9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien

by Jim Fetzer


As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (2005), the editor of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), the chair of the Madison conference (2007) and the co-chair of The Vancouver Hearings (2011), it has been astonishing to me to discover that the atrocities of 9/11 were not simply allowed to happen but come closer to having been produced as a Hollywood-style spectacle, with phantom flights, faked phone calls, and fabricated crash sites. Anyone who wants to continue in a state of naive belief in their government as a nurturing institution that is dedicated to the best interests of the American people and to promoting their welfare should read no further, because 9/11 appears to have been a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and The White House itself. When consideration is given the the totality of the evidence, no alternative explanation is reasonable.

For those who find this difficult to believe, check out “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who undertook the systematic study of reports from Willie Rodriquez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and reported that an enormous explosion had taken place in the subbasements even before there were any effects from the impact of a plane. They used very precise seismic data from a lab run by Columbia University and compared it with very precise FAA and military radar data and discovered that he was right: there had been explosions in the subbasements of both towers, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the hits of those planes on either tower. But this is only the tip of an enormous iceberg, which we can now seen encompasses the faking of the major events of 9/11, including the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, the hit by Flight 77 on the Pentagon, and both Flights 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. It seems incredible, I know, but the evidence is there and, as I explain here, we know who the perps were who brought us 9/11. They were among the most familiar faces on our political stage at the time, actors one and all.

(#1) Evidentiary Submission #1 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Philip Zelikow

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Philip Zelikow

Title at the Time of his Offense: Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission and the principal author of its report, Philip Zelikow caused false claims to be disseminated about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) that Flight 11 had hit the North Tower;

(2) that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon;

(3) that Flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville; and,

(4) that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.

Information published in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) regarding (1) though (4) is demonstrably false because:

(a) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records show that Flight 11 was not scheduled for 9/11;1

(b) BTS records show that Flight 77 was likewise not scheduled for 9/11;2

(c) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 93 was not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005;3

(d) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 175 was likewise not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005; 4

(e) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, subsequent to the time it was reported to have crashed in Shanksville,PA ; 5 and,

(f) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also established that Flight 175 was in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after the time it was reported to have crashed into the South Tower. 6

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Summary: Planes that were not even in the air cannot have crashed on 9/11; and planes that crashed on 9/11 cannot have still been in the air four years later. Zelikow appears to have been selected for his appointment as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, at least in part, because his area of academic expertise prior to joining the Bush administration turns out to have been “the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’”.7 In addition to using flights that did not occur and crashes that did not take place, specifically:

(5) contrary to (1), Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

(6) contrary to (2), Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

(7) contrary to (3), Flight 93 did not crashed in Shanksville; and,

(8) contrary to (4), Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;

there is abundant additional proof that what the public was presented in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) is itself a “public myth”, whose framework of four alleged “hijackings” and “plane crashes” is itself a contrived fabrication, which makes the person responsible for that report an accessory after the fact, as a person who assists in the commission of a crime by helping to cover it up.

Further proof that THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was intended to deceive the American people includes that the government has not been able to prove the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes;8 several of them turned up alive and well after 9/11;9 and the phone calls alleged to have been made from the panes were faked10. Virtually everything it claims about 9/11 is false.

1 Edward Hendrie, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), p. 8.

2 Hendrie, p. 9 The BTS would subsequently revise its data base and thus make itself an accessory after the fact. See http://thewebfairy.com/holmgren/1177.html

3 http://www.911blogger.com/news/2006-08-23/strange-saga-911-planes NOTE: The official FAA site, http://registry.faa.gov/, shows no records for any of the four planes.

4 http://www.911blogger.com/news/2006-08-23/strange-saga-911-planes NOTE: The official FAA site, http://registry.faa.gov/, shows no records for any of the four planes.

5 United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html


7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow&oldid=56836687

8 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

9 David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), pp. 19-20; sources, p. 298.

10 David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

(#2) Evidentiary Submission #2 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Richard B. Cheney

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Richard B. Cheney

Title at the Time of his Offense: Vice President of the United States 

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Vice President of United States, Richard Cheney issued orders that a plane approaching the Pentagon not be shot down, which thus allowed the plane to approach the building unimpeded. This appears to have been the plane that flew toward and then swerved over the Pentagon, while explosives were set off in the building, in an elaborate charade, which was used as the pretext for the following “declaration of war”, and to justify invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq; and subsequently made false claims about the events of 9/11. Consider the following:

Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta tesified to The 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Richard Cheney, as (what would be identified as) American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. According to Mineta, the vice president was asked about orders concerning the approaching aircraft:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’ Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. 11

Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.12 That interpretation, moreover, appears to be inconsistent with the aide’s concern. Since planes were being used as weapons, an order to shoot it down should not have caused any concern: You lose the pilots and the passengers, but not the personnel and the property that is being targeted. Instead,125 lives were lost at the Pentagon. 13

Mineta’s testimony to the Commission on Flight 77 differs rather significantly from the account provided in the 22 January 2002 edition of The Washington Post, as reported by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz in the series “10 Days in September”.14 This article reports that the conversation between Cheney and the aide occurred at 9:55 am, about 30 minutes later than the time Mineta cited (9:26 am) during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, Cheney’s earlier arrival was independently confirmed both by Condoleezza Rice15 and by Richard Clarke. 16

Cheney’s remarks on “Meet the Press” (16 September 2001) support the earlier entry, 17 as does a newly discovered Secret Service document.18 The Woodward and Balz article thus appears to have been an effort to conceal his earlier arrival at the bunker, when the exchange with the aide occurred. Remarkably, the day after I appeared on “Hannity & Colmes” and reported Mineta’s testimony on FOX NEWS, 19 The White House announced that he had retired from the government. 20

YouTube - Veterans Today -

SUMMARY: News leaks are a tried and true method for disseminating both true information (when it would be helpful) and false (when it would be more helpful). The Woodward and Balz article appears to have been intended to defect public attention from Cheney’s presence prior to the alleged hit on the Pentagon, since his order—that it not be shot down—facilitated the fabrication of a fake attack. It therefore reflects the consciousness of guilt, as did the abrupt “retirement” of the Transportation Secretary immediately after I publicized his story on FOX NEWS.

The Pentagon is among the most heavily defended building in the world. If the order had been to shoot it down, it would have been shot down. The plane now appears to have been a prop in an elaborate charade. This makes Cheney not only an accessory after the fact but an accomplice to the mass murder of 125 persons. While this aircraft itself does not appear to have been their cause of death (because they appear to have been killed by a series of explosions that simulated a plane crash), many of the dead were budget analysts and financial experts attempting to locate the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld reported missing on 9/10.

11 Mineta’s testimony is at http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta#cite_note-Commission_Hearing-4
13 http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/911/pentagon_missile_911_vict.html
14 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, “10 Days in September”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html
15 David Ray Griiffin,“9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?” http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
16 Griiffin,http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
17 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibdl2OogFPI
18 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6959886&postcount=131
19 22 June 2006, First appearance on “Hannity & Colmes” discussing Mineta’s 9/11 testimony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQInlZvb_E8
20 23 June 2006, Announcement of Mineta’s retirement: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-9.html


(#3) Evidentiary Submission #3 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Donald Rumsfeld

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Donald Rumsfeld

Title at the Time of his Offense: United States Secretary of Defense

Probable Cause: In his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld actively participated in arranging for the occurrence of the Pentagon attack and by making false claims about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) The SOP for interdicting hijacked aircraft was change on 1 June 2001 so that it would now require the personal authorization of the Secretary of Defense;1

(2) Rumsfeld claimed to be unaware of any threats to the Pentagon, where he was located during the 9/11 attacks, until Flight 77 crashed into the building;2

(3) Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice, and other officials claimed they had no idea that planes could be used as weapons, which is contradicted on many grounds;3

(4) The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is not only wholly unsupported by the available evidence but is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible:

(a) the plane is alleged to have skimmed the lawn at over 500 mph, but that is not aerodynamically possible due to the phenomenon of “ground effect”,4 which would preclude the plane getting any closer than 60’ of the ground;

(b) the plane is alleged to have taken out a series of metal lampposts without affecting its flight path, which is physically impossible, because they would have ripped the wing off the plane and caused its fuel to have exploded;5

(c) the alleged “hit point” in the building is too small to accommodate a 100 ton airliner, where there is no massive stack of aluminum debris, wings, tail, bodies, seats or luggage, and not even the engines were recovered;6

(d) even though the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, the only frame that it has released shows the image of a plane far too small to have been a Boeing 757, so the government’s own evidence contradicts its own story;7

(e) after the civilian lime-green fire trucks had extinguished the modest fires, the Pentagon lawn was clear, green, and unblemished by any debris from the crash of a large airplane, which should have been widely distributed;8

(f) Major Gen. Albert Stubblebein, USA (ret.), who was formerly in charge of all us military photographic intelligence, confirmed that no large plane had hit the Pentagon based upon his careful study of photographic evidence;9

(g) Other witnesses and evidence, including April Gallup, photographic and video evidence, substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that, according to BTS records, Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11;10

(5) Secretary Rumsfeld predicts the Pentagon may be hit and is missing in action for at least 20 minutes before emerging on the lawn helping to carry the injured;11

(6) In his first public response, he accents that Secretary of the Army Tom White was responsible for “incidents like this”, shrugging off his own responsibility;12

(7) Tom White, a former Enron executive, had been appointed to that position on 31 May 2001, the day before the new hijacking instructions had been issued.13

YouTube - Veterans Today -

SUMMARY: Even this brief and partial survey indicates that Donald Rumsfeld was too clever by half, appointing a patsy to take the blame the day before he changed the hijacking SOP, which appears to have been part of the plan to be sure there would be no NORAD response to the alleged hijackings. The claims made about “the Pentagon attack” are not only provably false but are not even aeronautically and physically possible. No reasonable alternative competes with the conclusion that Rumsfeld was a principal in planning the atrocities of 9/11, which not only caused the deaths of 125 persons who were in the building at the time but betrayed his responsibilities to the people of the United States as their Secretary of Defense, and deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

1 http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf
2 http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1886
3 http://911review.com/means/standdown.html
4 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-
5 Nicely illustrated by a Lockeed Constellation hitting wooden telephone poles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4rYj9UmmE4 (turn down the audio first)
6 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html
7 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/inside-job-seven-questions-about-911/
8 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
10 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
11 http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=donaldrumsfeld
12 http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0911/DoD.html)
13 http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf


(#4) Evidentiary Submission #4 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Andy Card and George W. Bush

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: George W. Bush

Title at the Time of his Offense: President of the United States

Probable Cause: In his capacity as President of the United States, George W. Bush participated in planning the occurrence of and made false claims about the events of 9/11 to conceal their origins, an especially revealing example of which is a statement he made implicating himself. On 4 December 2001, in Orlando, FL, he said the following about his visit to Booker Elementary School on 9/11:1

“I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. You know, the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself. And I said to myself, ‘Well, there’s one terrible pilot.’ It must have been a terrible accident.”2

The alleged first hit on the North Tower took place at 8:46 AM/ET to be followed by the alleged second on the South Tower at 9:03 AM/ET.3 Bush’s motorcade had left the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort to head to Booker at 8:35 AM/ET.4 He arrived there at 8:55 AM/ET.5 Bush was told of the second hit at 9:06 AM/ET.6

Once he learned there had been two attacks, there was no rational justification to think the first had been “an accident”. Bush and Condoleezza Rice would initially feign that of the first hit, but they could not possibly have known.7 And he cannot have seen the Naudet video, which would not be broadcast until 1 AM/ET, 9/12.8

(a) An effort has been made to dismiss Bush’s remark about having seen the first hit “on television” as having been a mistake;9

(b) but he would repeat the same story during a town meeting in Ontario, CA, 5 January 2002, including having viewed it on TV;10

(c) a National Geographic Special that almost certainly included his recitation of his television viewing experience has been pulled;11 and,

(d) another—which is an obvious attempt to revise history–has been made available instead, where he recounts his story very differently:12

“I had been notified that a plane had hit the WTC. At first I thought it was a light aircraft. And my reaction was, ‘Man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot’. I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City—whatever help was needed—and walked into the classroom”.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

SUMMARY: President George W. Bush committed a gaffe when he spoke about his experiences on 9/11, candidly revealing that he had seen the first hit on TV, which has to have occurred while his motorcade was en route between Colony Beach and Tennis Resort and Booker Elementary School. This means that the Secret Service had a television camera focused on the North Tower when only those involved in planning the events of 9/11 would have had reason to watch the side of WTC-1. He could not have seen the hit on TV any other way. Eager to convey the impression he thought it was “an accident”, he revealed too much.

Removing “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” and the substitution of another in which he contradicts his previous reports displays consciousness of guilt and the desire to tamper with evidence. But it was a risk that had to be run, because his having watched the first hit on Secret Service television was such an obvious indication of governmental complicity in 9/11. Given our other findings, such as:

(1) the fabrication of the four “crash sites” (see Evidentiary Submission #1);

(2) the failure to prove any of the “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes;13

(3) the faking of the phone calls alleged to have been made from the planes;14

and further forms of proof,15 it becomes increasingly apparent that the atrocities of 9/11 was a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the American government, including The White House, NSA, CIA, Joint Chiefs and Department of Defense, where even the president appears to have been an accessory to the crime and to have committed treason against the United States.

1 http://www.cwalocal4250.org/news/binarydata/9-11%20Government%20Inconsitencies.pdf

2 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dbc_1188804768

3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), for example, p. 285

4 http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=bush&timeline=complete_911_timeline

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 http://911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml

9 http://www.cwalocal4250.org/news/binarydata/

10 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=af92984c-5f77-483d-9a73-4732f3226815%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=10&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPWdlbyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9czczMjQ5NjQmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=f5h&AN=6059432

11 “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” (NO LONGER AVAILABLE)


12 “The President looks back”, http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/all-videos/ngc-the-president-looks-back/

13 http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html

14 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

15 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

(#5) Evidentiary Submission #5 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, Minnesota Air National Guard (MNANG)

Title at the Time of his Offense: Pilot of C-130H circling the Pentagon on 9/11

Probable Cause: Among the most striking and indisputable aspects of 9/11 was the utter failure of NORAD, the NMCC and the FAA to coordinate any military response to (what were alleged to have been the hijacking of four commercial carriers, spanning an interval of time from 8:14 AM/ET, when the first reports of the possible hijacking of Flight 11 surfaced until after the Pentagon had been “hit” by Flight 77 at 9:38 AM/ET, over 1:14 hours later, even though a response to a hijacking should have taken less than 10 minutes.1 The failure to follow SOP is so blatant that there is no reasonable alternative to a deliberate “stand down”.2

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), minimizes the absence of response and the time available to scramble fighters as if it was an innocuous event.3 One of the most peculiar aspects of the Pentagon attack is how our nation’s military leaders could not have known that a plane was approaching the building.4 This appears to be untrue on at least two grounds: first, that Vice President Cheney had been informed by an aide that a plane was headed toward the building by an aide and issued an order that the plane not be shot down (see Submission #2).

Another is that Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting a military C-130H cargo plane (call named, “Gofer 06”) in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where he and his crew were reported to have witnessed the crash of Flight 77 into the building as well as the crash of Flight 93 into the ground at Shanksville.5 Since O’Brien is said to have followed Flight 77—and to have identified it as a Boeing 757—it appears to be impossible that Pentagon officials, with whom he was in radio communication, could not have known a plane was approaching. The “official account” cannot be true, since it violates laws of aerodynamics and of physics (see Submission #3).

At 9:42 AM/ET, the FAA directed that all planes in the air should land6—minutes after the purported plane crash—but Gofer 06 remained airborne, apparently to perform a task essential to the cover-up. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is not only established by the impossibility of the official trajectory—just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out a series of lampposts without damage to the plane or affecting its trajectory—but also by the virtual absence of debris appropriate to the crash of 100-ton airliner: no massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage, such as would be expected.7 Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the site.

Photographs of the clear, green, Pentagon lawn—over 30 minutes following the attack, when a section of the building collapsed—display a stunning absence of debris.8 9 As even Jamie McIntrye reported live on CNN, there was no indication that any large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.10 Pieces of plane fuselage and other debris would show up on the lawn, even though no plane had crashed there, which raises the question of where it came from. It would have been awkward to have officers or enlisted men carry pieces of debris out on the lawn, but it would not have been difficult to have dropped it from the C-130H that O’Brien was piloting. One especially notable piece of fuselage has been tracked back to the crash of a Boeing 757 that had occurred in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.11

YouTube - Veterans Today -

SUMMARY: Debris that appeared on the Pentagon lawn more than 30 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 77 cannot have come from a non-existent crash and must have been planted by military personnel or dropped from the C-130H that was circling the building. When I explained to the BBC that it had to have come from the plane for its second “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On”, they featured Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, who expressed disgust at the implication that he had participated in faking the plane crash by dropping debris from his plane.12 13

But there is no reasonable alternative. The allege crash did not occur and any claims to have seen the plane hit the building cannot be true. It would have been impossible for the cargo door of his C-130H to open for the drop and the pilot be unaware of it; moreover, the C-130H is a special version with electronic warfare capabilities and may have played other important roles on 9/11.14 The evidence thus substantiates that Lt. Col. O’Brien remained airborne because he was “on a mission”, complicit in the crimes of 9/11, and actively engaged in their cover-up.

1 An excellent discussion is David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), Chapter 11. “NMCC” is the National Military Command Center.

2 Ibid., especially pages 146-153; and http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html.

3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), Chapter 1, especially pages 24-40.

4 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS (2008), Chapter 11.

5 http://digwithin.net/2011/12/04/gofer-and-trout-questions-on-two-flights-out-of-andrews-afb-on-911/#_edn2 That claim is disputed at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312008/pg1

6 http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrews-air-force-base-stand-down-how.html

7 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

8 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html

9 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/03/the-bbcs-instrument-of-911-misinformation/

10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

11 http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/seven-questions-about-911.html

12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0148yz5 is as close as I have been able to find it.

13 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/03/the-bbcs-instrument-of-911-misinformation/

14 Email correspondence with military aircraft expert, Dennis Cimino (3 and 4 August 2012)

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a journalist for Veterans Today. He has written dozens of articles on subjects like 9/11 and JFK.

Jim Fetzer

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

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

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

Related Posts:

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

Posted by on August 30, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

38 Responses to "9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien"

  1. Raptor  September 3, 2012 at 6:39 am

    They must have planes, without planes there is no tear jerk reaction that they can make into legend. It’s exactly what they’ve tried to do. It’s what Bush was trying to sell, only he’s a piss poor salesman. If he wasn’t, then there would have been no need to steal the election in the first place.

    All of this makes my head ache….let’s keep it simple, use the KISS method if you will, it’s a lot easier to follow.

    Any stand down order is a RABBIT HOLE one easily swept away by claiming CONFUSION or by creating a paradox, one that would very quickly divide people into two groups. To shoot down and kill all aboard, or not to shoot down and risk hitting another INNOCENT target. What to do .

    My first experience with NPT was a monster eyeopener..Once I saw this person marginalized in broad daylight I knew in an instant that something was up. Death by association, something Americans allow to happen, they allow it because the majority are too afraid to think for themselves. They let others do it for them by power of suggestion, or a simple ring thru the nose at the end of a tether. It’s sickening.

    I believe some people thought that they saw planes, while others just fell in line not wanting to come off as stupid.

    How fast was that first plane supposed to be going? How was that Bro with the hand held able to capture it? What about the sound of the craft? Why were we able to hear it as it approached? Surely the sound would have trailed the craft never to be heard until after impact, well after impact. Impact would have greatly muffled any engine noise…

    Truthfully no one would have ever put 2 and 2 together on initial impact and that’s exactly why all of the conflicting reports in the early stages of the event. Something struck the North Tower but not sure what it was…Oh wait….we’re now getting reports of a ………………….

    Come on folks…this stuff ain’t that hard to nail down…Let’s keep it Simple…KISS.


    • Jim Fetzer  September 3, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Have you read any of my studies about this issue? The initial plan, no doubt, was to use remote controlled planes, until they discovered that no real plane could enter completely into the towers without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. You need to read “Planes/No Planed and Video Fakery”, “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, and “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″, The Vancouver Hearings.

      Since BTS records show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day, how could they have crashed on 9/11? And since FAA Registration data shows that the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005, how can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? These are US government records, which are already sufficient to establish that none of the four flights actually crashed on 9/11. OK?

      Plus Pilots for 9/11 Truth has determined–based upon air/ground communications–that, while Flight 93 was in the air that day, it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER its alleged crash in Shanksville, and that, while Flight 175 was ALSO in the air, it was over Harriburg and Pittwsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER its alleged crash into the South Tower. So which planes do you think were used to hit the North and the South Tower? Some kind of “special plane”? Could any real plane violate Newton’s laws of motion?

      Notice, too, that a real plane would have exploded as it hit the building, not wait until it was completely inside the building. And it passes thorough its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which would be possible only if this massive, 500,000-ton building provides no more resistance to the flight of an aircraft than air. And it has to have come to a screeching halt in .056 second to avoid blasting out the far side of the building!

      The plane was 160′ long. The building was 208′ wide. So after passing all the way into the building, it has to have come to a complete halt in the remaining 40′. Can you envision any scenario under which that would be possible? Remember, according to your position, this “special plane” could slice through steel and concrete with no deceleration at all. So what could possibly have presented it from passing out the opposite side of the building in less than a second, actually, in .056 of a second.

      A hologram could be projected to fly faster than a standard 767. A hologram could effortlessly enter a massive steel-and-concrete building. A hologram could be brought to an abrupt halt before it blasted out the opposite side of the building. You ought to track down Richard Hall’s brilliant study of how it was done using a real plane to project the image from 1,400′ to its right side. The sound of the real plane was mistaken for that of the hologram. And witnesses reported seeing and hearing it.

      The KISS principle applies when a theory or hypothesis can account for the data. They needed to get these planes all the way into these buildings BEFORE they exploded to have a pseudo-explanation for the “collapse” of the buildings and for subbasement explosions that drained the way from the sprinkler systems. They could not do that with real planes. This case satisfies Sherlock’s observation that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

  2. Tigrr  September 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Everyone should see youtbe — CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11. / YouTube

    She verifies:
    1 The Bush WH was behind 9/11
    2 Everything we were told about Iraq were lies
    3 Towers came down by bombing. Nukes (thermite?) which melted the steel. Everyone in NY were contaminated.
    4 Soldiers in Iraq were exposed to depleted uranium, (among other things?)
    5 Iraq war was to steal the gold ( bullion and historical gold artifacts, according to another source)
    6. No plane struck the Pentagon
    7 Third plane was shot down, and that AFpilot still in prison.
    8 The Silverstein connection
    and more.

    Congress and House and CIA have known this from day one, and no one has issued arrests of this WH gang? Instead they are arresting Marines and soldiers who protest against this and other WH treasonous acts?
    Wake up America.

  3. Tigrr  September 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    >>> See youtube —- CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11.
    Yeah, the Bush WH did it.

    NYC must sue all of the Bush WH.
    NY State and all of America, must sue all of the Bush WH, and the RNC for supporting his Candidacy.
    Enough of the Senior and Cheney puppet, as were Junior and actor Regan, and as will be Romney. The Evil Empire Bush Dynasty must be jailed.

  4. DaveE  August 31, 2012 at 8:27 am

    The Reptilians come in many colors!

  5. ricohands  August 31, 2012 at 5:21 am

    Thanks VT for not sweeping this crime under the carpet the way the masterminds had obviously hoped with their complicit media. We owe it to the families of the victims to get justice.

  6. Allesandro  August 31, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Oh My God, Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,Oh My God,


    MURDER, MURDER, MURDER, MURDER, MURDER, ………………….. ! ! ! ! !

    • Charlotte NC Bill  August 31, 2012 at 3:07 am

      well, it was more like the people who own “our” leaders.

    • CoJonesGrandes  September 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      I’m not fully convinced that it’s ‘people’ that own your leaders…..
      Pg 68 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/54233319/Project-Manequin-and-Underground-Bases

      A man called Phil Schneider worked for the UN and had one of the highest security clearances in the world ….. He claims he was invited to secret UN meeting in an underground base. Phil said in this meeting the table was set out in the same manner as the UN building in new city but with one difference. This table had an upper level of seats.

      According to Phil the UN members took their seats in the lower level chairs and then Tall grey ETs walked in, took their seats on the upper level and dictated policy to the UN members. Phil was found dead with a rubber hose wrapped around his neck not long after blowing the whistle. This declared a ‘suicide’.

      More at link about the shadow government hierarchy.

  7. Charlotte NC Bill  August 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Everyone should make copies of articles like these and mail them to friends and family in time for the anniversary…and every year more people will catch on.

  8. Brian  August 30, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    I couldn’t get this published in the other recent 911 article by Fetzer so perhaps I can get it published in this article:

    People should look at the bigger picture, If Bush was involved he simply wouldn’t take a chance on being caught by watching video of the first plane hitting the tower, it’s ridiculous. His partners in crime would be way more cautious. AIPAC controlled the White House and surely had moles in the Secret Service.

    Here is his comment taken from the Rense website:

    And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.”

    Brian: The absurdity one of the masterminds of 911 would say something so foolish or be allowed by his partners in crime to say something so foolish. People have to go beyond the obvious and realize he was set up to look guilty to the alternative theory crowd by the Mossad and AIPAC. Congratulations Mossad you’ve convinced the majority of the alternative theory crowd hapless George Bush was one of the masterminds of 911. Good plan.

    The Secret Service would only do something as stupid as filming the first tower hit if it was controlled by AIPAC and the Mossad.

    • russhallberg  August 31, 2012 at 4:20 am

      AIPAC and Mossad are fall guys for another level of power. The War on Terror has caused the overthrow of 3 nations that did not have a private central bank, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Quadaffi wanted to dump the dollar for a pan-African public currency. Iran does not have a private central bank. The first private central bank, the Bank of England, was founded by the Jesuit Order as a branch of the Bank of Rome.The Rothschilds are a Jewish front for the Vatican fortunes. The reason for this obfuscation is to divert opposition. If humanity recognizes its real enemy, it can be neutralized.

      The War on Terror has been a war on public central banks!

    • haroldsmith  August 31, 2012 at 6:15 am

      This isn’t about “banks” and “money”; it’s about a vastly outnumbered but vastly superior “Master Race”, living amongst the masses of inferior beings, its long and “heroic” struggle to assume its rightful place at the top.

    • DaveE  August 31, 2012 at 8:24 am

      And let’s not forget that this Master Race, “G_d’s Chosen People”, has been trying for 2,500 years to prove their superiority and make their megalomaniac power fantasies come true, using every dirty trick known to man. The fact that they’re up to their eyeballs in every depredation you can think of just makes it even easier. The 9/11 coverup was “just another day’s work.”

      Control of banks and the money supply is the root of their power, however. Without the Fed and BIS and their distribution chain aka banks, the Jewish Mafia would be powerless.

      Vatican? Very funny.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  August 31, 2012 at 9:58 am

      The Rothschilds are just a trillionaire front for the Vatican that has to sell property hundreds of yrs old to payoff lawsuits fm the homosexuals who were allowed to infiltrate the priesthood after that satanic Vatican II Council…OK..sure.

    • haroldsmith  August 31, 2012 at 6:24 am

      I’m not aware of anyone (any honest person, that is) claiming that Bush was one of the “Masterminds” of 9/11. I believe Bush was just another foot soldier who knowingly and willingly participated in the crime.

      Shabbos Goy henchmen like Bush can be very useful, and some of the more “capable” Goyim might have been useful to assist in the lower-level planning of certain operational details or in the “cover up” phase, but almost certainly there were no Goyim involved at the highest-level of planning.

      Don’t forget: Whether it be Bush and Cheney in the Washington or “Pussy Riot” in Russia, our Masters seem to have a supernatural talent for manipulating people – especially corrupt people – into doing what they want.

      And as far as having to be “cautious” so as to not get “caught”? Well, Silverstein didn’t have to worry about publicly implicating himself in the destruction of WTC7. Hyman Brown didn’t have to worry about being caught impersonating someone else, so as to tell lies about the Towers’ “collapses”. The 5 “dancing Israelis” didn’t have to worry about flunking lie detector tests. Nobody had to worry about getting caught deliberately attacking the USS Liberty. They didn’t have to worry about assassinating JFK. They didn’t have to worry about the consequences of shooting down TWA Flt. 800 (accidentally though it may have been). They didn’t have to worry about assassinating Pat Tillman. Obama didn’t have to worry about the fact that he’s an illegal alien who defrauded the people of the U.S. and posted a fake birth certificate on a government web site. In other words: Why do they have to worry about anything when they own everything? They wouldn’t have done 9/11 (or all the other crimes) in the first place if they didn’t.

    • Rollo  August 31, 2012 at 8:19 am

      Thank you, Brian, for using some common sense. The continued use of Bush’s saying he saw the first plane hit is stupid. We’re supposed to take this as gospel truth and not that it was a speaking mistake made by a President who made countless speaking mistakes? That’s the opposite of using critical thinking. We have to dispense with useless evidence like this. The truth is this: Bush only knew that ‘something’ was going to happen during his first term. That’s it. He had no idea what that would be. You don’t trust a figurehead fool with operational details of any kind. All he’s supposed to do is smile, rally the sheep, and execute orders given from above.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 9:23 am

      Let me agree that something stupid IS going on here. Consider the evidence I have adduced:

      (1)The guy said the same thing TWICE in public and probably again during the NG interview;

      (2) He appears to have been completely sincere, both times emphasizing that the TV was on;

      (3) He subsequently changed his story to a variation that is not only false but provably so;

      (4) The interval between the first “hit” and the second “hit” lasted from 8:46 to 9:03 AM/ET.

      (5) Bush was traveling with the Secret Service from 8:35 to 8:55 AM/ET before entering Booker.

      (6) He was informed there of the second “hit” by Andy Card, his chief of staff, at 9:06 AM/ET.

      What is the probability that Bush would make this statement several times, if it were not true?

      What is the probability that he would have changed to a false account were he not covering up?

      The only period of time his thoughts would have made any sense was between 8:46 and 9:06.

      Bush is specific about watching this as it happened, which must have been on Secret Service TV.

      The Naudet Brothers video of the first “hit” would not even be broadcast until 1 AM/ET on 9/12.

      It was a blatant blunder, but many Americans are gullible and don’t want to believe the obvious.

      Brian and Rollo can believe whatever they want, but the government has been playing us for saps.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  August 31, 2012 at 10:03 am

      You’re thoughts on this are the most plausible..Bush just isn’t a rocket scientist…he’s like the criminal who uses the landline phone then realizes he’s not supposed to be at this place in question..and switches to his cell phone.

    • stormyrain  August 31, 2012 at 3:48 pm

      Char Bill,

      LOL – I believe you are correct… makes me think of the “get smart” character… and I find myself laughing… sadly enough.


    • Rollo  August 31, 2012 at 11:26 am

      Jim, for the record, we agree on all of the most important things. However, one has to think, what are the pros of having Bush access to a video feed of the WTC just to see the first plane hit and what are the cons? Pro: he gets to see it and say yay. Cons: Someone sees him and asks wtf are you doing with a private feed of the WTC before the planes hit? The risks so vastly outweigh the silly pro that it is absurd to even consider this as speculation, let alone evidence. The guy slipped up in his speech, as he did a zillion times during his presidency.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am

      Rollo, his remark reveals that the Secret Service had a camera pointed at the North Tower at a time when no one other than the perps would have had any reason at all to think anything of significance was about to happen there. You seem to think that the bad guys never muck up. But if it were not for their mistakes, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to be able to catch them.

      What I can’t understand is why, in a case as obvious as this, when I have spelled it out in spades, you are playing the sap? That dumbfounds me. Believe anything you want, but the proof is there. There is nothing more to debate–and to suggest that he “slipped up in his speech” in this context is drivel. This was extremely revealing and he even repeated it more than once!

    • haroldsmith  August 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      There’s an intense psychological war being waged against us – and it’s been going on for a long time – and from that perspective, 9/11 was merely another act of aggression in that war.

      I think in a sense “they” want “us” to know that 9/11 was an inside job. “They” want us to know – by slowly putting the pieces together after the fact – and to accept, at some level of our consciousness, that “they” did it.

      Let’s face it, they didn’t have to publish the PNAC manifesto, spelling out their agenda in broad terms, but they did. They didn’t have to plainly state, in the official document entitled “The National Security Strategy Of The United States Of America [2002]” that 9/11 opened up “vast new opportunities”, but they did. In his Commencement Address at West Point in June 2001, Paul Wolfowitz didn’t have to dwell on the “surprise attack” on “Pearl Harbor”, but he did. Let’s face it, they left us a trail of crumbs that they wanted us to follow.

      But “we” voted for them; “we” cheered them on when they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq; “we” joined the U.S. armed forces to help them in their dirty work…we’re a part of the problem too. To implicate them is to implicate ourselves.

      Once we subconsciously realize and “accept” this situation, we’re less likey to be a problem for them. Once we accept that uncle Bill really is a serial killer, and we didn’t do anything about it when we could have, we’re in it with him. We’re now much less likely to accidentally open the bathroom door when he’s dismembering a body in the bathtub; and if we do happen to open the door and catch him at an awkward moment, we’re liable to not see it or to have trouble remembering what we saw.

      So whether or not Bush slipped up or Silverstein slipped up or the “dancing Israelis” slipped up or the cartoonish planted evidence implicating “Arabs” was a slip up…is almost irrelevant, IMO, because if somebody didn’t slip up, somebody else would’ve had to slip up.

    • Rollo  August 31, 2012 at 3:35 pm

      I just don’t see why he would want or need to have a live visual of the first plane hitting. Please tell me why it was necessary for him to see it live while in an elementary school? It makes no freaking sense. And furthermore, setting up such a live feed requires yet a few more individuals to know about the plot to set up the video camera, and then relay the feed into a school where someone could possibly walk by and say, hey, why was the President watching the WTC before it was attacked??

      Why does he need to see the first plane hit when he knows damn well that he’ll see it on live television less than 5 minutes after it happens? Please answer me this: what Pros outweigh the Cons of setting up a live feed? It just doesn’t make any sense. (This might be a mere detail, but you only harm yourself by trotting this out as “evidence” when any critical thinker will say that sounds really, really stupid, and that Bush in all likelihood just slipped up in a public speech. I’m just trying to help you out here, not argue for no reason…)

      This clip is much, much more meaningful. You should be sharing this one with people because even a child could tell you that the President is acting oddly and unnecessarily sheepish and guilty:

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      You are coming across as as dimwitted as Bush. It wasn’t “necessary” for him to see it. They were tracking the historic events of that day on the Secret Service channel. Bush was there and he watched the first hit. He unwisely talked about it later, which no doubt came as a surprise, just as your pursuing this is coming as a surprise. They even took steps to cover it up. And I am finding it somewhat disturbing that, given the evidence I have adduced, you are still quibbling about this. The proof is clear and compelling. He saw it and it made am impression on him. He didn’t realize he shouldn’t talk about it, so it came out. That’s it!

    • cascadedavid  August 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm


      I think that it’s great how you and others are zeroing in on these facts and laying them out. If you have already said it then I’m sorry for the repeat, but one thought that I had when I saw this was that if some or all was CEG, then GW could have seen the footage far in advance… I could see a bunch of them sitting around “partying” and watching the wtc-plane show, then him saying that day, “yeah I saw it.” ;)

    • Brian  August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm

      Rollo and Dan, you’ve made some very good comments.

      Fetzer doesn’t seem to be able to see things from a planning perspective. Besides the video I’m supposed to believe Bush planned to make a fool out of himself and attract suspicion to himself by continuing to read a book about a goat after the second tower was hit. That day was planned months before in advance. Waht a terrible plan.

      The notion of Bush being part of the evil group which planned 911 stupidly watching the event on video, stupidly reading a book about goats with grammar school kids after the second tower hit is something out of a dumb movie featuring Peter Sellers. Bush was an incompetent stooge kept in the dark.

    • DaveE  August 31, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      I agree with you both. It’s a tough call with Bush. Fact is, pathological liars are often very good at lying and are often very consistent, at least on a limited time frame. Look at the Israelis, fer cryin’ out loud. Talk about lying consistently…… they’re the benchmark.

      But truthfully, why engage in pissing matches? This ain’t a trial, It ain’t even a mock trial. Let’s get the bastards on the stand and let the jury decide.

      We all (those of us with a conscience, that is) agree on so much, why get our panties in a bundle over arguments that really don’t amount to much, at least right now?

      That being said, Dr. Fetzer’s arguments are EXTREMELY well researched. But even so, different people weigh the evidence differently. That’s why some bright dude invented juries, to attempt to introduce statistical truth (more often true than false) into the equation.

      Point is, let’s save the pissing match for the trial, when all we have to consider is whether Bush gets a firing squad or lethal injection.

    • Rollo  August 31, 2012 at 7:19 pm

      Jim, I think you’re taking this a little too personally. I’m just trying to reason with you. I must say though that you are artful at the ad hominem insult. However I doubt you will find anyone here who thinks my comments have been anything but thoughtful and carefully considered.

      There are things called false memory. Bush saw reruns of the second plane hitting the building after sitting in the classroom. He also saw video of the first plane hitting when that was later released. Additionally, we’ve all ‘imagined’ many times what it would be like to witness the first plane come out of no where and strike. When speaking in public, politicians regularly make up stories on the fly to relate to and influence audiences. They talk about folks they never met and recite slightly altered stories to fit the mood. This was one such occasion. I hope that you can understand this idea.

      “They were tracking the historic events of that day on the Secret Service channel.” Why would the Secret Service be doing this? What possible good could this do to have a live internal feed that would risk compromising operational security? In no op ever conducted was operational security more important than this one. Absolutely no one knew anything that they didn’t need to know; ergo Secret Service would not be walking around with a live feed that would indicate foreknowledge.

      You can probably convince quite a few Truthers (of which I am one) that this was the case, but it’s not persuasive in the least for those who use strong critical thinking, which skeptics do. And we want to convince the skeptics… So we have to be picky about the “evidence” that we marshal in arguing the case. This piece is just too weak.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      Well, I think you are very naive. There are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit in Dallas on 22 November 1963. The FBI was used to cover it up. During the course of my investigations of the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone, I discovered that the FBI Rapid Response Team had to have departed from St. Paul at the same time that the Wellstone plane was departing in order to be on the scene by noon, when the crash was only confirmed at 11 AM and they had not been notified. See “The Senator Wellstone Assassination” on YouTube.

      There was a twenty (20) minute interval–between the first “hit” on the North Tower and his being informed of the second by Andy Card–during which it might have been reasonable to entertain the notion that this was an accident involving “a really bad pilot”. After knowing “American was under attack”, it would have been quite absurd, even for a dim bulb like Bush. He could not have made those reports (and done so repeatedly) had he not actually experienced it. If you want to believe it was “false memory syndrome”, be my guest. I have laid out the evidence. There is no reasonable alternative explanation.

      These agencies, including the NTSB, are used to cover up crimes all the time. My views are base on actual research I have done on cases like these, not wishful thinking. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. The idea they could have taped the hit on the North Tower so far in advance boggles the mind. Who knows what might have been taking place on Duane Street at the time on 9/11? You are welcome to believe whatever you want about George W. Bush and other perps. The “official account” of 9/11 is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things.

    • Dan  August 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      Dr. Fetzer,

      Considering the Five Dancing Israelis were Mossad agents who in their own words had set up to video record the event, isn’t it, therefore, highly likely the Naudet brothers were also Mossad agents set up to record the event, particularly considering their implausible, almost absurd, cover story? I’m just going by memory, but didn’t they unnecessarily commandeer an intersection, suggesting they had to have a straight-line shot, not of the fire department activity they were presumably following off to the side, but of the North Tower? And, if the Naudet brothers were Mossad agents, then the video might have been almost immediately available to Bush watching it on a monitor. Despite Bush’s apparently being aware of the attack beforehand, doesn’t Ari Fleischer’s holding up that sign, “Don’t say anything yet” suggest Bush was more of a useful idiot and patsy than conspirator?

      I’d also like to see your views on Christopher Bollyn’s new book, Solving 911: The Deception that Changed the World. Since you make no mention of Israel or its Fifth Column, do you question the objectivity of the evidence Bollyn has uncovered or the objectivity of the relationship of the evidence? I’m curious.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      You are not following my work very closely. Here is the latest on Veterans Today:

      “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, by Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)

      “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset” by Susan Lindauer (with Jim Fetzer)

      Here is some earlier work, where I discuss “the Dancing Israelis” more than once:

      “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”

      “Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”

      I often recommend Bollyn’s book. I cite Sabrosky’s work in this article of mine:

      “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11″

      I recommend this article by Leslie Raphael, who would agree with you:

      Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”

      But your theory of how Bush could have seen the “hit” via the Naudet Brothers’ film
      is fantastic. He watched it on TV. He told us. More than once. Why not accept it?

      I agree that Bush was not “the mastermind”. He is a dim bulb. But he gave something
      important away when he naively reported what he saw on television and thought about it.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      And don’t miss “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” by Jim Fetzer (with Preston James), http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/

    • jonabrahamson  August 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm


      I was reading a week or so ago about Soddom trying to bribe the Bush Administration not to attack. He said that Iraq would buy 1,000,000 US made cars a year for 5 years and up to 10 years. I’ve tried google, bing, and start page and got nothing but garbage on my search. Have you heard of this? Or is it BS. Bush is sharp as a marble! If this was true, it could have been a real shot in the arm for American Auto Industry. Thanks for your probably 1000’s of hours in research on 9/11, and all the other things you’ve research out so meticuliously. JFK, Wellstone, etc, etc, etc.

    • Jim Fetzer  August 31, 2012 at 1:56 pm

      Saddam offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars a year for the next ten years–and if that was not enough, for the next twenty! See “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset” by Susan Lindauer (with Jim Fetzer), which answers your questions. Here’s a link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-confessions-of-a-former-cia-asset/

  9. Charlotte NC Bill  August 31, 2012 at 10:08 am

    She’s probably vulnerable to blackmail…rumor has it she’s a lesbian…maybe she should join the neo-con wing of the Democratic Party…no one would care.

  10. Rollo  August 31, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Eh, gay stuff doesn’t go as far as it used to I imagine. You have to get kiddies in there somehow. (Sorry, I’ve become so desensitized to all of this dark shit that it sadly doesn’t phase me anymore.)

You must be logged in to post a comment Login