by the wings and engines.

    As for the PA crash – there is no way that was a commercial jet liner. There would have been debris on the surface even if it went straight in. There would perhaps not have been large parts of the aircraft intact but there would have been some debris.

    WT7? Fire my ass.

    But this discussion seems to diminish from the very fishy aspects of the day which seem to be impossible to explain within the context of the official story (eg nano-thermite dust, explosions in the basement, Pentagon hit, etc).

    • Jim Fetzer  February 29, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      John seems to believe that another thousand repetitions of the collapse of WTC-7 is going to be persuasive, when it has had very little perceptible influence on the public. Discovering that they were faked out by no plane having hit the Pentagon or the use of video fakery in New York, however, are entirely different stories. I don’t think he has figured this out.

      The point about the plane’s speed at 700-1,000′ feet was established by Pilots, so I don’t quite know what he thinks he is talking about. John Lear had previously laid out the aerodynamic explanation why, with the air three times denser than at 35,000′, the engines would be unable to suck the air through and would function as breaks. See Pilots’ “9/11 Intercepted”.

      As for the Sandia crash test, I have been waiting for someone to make that argument. This was a fighter jet anchored to a railway framework that was run into a nuclear-resistant concrete bunker and blew apart into millions of tiny pieces. That is obviously not comparable to what happened at the South Tower or the North, for that matter. He needs to think this through.

      The South Tower plane passed effortlessly through eight (8) floors of steel trusses covered with 4-8″ of concrete. It passed through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. No deceleration. The velocity of the Sandia plane fell to zero. No part of it passes through that barrier. John seems to have lost track of the obvious.

    • j0hn  February 29, 2012 at 2:30 pm

      Jim I also don’t think these aircraft could achieve that speed straight and level down low, thus the mention of the decent. Were they in a decent? If they had been making several turns at a low altitude and then leveled off and hit the towers I would agree with you but I do not know their trajectory. Also I believe that the pilots within those forums have stated that they really do not know if that (500 mph) speed beyond vne is attainable one way or the other (again at lower altitudes).

      I have thought it through. True they are apples and oranges but I still think that these aircraft would have been disintegrating as they hit structure and also broken apart and went through glass but I do not think this would have slowed down the latter portions of the aircraft or provided for seats and other material to have showered the streets below. So I’m not sure how much deceleration the latter portions of the aircraft would experience if the forward portions had been disintegrating. Also the film footage of the 9/11 impacts may not have been of a high enough frame rate to determine even small amounts of deceleration.

      The Sandia F4 fell to zero velocity? I didn’t see that. The entire aircraft disintegrates with no portion visible and or slowing. By the time the vertical stab hits it is obscured by the explosion so you really can’t see if the tail decelerates.

      I’m a pilot. I fly experimental aircraft that fly at 200 kts and have been around aircraft all of my life. That doesn’t mean very much regarding the article because I *thankfully have not been around many crashed aircraft. I do know what debris fields look like as I have read much and spoken with people regarding the first major airline crash in this country including testimony of people that made it to the scene.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm

      It’s not a question of a subtle degree of deceleration. Did you see the diagram of the eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete? They represent an acre of concrete apiece. Tell me what would happen to a plane at 35,000′ that could actually make 560 mph were it to impact with just one? and this plane was intersecting with eight (8) of those acres!

      Do you think the Sandia plane PASSED THROUGH that massive concrete bunker? But the plane in the vidoes PASSES THROUGH the sides of the building, even though there were eight floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the steel external support columns at the other. Please go back and review the bidding. You seem to me to have missed some key points.

      Did you miss that Pilots not only confirmed that a standard Boeing 767 could not make that speed at that altitude but that, on the basis of communications with the aircraft, they have determined that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly hitting the South Tower. If you are denying some kind of video fakery, then I’ve missed something.

      The plane should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. An engine component was found at Church & Murray, but it was not from a 767. It was found under a construction scaffolding and the sidewalk showed no signs of a high speed impact with something massive. In fact, we have footage it was planted by the FBI.

  5. Derek X  February 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Haha. Good that you don’t give up easily. Too bad you didn’t copy everything you had written in the last article about this subject, before they erased it all, it was very informative.
    How anybody expects to actually get anywhere in this movement with all this circus fighting, I have no idea. No wonder the neocons are kicking our asses. We do our best to kill those we should be trying to work with.

  6. dalethorn  February 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Speaking of “Off the reservation”, we had 2 little Navajos into Akron for a visit on the Saturday before 9/11, and they had to go back to Arizona the next Saturday. We took them up to Hopkins that Saturday early, then waited all day and were lucky to get a substitute flight. But you should have seen all the Middle Eastern people going through that airport. Hundreds – and each had carts carrying huge wooden boxes that had to be loaded in cargo. Furniture, clothing, whatever … I mean huge, like entire households being moved for hundreds of people, maybe thousands that I didn’t see over a period of days, since I was there only one day. People can try all they want to minimize the aftereffects of 9/11, but what I saw was profound.

  7. Trowbridge Ford  February 24, 2012 at 3:16 am

    Just more pathetic nonsense, Bill.

    Regarding the plane which hit the Pentagon, killing all its occupants, see the link I have put on Stewart’s sensible discussion of what happened on 9/11 – aka the ‘poisoning of the well’ by you and others.

    And you conveniently left out what the most rattled Bingham added in his call to his mother: “Three guys have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb.” (“Facing The End,” Time, September 24, 2001, p. 72)

    And only a person on the hijacked plane could have made such a comment, as there were only three suicide bombers in the cabin while the fourth in the cockpit was taking the plane back to Washington as best he could.

    As for the rest of your bunk, keep it flowing, but I shall not be responding to whatever else you misfits provide.

  8. Charlotte NC Bill  February 24, 2012 at 2:37 am

    Did you catch where Trow said “whatever hit the Pentagon” and then he backslid again? Incredible…No plane hitting the Pentagon means nothing to Trow Ford…Israelis driving around NYC with explosives means nothing to him…Steel constructed bldgs turning into sand castles means nothing to him..A classic controlled demolition next door ( wired months in advance ) means nothing to him..No, he’ll have none of that talk…No finger will be pointed at Mossad and it’s assets on his watch….No…no..it was that mythological “Al-Quaeda” group which Uncle Dick tried his best to stop….That’s the only bed-time story he wants to hear

  9. Derek X  February 23, 2012 at 7:09 am

    Whatever, dirt.
    Funny how people like you enjoy being “agitators” except when people begin to agitate you. Then you are all for censorship. Hypocrite.

    • dirtus napus  February 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm

      Only after months of reading tripe, attack, and misrepresentations of other peoples’ words in your responses. Yeah, I finally had enough :) Not sorry twinky :) Censorship? I rest my point, you truly are an idiot.

  10. Trowbridge Ford  February 23, 2012 at 7:02 am

    Oh, Bill, you just cannot stop your nonsense.

    The NTSB found the black boxes for Flight 77 at the site, and turned them over to the Bureau, as Director Mueller, who had announced at the time at a press conference at the State department that it had crashed into the Pentagon. later announced.

    And how could it then disappear somewhere else without the highjackers being involved? You are not suggesting, are you, that American Airlines did it itself, as a favor for the conspirators?

    And I don’t go along with the official explanation at all.

    I claim that the CIA, in consultation with NSA, Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and Vice President Cheney, hoped to catch the highjackers red-handed – gambling with the lives of the innocent passengers on board, and in place of the embarrassed Bureau – but they plotted stupidly, causing the murder of the people on board the four planes, plus about 3,000 others.

    You, with the crazy ideas, are acting as if the people on the planes weren’t killed, reducing the casualties at least 250 – what I call yet another cover up of what happened.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 23, 2012 at 8:55 am

      This is incredible. READ THE ARTICLE. You are making a complete and total fool of yourself over and over again.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 23, 2012 at 6:54 pm

      You’re right. He’s just rambling like some crazy old man…Cheney hoped to catch “the terrorists” red-handed…That’s funny….If he wanted to catch a terrorist he would only have to cuff all the neo-cons around him-and then himself..The NTSB also sd that the cockpit door of Flt 77 was never opened after takeoff…and that Flt 77 never flew low enough tp hit the Pentagon…which makes sense BECAUSE IT NEVER DID..someone fm the FBI caught a passport fluttering through the flames down to his waiting hand…kind of like the seemingly magical feather at the end of Forrest Gump…hey that’s who you’re starting to remind me of Trow….

  11. ewing2001  February 23, 2012 at 6:24 am

    still moderated ?? ;

    Most 9/11 truthlings are still 55++ years behind. Nukes did not exist and never used, never before and after 1945. East Germany was part of the fake communism “program” of EUROZONE banksters, developing in Jena|Russia plus moles at whitesands, Directed Energy Weapons + xyz. Therefore also eurozone, SCO and scandinavian electronic defense companies executed and pupeteered these few american companies involved (39++, all listed in my research between 2002-2005), now they’re all tools for SIEMENS, Deutsche Bank, gazprom and co. Better buy my book, which explains why also men are less intelligent than women, were metrosexual strawmen all along since 1649++, where also most likely history of humans began. Men are also faster with silly labels like wacko or crazy, but especially The U.S. and american metrosexualized citizens are dead since the 1970s, who dumb enough to vote for pro eurozone|kissinger aspen strategy front puppet Obama|Bloomberg. Therefore the ‘insidejob’-meme was allowed, instead of EUROZONE-outside job. All 9/11 truthlings also never followed scandinavian TELENOR Group, who took over so called US-Satellite biz years ago or french ALSTOM/alcatel [bought US Lucent years ago], who staged the missing airfrance flight years ago, to update internationally all new security frequency physics, developed in EUROPE. Scientology|Lockheed still runs prisonplanet btw ; better : nukelies.com | http://justpaste.it/nukedukes2011 ;
    http://tinyURL.com/occupybeyonce ; http://upravlenie.ucoz.ru/forum/2 ; in 2012 still sticking to 9/11 scenery only, is as retarded as sucking penis from simonshack and his metro-bro’ “hoi.poi.toi” . nuChronology and more interactive humor makes more sense ; ewing2001, bionic DJ, former transgression comedian, diplom media scientist and *real new yorker ; ps: yes, buy my book but don’t read it, it’s not feasable for all your brainwashed|artificially recessioned brains anyway ; hey, dinosaurs of course didnt exist either and chauvinistic fetzer still has no clue about the UNESCO-Huxley|Darwin clan ; i also think some german women at siemens wiped all elevators on 9/11. I applaud them for it ; most of my best co-resesarchers were women ; “men” and|or gaytheon-scumbags|[penis-planehuggers blocked everything else. hey- i call myself a GERMann, hah ; Nietsche was killed, there was no syphillis. You guys are all toys from the 1911++ biopharma royalists, who also faked chronometers and calendars in history. The bigger picture? you guys still lick digital stamps for digital concentration camp socNET suckers. Hope u still like my advanced “insults” as well ; regards ;

  12. Charlotte NC Bill  February 23, 2012 at 2:31 am

    No one sd the survivors were liars..just believers of false information…much like you…According to the NTSB Flt 77 never flew low enough to hit the Pentagon…If it nose -dived somewhere in the cold Atlantic those people are just as dead…But not at the hands of some fictional org called Al-Quaeda.

  13. ewing2001  February 23, 2012 at 2:05 am

    Most 9/11 truthlings are still 55++ years behind. Nukes did not exist and never used, never before and after 1945. East Germany was part of the fake communism “program” of EUROZONE banksters, developing in Jena|Russia plus moles at whitesands, Directed Energy Weapons + xyz. Therefore also eurozone, SCO and scandinavian electronic defense companies executed and pupeteered these few american companies involved (39++, all listed in my research between 2002-2005), now they’re all tools for SIEMENS, Deutsche Bank, gazprom and co. Better buy my book, which explains why also men are less intelligent than women, were metrosexual strawmen all along since 1649++, where also most likely history of humans began. Men are also faster with silly labels like wacko or crazy, but especially The U.S. and american metrosexualized citizens are dead since the 1970s, who dumb enough to vote for pro eurozone|kissinger aspen strategy front puppet Obama|Bloomberg. Therefore the ‘insidejob’-meme was allowed, instead of EUROZONE-outside job. All 9/11 truthlings also never followed scandinavian TELENOR Group, who took over so called US-Satellite biz years ago or french ALSTOM/alcatel [bought US Lucent years ago], who staged the missing airfrance flight years ago, to update internationally all new security frequency physics, developed in EUROPE. Scientology|Lockheed still runs prisonplanet btw ; better : nukelies.com | http://justpaste.it/nukedukes2011 ;
    http://tinyURL.com/occupybeyonce ; http://upravlenie.ucoz.ru/forum/2 ; in 2012 still sticking to 9/11 scenery only, is as retarded as sucking penis from simonshack and his metro-bro’ “hoi.poi.toi” . nuChronology and more interactive humor makes more sense ; ewing2001, bionic DJ, former transgression comedian, diplom media scientist and *real new yorker ; ps: yes, buy my book but don’t read it, it’s not feasable for all your brainwashed|artificially recessioned brains anyway ; hey, dinosaurs of course didnt exist either and chauvinistic fetzer still has no clue about the UNESCO-Huxley|Darwin clan ; i also think some german women at siemens wiped all elevators on 9/11. I applaud them for it ; most of my best co-resesarchers were women ; “men” and|or gaytheon-scumbags|[penis-planehuggers blocked everything else. hey- i call myself a GERMann, hah ; Nietsche was killed, there was no syphillis. You guys are all toys from the 1911++ biopharma royalists, who also faked chronometers and calendars in history. The bigger picture? you guys still lick digital stamps for digital concentration camp socNET suckers. Hope u still like my advanced “insults” as well ; regards ;

  14. ewing2001  February 23, 2012 at 1:44 am

    Most 9/11 truthlings are still 55++ years behind. Nukes did not exist and never used, never before and after 1945. East Germany was part of the fake communism “program” of EUROZONE banksters, developing in Jena|Russia plus moles at whitesands, Directed Energy Weapons + xyz. Therefore also eurozone, SCO and scandinavian electronic defense companies executed and pupeteered these few american companies involved (39++, all listed in my research between 2002-2005), now they’re all tools for SIEMENS, Deutsche Bank, gazprom and co. Better buy my book, which explains why also men are less intelligent than women, were metrosexual strawmen all along since 1649++, where also most likely history of humans began. Men are also faster with silly labels like wacko or crazy, but especially The U.S. and american metrosexualized citizens are dead since the 1970s, who dumb enough to vote for pro eurozone|kissinger aspen strategy front puppet Obama|Bloomberg. Therefore the ‘insidejob’-meme was allowed, instead of EUROZONE-outside job. All 9/11 truthlings also never followed scandinavian TELENOR Group, who took over so called US-Satellite biz years ago or french ALSTOM/alcatel [bought US Lucent years ago], who staged the missing airfrance flight years ago, to update internationally all new security frequency physics, developed in EUROPE. Scientology|Lockheed still runs prisonplanet btw ; better : nukelies.com | http://justpaste.it/nukedukes2011 ;
    http://tinyURL.com/occupybeyonce ; http://upravlenie.ucoz.ru/forum/2 ; in 2012 still sticking to 9/11 scenery only, is as retarded as sucking penis from simonshack and his metro-bro’ “hoi.poi.toi” . nuChronology and more interactive humor makes more sense ; ewing2001, bionic DJ, former transgression comedian, diplom media scientist and *real new yorker ; ps: yes, buy my book but don’t read it, it’s not feasable for all your brainwashed|artificially recessioned brains anyway ; hey, dinosaurs of course didnt exist either and chauvinistic fetzer still has no clue about the UNESCO-Huxley|Darwin clan ; i also think some german women at siemens wiped all elevators on 9/11. I applaud them for it ; most of my best co-resesarchers were women ; “men” and|or gaytheon-scumbags|[penis-planehuggers blocked everything else. hey- i call myself a GERMann, hah ; Nietsche was killed, there was no syphillis. You guys are all toys from the 1911++ biopharma royalists, who also faked chronometers and calendars in history. The bigger picture? you guys still lick digital stamps for digital concentration camp socNET suckers. Hope u still like my advanced “insults” as well ; regards ;

  15. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Still missing the basic point, Fetzer – whether or not passengers were on whatever hit the Pentagon, the WTC and crashed allegedly in Penna.

    You claim that there were essentially none – empty vehicles or else ones which had only passengers for takeoffs, not for landings.

    So according to you, the alleged 246 or so killed, 64 of whom were alleged to have been killed at the Pentagon and 59 of them were not terrorist-suicide bombers, never happened, making their survivors who claimed they had died, and collected vast sums of money corruptly, in effect, most conniving liars.

    I claim that you are wrong, having made gross libels against people who have done no wrong.

    And, as a consequence, your claims about what happened overall are just bunk.

    • ewing2001  February 23, 2012 at 2:49 am


    • Jim Fetzer  February 23, 2012 at 6:57 am

      Your own words reveal that you have either never read or else not understood what I have explained here. It is as though you were blind but felt an obligation to reaffirm your own views, in spite of your ignorance. No one is going to take you seriously after this, Trow. This is embarrassing. You are making a complete fool of yourself again.

  16. Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    What did I miss? It cannot have even been drones, since no real plane–not even a drone!–could pass into the building effortlessly in violation of Newton’s laws. So tell me what you think I have missed. It had to be something that looked like a real plane but still performed feats that no real plane could perform. It’s a matter of how seriously we take the multiple witness reports of “seeing a plane”, since no CGI or computer compositing would have been seen by any eyewitness–only on television! That’s the catch–and why a sophisticated hologram has to have been used. When we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!

    • artolivier  February 23, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      I don’t see why they could not have a drone hit the towers AND use CGI. The drone was needed to allow the New Yorkers that were all watching the North Tower burn see a plane hit the South Tower. The CGI was needed to make sure that the TV viewers didn’t see a drone hit the building.

      There are a lot of people who said they saw a plane fly by their windows right before impact. I doubt if it was just a fly-over like the Pentagon as too many people would have noticed.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      Because a drone could not have passed into the building its whole length before exploding! And they had to time it to coincide with the explosions in the subbasements. A drone could have hit the building but it could not have violated Newton’s laws. Do you understand the laws of physics?

      They needed that to create the false rationale for the towers’ “collapse”. That a lot of people reported seeing a plane–really, what they took to be a plane–is the reason for preferring the holographic hypothesis over CGIs and video compositing. Give this just a little more thought.

    • artolivier  February 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      You are not going to win people over by insulting them. I saw the pictures of the building after the explosion. It clearly had a huge hole that a drone could fit in.

      William Rodriguez and others said the explosions in the basements were set off before the explosions from above.

      I’m not saying a holograph was not possible but a drone is also possible. All of the networks were focused on the towers instead of the carnage on the streets when WTC2 exploded. 17 seconds before the impact, there was a beep-beep. All of the footage after the beeps seem fake.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 23, 2012 at 7:05 pm

      So you are implying that I DID NOT see those cookie-cutter cut outs in the sides of the building? Did you miss the part where Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time of its alleged crash and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time of its purported encounter with the South Tower? A drone is a real flying entity and could not have entered the building without crumpling. Egad, man! It was a steel-and-concrete reinforced structure and any flying whatever would have intersected with eight (8) floors of the South Tower or with seven (7) floors of the North. And why would they have had to plant a fake engine component at Church & Murray if there had been a real plane? I am simply dumbfounded.

    • artolivier  February 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      I’m not implying anything. I think your research is great, too bad you have to alienate anyone that has a different perspective. What does flight 93 and 175 have to do with a drone hitting WTC2?

      There was no steel or concrete where there was a hole. It was a hole, a bird could have flown in there. There were about 17 seconds of fake video covering up what was really going on. That hole could have been there 15 seconds before the drone hit.

      As far as the engine on Church Street, why not plant a 767 engine?

    • Jim Fetzer  February 24, 2012 at 12:25 am

      These guys were not rocket scientists. They did not plant a 767 engine but, by mistake, a component of a 737 engine. They thought, correctly, that everyone would be gullible enough to buy it. From what you are telling me, they were right. The plane makes no hole in the edifice as it enters. That does not strike you as odd? Have you ever studied physics? Have you heard of this guy Issac Newton and his laws of motion? Do you think 19 Islamic fundamentalists were able to suspend Newton’s laws on 9/11? These holes only show up later. The plane was traveling at an impossible speed. It had no strobe lights. It was not casting any shadows.

      It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. Why not? How can anyone HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE when there is a mountain of proof? And what evidence is there for you alleged “17 seconds of fake video”? If only the video was fake, why are there so many New York residents who claim they saw a plane? I am sorry, but this kind of worming around to avoid the obviously consequences of the available evidence is not a form of rationality. As I have often observed, the official account is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things.

    • artolivier  February 24, 2012 at 10:10 am

      Do tell, what laws of motion would be broken for a drone to fly into a hole? There is a mountain of proof that a hologram was used?

      “If only the video was fake, why are there so many New York residents who claim they saw a plane?”

      Go back to my post at 4:22 pm.

      “Have you ever studied physics? Have you heard of this guy Issac Newton and his laws of motion? Do you think 19 Islamic fundamentalists were able to suspend Newton’s laws on 9/11?”

      Do you think that 19 Islamic fundamentalists were able to create a hologram? Your questions are not rational. For you to imply that I believe in the official account based on what I have posted leads me to believe I am not dealing with a rational person at all.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 24, 2012 at 11:03 am


      I cannot always tell whom you are addressing. Go to the first image of this article and tell me if you detect a hole into which a drone might be flown? Where do you come up with this stuff? I have supposed you were on top of this, but some of your suggestions are not consistent with the evidence. Why are you hung up on drones? One could not have passed through the facade of the South Tower without crumpling, losings its wings and tail, bodies falling out and all that. So please do a better job of explaining why you think as you do and the evidence supporting it.

    • artolivier  February 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      Why are you hung up on holograms? Many of the witnesses first heard the plane approaching. Do holograms make noise? You know that the TV footage is not really Flight 175 slicing it’s way into WTC2. It is a reasonable assertion that the footage is fake. If the last 17 seconds of the footage is fake, the hole could have been made BEFORE the drone went into the building. Just to prove to you that I don’t believe aluminum planes will make a cartoon cutout in a steel exterior framed building, below is part of the script for my feature film, Operation Terror;


      The climax of this operation will be the destruction of those two mammoth eyesores.

      Michael looks the window. All eyes are on the Twin Towers. Dumbfounded, everyone turns their attention to Michael.

      MICHAEL (cont’d)

      Jumbo jets will fly into the buildings at 500 miles an hour and knock them down.


      Commercial jets don’t go that fast at sea level.


      It doesn’t matter how fast the planes hit the buildings…

      Philip stands up, grabs Charlie’s can of Pepsi and dumps it in a potted plant. Charlie looks shocked but keeps quiet.

      PHILIP (cont’d)

      …those buildings are made to withstand a hit from a jetliner with minimal damage. The Twin Towers have massive steel columns and the planes are lightweight aluminum. Here’s your plane hitting the building.

      Singer smashes the can on the table.


      Obviously the buildings are going to need a little assistance.


      Every engineer in the world is going to know its fake.


      Engineers don’t control the media.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      Have you watched the videos that I have featured in the final section? Do drones have disappearing wings? The hologram hypothesis fits the evidence better than the CGI or video compositing alternatives. Your hypothesis not only smacks of the ad hoc but surely would have been noticed by witnesses on the ground. If there had been a hole in the side of the building, surely someone would have reported it.

      This business about the sound of the plane also baffles me. It would have been ear-splitting. There is footage out there to which it has been added, but why are you so confident that there actually was sound? It looks as though your script makes a lot of excellent points. And I also agree it is the case that, “Every engineer in the world knows that it’s (all) fake!” Whatever our differences, good luck with the film.

    • artolivier  February 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm

      If the hole was made right before impact, no one would notice. Many people said said they saw the plane go into the Pentagon. It’s like a magician pulling an egg out of his ear. It may look real, but you know it’s not.

      There were a lot of witnesses that said they heard the plane, but I don’t if these were real witnesses or paid witnesses.

      Thanks, the movie was just completed last month and has already been accepted to 3 international film festivals. You can watch the trailer at OperationTerror.com

    • Jim Fetzer  February 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm

      It was intersecting with eight (8) floors. No way it would not have been completely obvious, had there been such a hole. This does not detract from your film, however, which is not a documentary, I presume, but an historically-based study. I don’t think there is any chance it happened that way, but I take for granted that doesn’t affect–or only minimally affects–the quality of your film. Good luck with it!

  17. artolivier  February 22, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    A feature film that is similar to this theory has been completed. The trailer is at OperationTerror.com

  18. BrianS  February 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    The ‘Roadrunner Hole’ that Judy Wood’s referred to in her book’s introduction finally becomes evidently clear. There has never been any evidence of airplanes hitting the Pentagon or crashing in Shanksville, but the holes in the twin towers and video footage of the airplanes always made me skeptical of her description of the impact sights as Roadrunner holes. Now I can see… I too was unable to bring myself to believe the idea that no real airplanes had hit the North or the South Tower, and could not understand why Judy Woods laughed over the entire issue of the airplanes hitting the towers. What a great article and research. Now we know the What happened, How it happened and Why it happened, now we need to determine Who did it.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 2:39 pm

      See “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and these hints, which are from “Seven Questions about 9/11″, my first column here at VT:

      (a) Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, have long since published WITHOUT PRECEDENT: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION (2006), in which they explain their frustration at the lack of cooperation from the administration, citing especially the fact that the Pentagon provided three different accounts of the events of 9/11, not a very reassuring indication that they got everything right. And this report is not from a “conspiracy theorist” but from the co-chairs of the 9/11 inquiry.

      (b) A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in three administrations, Dr. Steve Pieczenik, has revealed not only that Osama bin Laden actually died on or about 15 December 2001, as David Ray Griffin, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE (2009), has explained, but that he had been told by a high-ranking general that 9/11 was a “false flag” attack, which was done by the government in order to arouse the American people to support wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. And this guy earned his Ph.D. at MIT.

      (c) And Alan Sabrosky, who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and is a graduate of the US Army War College, has explained that 9/11 was conceived by neo-cons in and out of the Department of Defense who wanted to advance the proposals of Project for the New American Century by taking advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union to expand the power of the sole remaining superpower by creating an empire around the world, but worried that Americans would not support those wars absent “a new Pearl Harbor”.

      Christopher Bollyn has a book about the role of Israel on 9/11 as does Edward Hendrie, 9/11 ENEMIES: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011).

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm

      Who? Mossad and it’s allies, assets and agents in our country..The Dominic Suters, Dov Zakheim’s/Michael S. goff/Bush-Cheney….www.rediscover911.com

  19. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Despite the fact that I have been advised not to post articles during discussions, and the editors of this site have stopped posting my articles, of which this is one of ten, I shall take the liberty of posting the one about John O’Neill in Eye Spy magazine despite your claims that it is a rag since I have no more recent thoughts about his problems:

    O’Neill: A Voice in the Wilderness?
    Trowbridge H. Ford

    In the closed discussions that followed the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, authorities in Washington inititially asspeared to act in a manner as if the incidents had occurred without warning. Congressional intelligence committees closed rank and immediately threw a blanket of exoneration over all agencies and personnel concerned.

    Officials assumed that the hijackings had simply been the result of institutional inadequacies and shortcomings which could be remedied by a few decisions of senior level. This involved FBI Director Louis Freeh, who had just retired, and to advance huge amounts oif money to combat the growing threat of international terrorism. Other prominent officials thought that the problem would be reduced forther if DCI George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, had the grace to step aside quietly.

    Washington simply lacked the ‘road map’ thst the terrorists had used to get on the airliners in unison, hijack them, and crash them into two hugely important targets. Of course, individual agencies had picked up bits of information about what was planned -euphemistically called ‘dots’ – but no service had seen them all, nor was anybody in a position to put them into proper perspective. It seemed impossible for any reasonable agent to guess, much less determine, where the terrorists were headed, and why. The FBI’s counterterrorist people had been starved of resources by Contress and of intelligence by other agencies, especially from the CIA.

    During the past year, we have slowly learned that this convenient cover up of the tragedies is not necessarily true. FBI agents in Minneapolis had well-founded suspicions that Zacarias Moussaoui was involved in a huge conspiracy to hijack airliners for some deadly purpose. The agents were prevented by susperios in Washington from pursuing the matter. A similar situation occurred in Phoenix.

    A memorandum written by Special Agent Ken Williams supplied headquarters with information concerning a number of people who sought ‘limited pilot instrution’ at a nearby flying school. State Police could have interferred, if not ended, the extensive activites of several key 9/11 hijackers had cooperation been better. A number of the would-be hijackers committed speeding violations, and had police been informed of the FBI suspicions, they would surely have been detained. Instead, the intelligence community was caught totally off guard.

    There have been suggestions that the FBI and CIA were involved in a deadly competition to outwit and out-do each other. Freeh wanted to prove that it was his service that was the leading agency when it came to preventing international terrorism, while Tene’s agency hoped to show that it knew best how to handle the threat. It was a deadly game of deception, especially in the case of one John O’Neill.

    O’Neill was tragically killed during the attacks on the World Trade Center. Previous to his death, he was head of counterterrorism at the FBI’s New York office. O’Neill had just resigned from the FBI because he had hit a stone wall from headquarters after trying to capture those responsible for the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. He took up the lucrative post as chief security officer at the Trade Center. On one occasion, he told Mayor Guliani’s counterterrorist Czar, Jerry, Hauer, “they’ll never stop trying to take down these buildings.”

    O’Neill blossomed in the FBI, especially when he arrived in New York shortly after the first attack on the WTC in 1993. Thanks to his growing understanding of Islamic fundamentalism, he put together the special operations team which captured Ramzi Ahmed Youseff in Pakistan for his part in the bombing, plotting to kill 4,000 airliner passenagers by bringing down a dozen planes, and to assassinate PopeJohn Paul II. O’Neill was also influential in the arrest of the terrorists living in New York, and persons who killed 224 pople at the American Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.

    O’Neill was not just obsessed with catching terrorists. While working as a fingerprinter and tour guide, he earned a Master of Science degree in forensic science from Georgetown University. Due to his educational background, O’Neill took a broader view of terrorist crime than his colleagues. When TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island in July 1996, O’Neill’s boss, James Kallstrom, put together a team to try and prove that it was more handywork from Youseff’s followers. Oliver ‘Buck* Revell, the Bureau’s former head of criminal investigations and controller its investigation into the PAm Am bombing over Lockerbie, concluded that the TWA airliner was blown up by a Semtex bomb. The controversail Pierre Salinger, JFK’s former Press Secretary, claimed that a rocket had brought down the airliner.

    O’Neill handy made any friends when he conclusively proved that the airliner had been brought down by the ignition of leaking fuel from one of its petrol tanks. Mary Jo White, the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and with whom O’Neill had connected the dots in the Youseff case, said of O’Neill: “He had elbows – he’s press his point very hard.”

    FBI and CIA Rivalry

    The rivalry between the CIA and the FBI, and growing resentment of O’Neill within the FBI leadershipship, came to a head when he started investigating al-Qaida’s bombing of the USS Cole in Aden. In January 1999, the CIA had taped a meeting between al-Qaida operatives, Khalid Al-Midhar, Nawaf Al-Hamzi, Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, and Tawfi Bin-Atash aka Khallas, in Kuala Impur, Malaysia. They even managed to discover that Al-Midhar had a passport with a valid American visa in his own name. The group discussed terrorist attacks against American targets – which resulted in the ramming of the Cole a few months later.

    The CIA claimed that it e-mailed the FBI about the meeting and Al-Midhar’s visa. The FBI denied ever receiving it. Still, the CIA tracked Al-Midhar and Al-Hamzi to Los Angeles where they soon set-up residence in San Diego. The FBI’s claim of ‘total ignorance’ is odd for it allegedly recruited the landlord of the mens apartment as an informant, and that he regularly reported to an FBI handler. The Bureau is now stonewalling any appearance by either of the men before the joint congressional intelligence committe inquiry. They would reveal how the relationship started; what the informant iknew of the comings-and-goings; a record of their calls, thought, and visitors; and information that the FBI tried to cover up by going after scapegoats, especially Joranian college student Osama Awadallah after the attacks.

    While this was going on behind O’Neill’s back, he was stuggling in Yeman to catch the culprits in the Cole attack. O’Neill pushed his agents to get answers.
    However, ambassador Barbara Bodine agreed to Yemeni demands in November 2000 that o*Neill be barred from entering the country. The only result he achieved was the discovery and arrest of Al-Quso who only the suspects by sight.

    Nothing changed for O’Neill with the election of George Bush. Washington condered O’Neill’s concerns about al-Qaida and the Taliban but failed to take them seriously. The White House thought that it could do business with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, until his friend bin-Laden assassinated NOrthern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masood. Washington believed OMar could help secue an oil pipeline to transmit Caspian oil to the Indian Ocean and circumvent Russian and Arab domination of the process.

    The State Department and the Justice Department did nothing to rescind the restriction which had been placed on O’Neill’s activities.

    Freeh’s Message

    Washington’s readiness to stop the terrorist attacks was well captured in Freeh’s departing message to the Senate in May 2001, when he equated the international threats to America to those domestically generated regarding human and animal rights, the environment, and states’ rights. The Director, along with Kallstrom and Revell, called upon Bush to bomb Iran, the leading state on the State Department’s list of countries “sponsoring terrorism.”

    The CIA was sufficiently concerned about the FBI’s lack of action in the face of the growing threat of terrorism, and arranged a meeting at its New York office on 11 June 2001. The meeting turned into a shouting match when CIA agents refused to tell what they knew about Al-MIdhar and Al-Hamzi. By this time, >O’Neill was in the proces of resigning and talking to French reporters Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasque, who were researching The Forbidden Fruit about how the White HOuse plan was the Taliban was intering with the war on terrorism.

    On 4 July, Al-Midhar and Al-Hamzi came to New York, but apparently, nothing was done by the Bureau to keep track of the men; it was simply counting on the landlord in San Diego to inform them. In August, the CIA added the men to its Watch List. After receiving no response from the FBI, the CIA sent the NYC Field Office a memo on 23 August asking for help in tracking them down.

    The FBI discovered that the prime suspects had checked into New York’s Marriot Hotel quite close to the WTC, but had immediately disappeared. O’Neill assistant asked for a criminal investigation of Al-Midhar, but headquarters refused on the grounds that there was insujfficient evidence.

    In late August, O’Neill’s last act for the FBi ws to authorise the investigation of Yemeni Al-Quso. The request was not acted upon until after 11 September. When Al-Quso was shown the CIA photographs of Al-Midhar, Al-Hamzi, and Al-Shibh from Kuala Lumpur, he immediately recognised the men as the perpetraTORS of the attack on the USS Cole. If O’Neill had not been barred from Yemen and shut out of any meaningful discussions of what the terrorists might be planning, the tragic attacks might not have taken place.

    After his three decades with the FBI, the UPI’s Mike KIrland recently wrote: “O’Neill was a near legend in the counterterrorism field.”

    Yet only in death did the FBI given O’Neill his due. At his funeral, his body having been found among the rubble of the WTC 11 days after the attacks, Freeh declared: “He was paramount, the most knowledgeable agent we had in the FBI, probably in the government with respect to counterintelligence matters. The human embodiment of unheeded warnings.”

    The former Director did not explain why O’Neill’s abilities were simply discarded when it needed them most.

    When I have time, I shall post the one about what happened when O’Neill was out of the way if I am able.

    • Raptor  February 22, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      I’m curious my friend. What is your point? Are you hinting at an intel type stand down order? Or am I simply reaching?

  20. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 11:26 am

    That’s not the case at all, Fetzer.

    I just mentioned my article in Eye Spy magazine – as there is another one in Issue Thirteen about the Bureau’s counterterrorist expert John O’Neill, especially why he was sidelined because the Agency thought it was riddled with spies, particularly because the spying by the FBI’s Robert Hanssen had finally broken – to show that I am no Jim-come lately about the subject.

    Since then, I have discovered that various disinformers like you have discounted the phone calls that I discovered, have trashed the activities of the 19 suicide bombers, have claimed falsely that the full passenger lists were disclosed when they left out not only the suicide bombers but also 15 still unidentified agents, probably ones from the CIA office in NYC, who were on the last three flights to subdue the alleged highjackers when the four planes reached LA, etc., ad nauseam.

    There seems to be no end to the crap coming.

    And it is you who thinks you are the prince, believing that you can get away with anything, being an emeritus, chaired professor; being frustrated without being able to tell a coerced audience what is what; and an ex-Marine whose buddies will always support him no matter how deep, and stuck he gets in the doo-doo.

    • NoTingles  February 22, 2012 at 11:43 am

      I could sit here and call you a crap-monger too, but that doesn’t make it so. I’m not going to read Eye Spy Magazine. IMHO it’s a rag. Present your case here, evidence to refute evidence, or please be quiet. Your harangues here do not add to credibility. The seriousness of this event has not diminished in the slightest in the 10+ years since it happened, so getting the truth of it- incredibly important, so share what you have without the ad hominem attacks.

  21. NoTingles  February 22, 2012 at 11:20 am

    What a great piece, bringing together all the loose threads exposing the inconsistencies. The “how” has been fascinating to me since, well 9/11, and on that day, when I watched the video footage for the first time, together with what I knew about how the towers were constructed, I knew damn well we’d been had. Years later, I came across info which said the towers were brought down by nuclear charges that were built in back when they were constructed in the ’70s. What now needs as indepth discovery is the “why”. Do you have anything about the vast amount of gold bullion that was stored in the subbasements? and that curiously, the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald were also in the same tower and blown to smithereens? And how that ties in with a lawsuit that the FED lost, and the outcome of the trial was that the FED had a deadline of Sept 12 to repay what was stolen? I have a spidey-sense that it’s deeper than justification for an Afghanistan invasion.

  22. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Sorry, Fetzer, I am a reseacher of the 9/11 tragedy – what I first recounted in the double, featured article of Issue Eight of Eye Spy magazine in March 2002 – not your psychiatric analyst.

    I have no idea of how and why your mind comes up with the bizarre explanations you provide, whether it be the JFK assassination or the 9/11 tragedies.

    You are certainly off the rails, though, and need some kind of help.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 11:01 am

      Apparently you believe that nothing new has been discovered since your article in 2002! That’s very revealing. You are caught in a time-warp of your own devising, where Scholars, Pilots, A&E911 and a host of other organizations might have well have never bothered to come into being, since all any of us needed to do was consult an article in Issue #8 of EYE SPY magazine! Thanks for letting us know, Trow. You are a prince!

    • dirtus napus  February 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm

      Did you see the footage of the wing dissapearing before it enters the second tower? I did, approximately 2 years after it happened. That was ancillary to my initial beliefs of a false flag but made me think about what I’ve seen done with radar and holographic projection at Nellis AFB (2003), and what I had heard 3rd hand at Holloman when I worked there in 99′. Also, notice how hard it is to find that video now? And that’s all I’m gonna say about that. It’s been in the back of my mind for a long time.

      Then I read some evidence of people working on projects where there was a liquid that could be put on steel. After it sat for 12 hours the steel looked perfectly normal, but you could put a pencil through it, and it turned to goo. I can’t base that on fact, but I do know the architects involved with that story, and I do know some bad things happened with the story tellers. The wall section that was used in the application was very similar to a plenum wall section that was in the twins. Again, I can’t verify a thing, but I was pretty amazed at the sources. Google it. See if you can find it, it was interesting. Sorry, just came to mind after talking about zero deflection in the impacts.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm

      Well, you can see the wing disappearing in the fourth of the videos in the final section above. The plane simply disappears into the building, however. It does not turn to goo on the outside when it impacts. It effortlessly enters the building its whole length–and in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

  23. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Fetzer, you have engaged so long in a dubious deconstruction of what really happened on 9/11 that many people, far too many people, believe in your falsehoods.

    You have claimed that there were no hijackers because persons with their names surfaced later, or that ones wongly claimed to be on the planes were elsewhere, like those two alleged hijackers you claimed where on AA Flight 77 when the ones on it were Khalid Al-MIdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour.

    Then you claimed that the alleged pilots were not qualified to do what they did, claiming, for example, that Hanjour could only fly a Cessana when, in fact, he had enough hours -250- to get his FAA commercial pilots license.

    Then you said that there couldn’t have been any calls to passengers in the planes while there are all kinds of accounts at the time about their making them.

    In the September 24, 2001 issue of Time, there are the accounts of the calls that Mark Bingham, and Jeremy Glick made from UAL Flight 93 to their relatives (“Facing The End,” p. 72), and the calls that Flight Attendant CeeCee Lyles, and passengers Lauren Grandcolas, Brian Sweeney and Peter Hanson made from UAL Flight 175. (“The Last Phone Call,” p. 76.)

    Then there is an article in the September 13th issue of Newsweek about the calls that Barbara Olson made from AA Flight 77 to her husband, and then there were more people and calls mentioned from UAL Flight 93. ((“The Dead,” p. 7)

    And there were apparently no calls from AA !! because there was little understanding that it had been hijacked until it slammed into 1 WTC.

    Of course, you have trashed all this because the planes are gone, the passengers are gone, the calls are gone, leaving only those who are not gone – the survivors of the victims who are not gone, and received about $500 million in compensation for their lossed (250 X around £2 million).

    Now you claim that the money they received was completely fraudulent since the passengers never died – they were either never on the planes, or they were taken off in some kind of operation reminiscent of what was suggested for passengers going to Cuba during Operation Northwoods before they went down, and the survivors have enriched themselves by going along with this plot.

    I think your claims are massive lies, and I think that the survivors should go after you and whoever posts your libels because they are claimed to be monstrous, conniving criminals.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 7:56 am

      Well, I think your positions lack serious research on 9/11. Logic and evidence are not your long suit, so if you can, kindly explain WHAT I CLAIM and WHY I CLAIM IT, WHAT I HAVE WRONG and WHY YOU THINK I AM WRONG. I have invited you to do this many times, but you have not done so. That suggests you have not done so because you cannot. Please desist with these unsubstantiated allegations. If you can show I am wrong, do that. Otherwise, these unjustified denunciations contribute nothing.

    • Raptor  February 22, 2012 at 8:54 am


      There were in fact initial witness accounts of building sway post strike/explosion. They are or were, contained within some of the initial efforts at explaining the event in general. Maybe those were hand picked, or staged, who really knows. I’ve forgotten more about 9-11 than most people will ever know. How something so simple to see can be so easily twisted and morphed into this strange sort of carnival side show, will always bother me.

      I learned very early on that many of those who say they are looking for the truth of 9-11 are actually looking for anything but. To think that none have been infiltrated would be foolish beyond any measure. In my opinion it’s actually where some of the wilder claims of 9-11 originated.

      Anyway the building sway is a very key aspect of highrise construction and a great focal point where it would be wise to consider the catalysts for actual collapse.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 10:00 am

      Well, the force of pre-planted explosions should have produced some sway, I conjecture, where the Twin Towers were designed to withstand hurricane-force winds without any threat to their structural integrity. Please share any other thoughts when you can. Those I have most suspected of attempting to derail the movement have wanted to suppress information on the Pentagon, which is far more convincing than endless repetitions of the controlled demolition of WTC-7, and have gone after any of us who have studied planes/no planes and “video fakery”. These aspects of the case may be “far out” but have been substantiated, as I have done here. I think the ops have been CONSERVATIVE, not RADICAL, about crucial dimensions of 9/11.

    • Raptor  February 22, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Pre-planted explosives may produce vibrations when detonated, but little sway without completely exposing themselves as actual bombs/explosive devices. The Hurricane metaphor is an obvious one, but is irrelevant if those building were actually constructed as all have been led to believe. Why irrelevant? Because they would have been on the ground long long before the event called 9-11. NO Steel core columned highrise STRUCTURE over 1,000 feet in height WITHOUT reinforced concrete, would ever be able resist the lateral forces brought about by winds of 60-70 MPH let alone Hurricane force. The Twins were exposed to wind events which lasted for several hours of just those kinds of speeds throughout their lives with little ill affect. So………how exactly were they really constructed? No one that I know of can really say for sure. All they know is what was reported.

      Good luck on finding anything of merit in any Library here in the states. Why? Why the need to revamp the Sears Tower bio and how it was actually built? Obviously trying to undersell the overall integrity of the Twins. Little things like that should clue people into just how deep this hole really is.

      Question: Why does Gage continue to pound on something that he can never ever prove? Same for Jones, and a select few others. WHY?

      I have exchanged a few e-mails with R G …When I saw the interview my skin began to crawl. Something just not right about the whole No Planes idea she put forth. But honestly I’m not sure one way or the other. I don’t pass judgment unless I’ve enough research to verify my opinion.

      I’m confident that there was no commercial craft at the Pentagon, otherwise the Feds would have gift wrapped one long before now by granting a few of the hundreds of foia requests for the cctv video.

    • izzysykopth  February 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      Jim, Been a follower of your work for some time. I admire your courage and tenacity. TrollbridgeFord is obviously part of the Internet Reputation Management teams. I personally wrote directed edited produced and narrated a four hour documentary on 911 “Three Seconds to Impact”. My research started that morning. When I saw the South Tower ‘collapse’ I literally leaped out of my chair and said “No way!” As a journeyman ironworker and certified structural weldor since 6/88 I find it laughable as does any ironworker I have known throughout my career that 100 tons of aluminum ribs and skin could even penetrate the 4100 tons of steel and concrete that make up ONE FLOOR of the WTC let alone reduce them to 100 microns. Many of the 911 mysteries have been unraveled with help from you and those like you. I commend and thank you not only for your military service but your efforts to free humanity from this menace that rogue US leadership has become. As far as TrollFord is concerned wouldnt waste another keystroke on him. Anyone with the critical thinking skills of a doorknob can see through the pathetic drivel he spouts. You are doing a fantastic job exposing the 911 hoax. Regards, David Brown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0hZc8lMH8

    • Joe in San Francisco  March 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Dave, I’ve got one of those new widescreen TVs with built in WiFi & YouTube. I just put your link in my favorites and will watch it tonight. I see there are a great many parts, so this should make a good evening’s watching.

      Regarding what you wrote above about the reduction of matter in the WTC to dust, have you listened to or seen any of the interviews with Dmitri Khalezov, including the one last February where he talked with Gordon on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad radio show? If you want to reduce a building to dust — concrete and steel included — there’s only one way to do it that looks just like magic, and that’s with nuclear demolition.

    • izzysykopth  March 2, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      THX Joe. Yes I had many e-mail exchanges with Dmitri and read his book three times trying to get my mind completely around the towers demise. I looked into Judy Woods “New Hiroshima” as well although I have not had contact with her. Khalezov makes a very convincing case for nukes. Weapon type, location, blast yield even the details of potential planned future demolition. Dr Wood on the other hand cant give us a weapon type, power source, location or any details at all only the very obscure and vague explanation of the available evidence. I took the time to address the GLARING anomalies in the condition of the steel in the second clip of “Three Seconds to Impact”. There were a couple of things that Khalezov didnt satisfactorily explain. The main shortcoming in his explanation was the 60 story core column that literally vaporizes before our eyes in some of the footage. I am sure you are aware of the clip I am talking about. Then there is the thermite/mate issue. I can only conclude that the thermite/mate or other incinderies were strictly misdirection or only to weaken the structures ahead of something FAR more advanced. Since its well beyond my area of expertise and at the suggestion of a fellow researcher I dug into everything I could find about the advanced DEW weapons. Again without the training or education to evaluate the evidence I started to look at it from the angle of WHO is involved in DEW research and industry. It seems that nearly ALL of the scientific community that has been pushing the thermite theory have ties to DEW research and companies developing DEW weapons. The light bulb went on. I believe Dr Wood is the only one that actually started legal proceedings. Its very difficult to completely endorse either DEWWood/JonesThermite/KhalezovNukes without some much more thorough investigation. I venture to say this however, that it MUST have been a combination of two or more of these methods. Seems like the only possibility based on available evidence. The fo;;owing link presents a good argument for a combination as well as identifying the misdirection ploys. I would be curious as to your take on this topic as its clear you have taken the time to research it and to apply some critical thinking.

      Remember as you endure “3Seconds…’ Im no filmaker and I am completely self taught on all the editing software, file formats, conversion programs etc. Considering the above I was still pleased with the results myself. You will find its more confrontational (as was my goal) than any other 911 documentary. If you are able to sit through the entire film a critique even if critical would be of GREAT VALUE to me.



    • NoTingles  February 22, 2012 at 11:34 am

      The mistake here is believing what so-called journalists have published. When you know who owns the corporations they work for, there is no way to be credulous. What I don’t get is why you so vehemently resist that the “officials” have been caught red-handed in a lie. Why don’t you see that? If their own documentation shows that the aircraft shown crashing into the WTC, and the Pentagon, as well as in Shanksville were elsewhere, or not even airborne, doesn’t that throw a red flag on the play for you?

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 24, 2012 at 2:21 am

      Did you hear the phone call supposedly fm Mark Bingham to his mother? ” Hello Mom? This is Mark Bingham….” Yeah, that’s exactly how I would sound under those circumstances..The calls were faked Trow..that’s been proven already…do try to keep up…They could intercept a call between you and your grandson, digitalize your voice and a month fm now have ” you ” calling the Pres and threatening his life.And who owns the call routing companies? Israelis…Hmmm.

  24. dirtus napus  February 22, 2012 at 6:06 am

    Jesus Jim, I never saw it before. There are two things in that last video that solidify it for me. I’ve never seen that video, where did it come from? There is no shadow, and there is no deflection in the steel whatsoever through the entire entry process. Stunned….

    Of course at this point I have to back up what I saw, especially after seeing the two resident disinformants that reside here now. I am an engineer, I studied structural, and materials science, among 20 other things. Besides the other blatant visual and physical impossiblilities with 9-11 footage and evidence, that angle of footage solidifies what I/we’ve always known. Never seen that. Sorry for the brevity, but I have to go.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 6:27 am

      And my friend, Dennis Cimino, has added the point that, “in none of the narrative is there a single word about the ‘buildings swaying after impact’ as they would have, absorbing the kinetic energy of an 90 plus ton airliner flying at these impossible speeds they allegedly achieved that day, 150 plus knots beyond their limits at this altitude. Think about it. Nobody mentioned feeling the buildings sway one way, then the other, perhaps two or three iterations before coming back to a rest state.”

      This appears to be an important additional argument, not that some are going to be bothered with proofs. “Not one single word in ANY NARRATIVE about this phenomenon. I know the buildings could not be so rigid that even high winds wouldn’t make them move just like the Sears Tower in Chicago moved when I was in it on a windy day. To and fro, back and forth, all f—ing night long while I was up there in it. Show me one reference to this ‘post impact swaying’ and I will eat my cowboy boots.”

    • Joe in San Francisco  February 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      I’m originally from Chicago and on one of my trips back there I went to the restaurant atop the John Hancock building. I needed to use the bathroom and walked down to the one on the 94th floor, I believe, and it was all I could do to pee straight because the bulding was shaking so hard in the wind. Thanks for bringing up the lack of reported inpact-sway with both WTCs. The more study that’s done, the more it should be obvious to everyone that the Offical Story is a Fairy Story.

    • izzysykopth  February 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      Not only that Joe but the lateral windload ALONE for a building the size of the WTC Towers is 13,000 tons!!! Original design claims state the towers could survive a 100 mph windload AFTER ALL bottom story perimeter columns on one side and some columns on the perpendicular sides had been completely disassociated. See Kevin Ryan’s research. Regards

    • Joe in San Francisco  March 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      Someday the masses are going to know as much as we’ve learned. Do you think Truthers will end up in the history books along with Gilileo and Copernicus? I think they had it easier! LOL

  25. Trowbridge Ford  February 22, 2012 at 3:49 am

    I am not opening any libel suit against Fetzer et al., as I have no standing to do so – i. e., I am not a parent or a child or a sibling of those killed in the 9/11 suicide airplane bombings of the WTC, the Pentagon, and the countryside of Western Penna.

    Only they can sue, and I expect someone of the survivors will sue because of the outrage that they are committing against those non-terrorist passengers killed in the planes.

    And I have done more than anyone else I know, writing a long exposé of what really happened on 9/11, not fantasies which are now so common, and of the sidlining of the FBI’s John O’Neill a decade ago in Eye Spy magazine which made the cockups much more likely, AntiZ. And I have continued my complaints ever since, but with no relevant answers, just personal attacks.

    Who are you, and what have you done?

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 23, 2012 at 2:20 am

      Trow, you never respond to any of the evidence showing the quasi-official version to be b.s. No there were no hijackers…no cell calls fm 30,000 ft…they originated fm the ground ( FBI )…No plane hit the Pentagon ( NTSB. Gen Stubblebein / first responders )..There was a nice old man who preferred to keep his head in the sand…It made him feel safer and feel better about his country and it’s controlled media..That man is Trow Ford.

  26. AntiZ  February 22, 2012 at 2:43 am

    What amazes me is that you all know the truth and you have done NOTHING ! Where are the Patriots I hear so much about , the ones who would die for liberty and justice ? Sitting on your asses waiting for the kids of the OWS movement to do something just sucks ! Silverstein walks around like he owns the town and the most you lot can do is post a blog ! Gutless cowards the lot of you , you watched your brothers and sisters step out of burning buildings 1000 feet in the air and have not avenged them . Their souls would be still trapped at ground zero , their lives so quickly snuffed out they would not know they were dead . I would have fought and died for America once , I wouldn’t piss on you now if you were on fire ! When they are herding you into the delousing showers , don’t give the victory sign to the cameras on the way in !

  27. Trowbridge Ford  February 21, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    The more Fetzer persists in his fantasies about there being no planes, no highjackers, no passengers – no nothing – and this post remains up, the more likely that he and this site will be sued for propagating such manifest falsehoods, ones which make the nearly 250 non-terrorist passeners on the planes killed, and their survivors look like fellow conspirators who helped the real ones carry out the tragedies.

    I personally hope that the post states up as it will just be seen as a red flag by those effected by it – whether they be those who were compensated for the loss, or especially those who weren’t.

    So just keep the lies coming, Fetzer et al.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 6:51 am

      If Trowbridge could show that I have something wrong, he would do that. I have invited him to explain what I claim and why I claim it (to be sure he understands my argument properly) and then tell us what I have wrong and how he knows that I have it wrong. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, what I have presented here–which comes from multiple sources, including BTS data, FAA registration records and studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, not to mention the photographic and the video evidence–appears to qualify as the most definitive study yet presented on the complex and controversial questions of planes/no planes and “video fakery”. I stand by every word here.

    • Derek X  February 22, 2012 at 7:56 am

      It is interesting that this is making you so antsy, Trowbridge, to suggest such drastic actions as lawsuits, and pursue such a shaky line of logic as a defense, cause nobody is suggesting they look like fellow conspirators. If it the story is not as kosher as you say you beleive it is, wouldn’t you want to know what DID happen to them? I had thought Fetzer was more nuts than you, but now I’m no longer certain.

  28. reykool  February 21, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    MR Fetzer (about the WTC)

    I follow your work for many years, and have great respect for your research on the JFK assassination,

    I saw you at the NY 9/11 seminars,I believe that 9/11 was a false flag attack, staged by people inside our Government (and military) with the collaboration of Israeli intelligence ( Saudi & Pakistani as well) However my wife was in the # 7 train that day and actually saw the first plane hit the tower right before the train entered the Long Island City tunnel I can get you in touch with her, she also thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and has absolutely no interest to lie about seeing a plane that day, her girlfriend who was working at the time in an office located in the WTC (10th floor) also saw a plane hit the tower while she was coming out from the subway station on her way to work. There is no doubt that REAL PLANES hit the WTC 1 & 2… most likely videos of the event were “retouched” but to many people who were actually in the street that day saw REAL PLANES so the “no plane” theory is not possible.

    Videos can be manipulated I agree with you, I noticed that the “no plane” theory believers only studied 9/11 from videos but were not in Wall Street that day.

    I believe that the so call “scheduled flights” involved were switched to military planes equipped with a remote controlled system (the Air force had 34 747 aircraft equipped with this system) and controlled demolition did the real damage.


    • Joe in San Francisco  February 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      I hope Jim answers your concern because some researchers claim that people who thought they saw planes might only have seen the explosions and became convinced afterward due to all the hype about planes crashing into the WTC. There are so many same-day reports by media reporters and other witnesses who told TV anchors they only saw explosions and not the planes that supposedly caused them. Verified reports from unbiased eye-witnesses would certainly complicate the “no planes” narrative.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 8:15 pm

      Joe, there are many who reported not seeing any planes. There are also many who claim to have seen planes. If those who report having seen what they took to be planes are wrong, then the method used was either CGIs or video compositing.

      The more strongly one accepts the reports of those who reported seeing what they took to be planes, the greater the reason to suppose there was something they saw that LOOKED LIKE a real plane, but was doing things no real plane could do.

      In that case, the evidence supports the use of a sophisticated hologram. I am not going to review all of the evidence, but I have left those options open. Watch the various videos with which this article ends and decide for yourself which form of fakery was used.

    • Joe in San Francisco  February 24, 2012 at 6:48 pm

      Jim, before it became a slam dunk that video fakery was used on the day of 9/11, I think it was you who talked about holograms, especially when you see that one video of the plane “hitting” WTC 2 and the left wing disappears before the nose and the right wing “enter” the building. I would not be surprised if, in preparations that included the video fakery, someone might have asked: “What if people on the ground or nearby are taking videos of the North Tower and no plane appears in their footage when the South Tower is hit?” So, the bossman says, “Let’s put in a hologram too. That should cover all our bases.”

      It’s so obvious that this operation was not something planned over a few days time. It would have been complicated enough to stage one WTC hit, but these guys went for broke and staged the Pentagon, WTC 2 and WTC 7 tragedies also. Of course, it was just too much for everything to go as planned. It’s possible that Flight 93, which was unexpectedly shot down by a courageous NORAD officer, was meant to take out WTC 7, and that’s why they let it go an entire day to give cover to their story that the fires took it down. That obviously was a grave error and became the smoking gun that some sort of controlled demolition was involved. Personally, I am convinced that the main culprit in turning the buildings to a dusty rubble was the placement decades ago of atomic demolition devices. And the residues of this “atomic warfare” on New York first responders is what’s causing the cancers, not just the dust alone.

      Jim, I really enjoy your scholarship and, as I’ve said before, your willingness to take on all criticism from those who don’t have your vision nor your evident scientific method. Kudos.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 24, 2012 at 7:03 pm

      Thanks, Joe. Remember, Pilots has not only discovered that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh at the time of its “encounter” with the South Tower but that Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL. (See above.) We have reports of Flight 93 landing in Cleveland, so that may be where passengers were off-loaded, only to be killed and turned into victims of plane crashes. This is one alternative we are exploring, so we don’t have the last word on this yet. Pilots have done brilliant work on this and on the impossible speed of the “plane” shown in the videos of Flight 175 heading toward the South Tower. We are going to pursue this at The Vancouver Hearings, 15-17 June 2012, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com. Thanks for posting.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 7:39 pm

      For reykool: You are obviously sincere. Many people saw what they took to be real planes. In this article, however, I explain how we know that, whatever they saw, they cannot have been real planes, because they were performing feats that no real planes could perform: flying faster than a Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude; effortlessly entering the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws of motion; passing through its own length into a 500,000-ton building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

      Please do me the kindness of rereading my article, especially concerning Flight 11 and its alleged impact with the North Tower and Flight 175 and its alleged impact with the South. I am very sympathetic to those who saw what they took to have been real planes. But what I have presented here explains why what they thought they saw cannot have been real planes. Think of this as a kind of “magician’s show” where things are not always as they seem. And please get back to me again after you have given this more thought.

    • reykool  February 21, 2012 at 10:00 pm

      I was not critical of the article per se…and don’t want to waste my time arguing about details in your article, MY BOTTOM LINE IS : (I only speak for the WTC attack)

      Do YOU believe that there was planes involved in the WTC (1&2) attack Or there was NO PLANE what so ever and that my wife who saw the plane from distance and numerous friends who saw the planes from the ground (very close) not to mention the thousands of people in Wall Street that day were “mistaken” ?

      Your article presents a very good case for “Video fakery” that I believe.

      PEOPLE CLOSE TO ME SAW TWO PLANES HITING THE BUILDING and they ALL gave me the same description ….SO TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT PIECES OF PLANES WERE BROUGHT AND LEFT IN THE STREET TO SIMULATE A “CRASH” USING “FAKE PLANE” …Well I don’t think so ! (a UPS truck was parked not to far from that dolly by the way, i have a larger copy of it )

      And yes these 2 planes were “behaving strangely” if they were piloted by humans, but I don’t think they were….

      A company called System Planning Corp (SPC) specializes in sophisticated war-game technology that allows the control of 8 different drones from remote location (on the ground or airborne) this technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets..Prior to 9/11, 32 Boeing aircraft were equipped with this remote control system, ordered by USAF Eglin AFB, Florida.

      The CEO of SPC was non other that Dov S Zakheim who became Comptroller and CFO of the Pentagon in May 2001,during his watch as Comptroller of the Pentagon an amount of $2.3 Trillion could not be accounted for (according to D Rumsfeld) the court hearings were schedule for September 11 2001 and were cancelled for obvious reason..(coincidence ?) Duv Zkheim a dual citizen (Israeli / American) is member of PNAC and a Zionist fanatic close to the intelligence community..It was an SPC subsidiary TriData which oversaw the investigation after the bombing on the WTC in 1993….

      We ALL know that 9/11 was a false flag attack, we disagree on the details of the operation and research on the subject is a MUST.

      Keep up the good work.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 6:41 am

      Well, if I am right, they attempted to simulate real planes with an arrangement of four unmanned aerial vehicle at the North Tower and a sophisticated hologram at the South. As I explain in the final section, they had to fake them because it is very difficult to hit a 208′ wide edifice at high speed with a real plane, no real plane could enter completely into the building before exploding, and they needed to make it happen at specific times in coordination with the explosions in the subbasements. What you wife saw, therefore–and many others also saw the same or similar things–looked like real planes, but they were performing feats that no real plane could do and therefore looked like real planes but were actually clever simulations that looked like real planes.

      The opinions you have formed were very reasonable, especially given your wife and others own personal observations, of (what they took to be) real planes. But the laws of aerodynamics, of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. No real plane could enter the South Tower without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. Look at the videos I have attached in the final section. If the physics of the situation is difficult to appreciate, then consider that Flight 175 has no strobe lights, casts no shadow, and the buildings do not sway in response to these impacts. Although they looked like real planes, they CANNOT have been real planes, not even drones under remote control.

    • Derek X  February 22, 2012 at 7:43 am

      Very nice to read, reykool, interesting. I think it would be more along the lines as you describe.
      I see you have your saving graces, Tj Bronco.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      That’s what I still believe is the most plausible…Dov Zakheim ordered those planes for a reason…I’ll look at Dr. Fetzer’s thesis more though….

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Well, that’s what they probably planned originally: it would guarantee that the planes hit the buildings, but it would not have enabled them to completely enter the towers before exploding. That was crucial to have a plausible, if scientifically indefensible, theory of the “collapse” of the buildings. But no real planes could do that: they would have crumpled, their wings and tails broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. So they had to fake it–in different ways for the North Tower (using an arrangement of UAVs) and the South (using a sophisticated hologram). How else than by faking could they have entered those structures in violation of Newton’s laws of motion? They had to improvise and what we have is the results of their ingenious, but imperfect, innovations. And if the planes were real, they would not have had to plant an engine at C&M.

  29. Stewart Ogilby  February 21, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    There is something very odd about “researchers” who keep going back to the faked “911 movie” in NYC to illustrate a point. Is is so hard to understand that this hoax was prepared as carefully as were the “moon mission videos”? I question the methodology of such pundits. If you want a solid approach to the laughable narrative surrounding the demolition of the WTC, go to http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477. You are hung up on planes, crashes, victims, and Arabs for only one reason, you watch too much TV and you are delightfully gullible.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      Stuart Ogilby, there is something more than “odd” about students of 9/11 who deny proof of this degree in quantity and quality. Why are you even commenting here? It is obvious to me and others too that you have nothing of value to contribute. If you think I have something wrong, then explain what it is (so I can tell you have understood me) and why you think I have it wrong. The death of 3,000 citizens, wars of aggression and constraints on our civil rights are not laughing matters. Some of us want to understand how it was done–all of it.

    • Stewart Ogilby  February 22, 2012 at 4:51 am

      I may have nothing to contribute but will ask you a question. What makes you think that “3000 citizens” were killed on 9/11? Official figures? Internet obits? You have painstakingly taken apart the airliners hoax. Congratulations. The Arab hoax is old hat. You have done a good job on the crash hoaxes. Now go after the victims narrative, Jim. My feeling is that you have let the fraudsters frame the discussion. As Barrett pointed out, it is all quite hilarious.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 7:00 am

      Well, you may be onto something, Stewart. There are so many strange aspects of 9/11 that even faking the body count at the WTC is not out of the question. There was a vast quantity of office equipment, computers, desks and chairs–even the bathroom fixtures–that were not found in the rubble that remained on 9/11 it is hard to know what wasn’t faked! If all this really were “old hat”, however, it would not be such a subject of controversy within the 9/11 Truth movement, would it?

    • Derek X  February 22, 2012 at 7:31 am

      I agree with your lines of thinking, Stewart. But don’t push it, he doesn’t tolerate protracted dissension well.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 7:57 am

      Who has been more patient than I, Derek X? I don’t suffer fools gladly, but Stewart is not among them.

    • Derek X  February 22, 2012 at 8:11 am

      For some reason, that first part was really funny.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 22, 2012 at 8:41 am

      You are right. My patience is limited. I should have said, “Who has been more responsive?”

  30. christophersellars  February 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Could it also be that the “dancing hi-fiving” israelis had “pre-faked” film loaded in their cameras ? They seem to have been caught very easily…… not the norm for MOSSAD !

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      Not unless you assume the Mossad WANTED TO BE IMPLICATED IN THE CRIME, which I find extraordinarily far-fetched. Israel has a history of false-flag attacks. See, for example, “False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994″, co-authored with Adrian Salbuchi, about two contrived assaults in Buenos Aires on the Israeli Embassy and then, when not enough lives were taken, on the Jewish Community Center, and you will begin to see the ruthless cunning involved in killing their own people for political gain.

    • Joe in San Francisco  February 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm

      Ruthless is a kind word, Jim. And you can also mention what Israeli assassins appear to be doing even today to justify Israel’s impending attack on Iran.

  31. bahmi  February 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    There is some conjecture among people that communicate with VT, interpretations that are discordant. Yet, how many Americans lack any semblance of difference with the “official” version of the event? In one of my frequent coffee klatches at Red and Art’s garage, I was savaged by a reasonably well educated and well read group one day when they as a group assaulted me for “proposterous notions that the government could get thousands of people to cover up the event”. Remember, though, that first responders of all sorts were smothered with gag orders soon after the event. This is what one might call “enforced compliance”. While all details are not crystal clear as of today, is is defensible to admit that millions and millions of Americans refuse to accept the notion of government shenanigans? It seems to me that acceptance of any one critical aspect of this drama would auto-catalyze peoples’ investigatory curiosities to a white hot level. If so, why don’t we have nearly 100% agreement in people with at least 2 brain cells, realizing full well that many Americans simply live in fantasy worlds and think the Kardashians are more important that unlocking the key to a most nefarious chapter in our history?

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Group-think, social pressure, political convenience, the incapacity to think are all contributing factors. And when the government and many “independent” institutions belittle or ostracize those who are able to think clearly, there are few who are willing to hazard honest opinions.

    • foo  February 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      @ bahmi

      People are not familiar with the concept of compartmentalization. Perhaps you could use this example to illustrate it.

      I once read that there were about 100,000 people involved in the Manhattan Project, yet it was so secret, that even FDR’s vice president, knew nothing about it, until he was briefed, following FDR’s death.

      People mined the uranium ore, people transported the uranium ore, people refined the uranium ore, people converted the uranium into uranium hexaflouride, people enriched the uranium hexaflouride in centrifuges, people converted the enriched uranium hexaflouride into uranium, people fashioned reactor fuel rods…

      People performed various administrative tasks, making budgetary decisions, filling out paperwork…

      What I’m getting at is that people only know about their own particular job — they don’t know about the big picture.

      Thousands of people wouldn’t have had to cover up the events of 9/11, because those thousands of people would have been doing only their own routine jobs.

  32. ron101  February 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Magnificent article. one to share with others.

    could you please also link to the articles/studies about the planes still being air born after alleged crashes.
    Thank you very much.

  33. Trowbridge Ford  February 21, 2012 at 8:29 am

    There were 266 people on board the four flights, and their names can be largely determined from the censored passengers lists which left out 34 names – those of the 19 hijackers and 15 apparent federal agents on the last three planes.

    Regarding Fetzer’s essential dismissal of their very existence, espcially on UAL Flight 93 which exploded somewhere over western Penna., I would think that the survivors of its captain Jason Dahl, and those of the other 40 non-suicide bombers on board would think of some kind of law suit for demeaning them and their lost ones for claiming that it never happened.

    I would think that the survivors of the non-terrorist passengers on the other flights would look into similar actions.

    Fetzer is claiming that well over 200 innocent Americans and their loved ones who allegedly talked with them while they were still in the air and alive have engaged in a monstrous hoax to aid and abet Washington’s inside job.

    In short, I think that the administrators of this site should think carefully about these mean-spirited libels of innocent people remaining. What have they done to deserve such treatment?

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 8:32 am

      Trowbridge, as usual, is long on speculation and conjecture and short on logic and evidence. Did he miss my response to the first comment posted? With his remarks about the phone calls, he apparently has also missed that all of them were faked.

      Since I don’t want to overtax his diminished capacity for research, here are URLs to two of the studies that I linked in the article, which this guy has obviously merely skimmed in his zeal to post rubbish like this in his on-going mission to attack me:

      Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
      of 9/11″ http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html

      David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

      As I have explained, Pilots has determined that Flights 93 and 175 WERE IN THE AIR AT THE TIMES OF THEIR PURPORTED CRASH. Presumably, they had some passengers aboard. When you think of them as disposable props, then the whole scenario becomes even more chilling.

      The perps LOVE dupes like Trowbridge Ford, to whom they refer as “useful idiots”. As Conan Doyle observed, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. Why anyone would believe anything the government says is beyond me.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  February 22, 2012 at 2:30 am

      There were no hijackers Ford…you still don’t know that?! There were no cell phone calls fm 30,000 ft ( according to the FBI they originated fm the ground..) No plane hit the Pentagon ( according to the NTSB, Gen Stubblebein, Jamie McIntyre..) Ted Olson’s phone call lasted .01 seconds…I’m fm NY and I can’t even have a conversation in .01 seconds…Just drop it Ford..you don’t have to buy Fetzer’s argument whole but by continuing to buy the Rupert Murdoch/Mossad version your embarrasing yourself.

  34. Tom Valentine  February 21, 2012 at 6:14 am

    Jim, Is this the most apropos typo ever? From a graph discussing Shanksville in your essay. “Some accounts even have it that the plane disappeared into an abandoned mind shaft. We can all agree that the entire disaster has been a gigantic mind shaft.

  35. Sami Jamil Jadallah  February 21, 2012 at 1:39 am

    There were reports that the FBI investigating the attack on the World Trade Twin towers found an ” intact” Saudi passport belonging to one of the hijackers… with such high tempreture and with impact of the crash and the millions of tons of debris, how can a Saudi passport survive the impact and is presented as evidence… some magic?

  36. ethanallen  February 21, 2012 at 1:25 am

    While some of the alleged hijackers have been found alive, what of the aircrews and passengers?
    I was on a United Airlines flight on Sep 18 (among the first to be allowed to fly) and there were flight attendants in tears while discussing among themselves their lost co-workers none of whom have ever reappeared.
    To make this thesis believable the people reputedly on board the non-existent flights must also be accounted for.
    If the thesis is correct, the scheme was even more monstrous than previously believed.

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 7:24 am

      Since the flights were faked, the passengers–for the most part–were probably faked, too. But those who are willing to murder 3,000 in New York are not going to hesitate to take out a handful more to create the pathos that you describe. These questions will be addressed by Dean Hartwell, author of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS, during The Vancouver Hearings, http://www911vancouverhearings.com.

      Recall, Pilots has determined that Flights 93 and 175 WERE IN THE AIR AT THE TIMES OF THEIR PURPORTED CRASH. Presumably, they had some passengers aboard. When you think of them as disposable props, the whole scenario becomes even more chilling. They may have been offloaded and then permanently eliminated, where their bodies might even have been used as proof of those crashes.

    • Garibaldi  February 21, 2012 at 8:56 am

      …”They may have been offloaded and then permanently eliminated, where their bodies might even have been used as proof of those crashes.”
      Presumably, in overlooking it, might you be hitherto unaware of the “Cleveland Airport Mystery”?

    • Jim Fetzer  February 21, 2012 at 9:02 am

      Yes, I followed that story and discovered it was revised some 14 times before they abandoned it. Mayor White was there, ABC TV was there and, given what we now know, it becomes increasingly plausible that that may have been what happened to the passengers. The alleged crashes were so horrific that any bodies from them would have been tattered and torn, ripped apart and left in pieces. So I am willing to conjecture that any bodies that the government has purported to be “crash victims” did not have the signs of being the victims of crashes.

  37. joesigur  February 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Trowbridge, take a deep breath, count to three, and go”baaaaah!” Feel better now?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login