9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I

by Jim Fetzer

“And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” — the motto of the CIA, taken from the Gospel according to St. John, which was inscribed on the facade of its Headquarters Building in 1959.

The array of ongoing attacks on the 9/11 Truth movement has reached astonishing proportions.  A “10th anniversary 9/11 Truth ‘Hit Piece’ Roundup” published on 12 September 2011, a year and a day after 9/11, included excerpts from and links to no less than 32 attacks, where the majority emphasize the psychological needs of those who embrace “conspiracy theories” to give meaning, coherence and security to their lives—as though the belief that your government has perpetrated crimes of such magnitude could enhance your sense of security!  But logic and reason are not their strong suits, where these articles are largely bereft of considerations about photographic, witness and physical proof substantiating the conclusions that many within the movement have drawn, where those who study the evidence tend to become truthers themselves.     

Attacks upon the movement from the outside, however, pale in comparison with those that arise from groups that are within the movement itself.  Richard Gage, head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, reportedly tried to convince 9/11 Vancouver that it should not support the hearings that would be held there on 15-17 June 2012.  Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has denounced “No Plane Theory” (NPT), virtually without regard for the evidence that supports it, to which Pilots itself has made major contributions.  And the Judy Wood clique (which displays the behavioral characteristics of a cult), denounces anyone who has even the least doubt of her theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers, while paradoxically denying that she even has “a theory”!

In spite of efforts to undermine them, which even included a death threat directed against those who organized the conference, The Vancouver Hearings have made a powerful contribution to understanding the events of 9/11. The quality of the 19 presentations was uniformly excellent—clearly organized, well-reasoned, and thought-provoking—where the most controversial issues within the 9/11 Truth community were addressed— and effectively settled—in an effort to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.  The most important outcome was the resolution of several of the major 9/11 controversies that have divided the research community, which represents an enormous step forward in bringing these factions within the movement together—provided that reason and rationality are going to prevail in lieu of ego-centric and defensive attempts to save face when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Vancouver Hearings were designed to compensate for perceived weaknesses in The Toronto Hearings, which were held with great fanfare across the continent nine months earlier.  As Joshua Blakeney explained, there was a noticeable failure in Toronto to address who was responsible for 9/11 and why.  And as I accented in my critique of those hearings, alternative theories about the destruction of the Twin Towers, including the possible use of mini or micro nukes, much less directed energy weapons, were not even considered, which meant that no comparative judgments could be rendered about which among the alternative accounts provides the best explanation of the available data because no alternatives were discussed.  That is not a scientific attitude. The desire to avoid controversial questions, such as whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, whether all four of the crash sites had been fabricated or faked, much less who was responsible and why, were not addressed, even though there is a powerful and growing body of evidence that makes their resolution possible.  The Vancouver Hearings were intended to compensate for those shortcomings.

The “Official Account”

One commentator who attended the hearings, Ernst Rodin, has suggested that the difference between these events is that the Toronto Hearings were devoted to establishing that the “official account” of 9/11 cannot be sustained on the basis of the available relevant evidence, while The Vancouver Hearings were focused upon the question of who was responsible and why.  But another student of 9/11, Craig McGee, has come decidedly closer to the heart of the matter by observing that, unlike Toronto, there was no “partly line” in Vancouver, where the presentations were diverse and some speakers openly disagreed with others, which is right on the mark. The Vancouver Hearings were intended to confront and resolve the issues that divide us, which invited not only their discussion but even, as it turned out, open differences between speakers themselves.  While Ernst Rodin implies the Toronto Hearings were more objective and scientific, frequently talking about what can be “verified” and what cannot, he minimizes the science at the Vancouver and, rather oddly, does not even bother to report our research on “No Plane Theory” (NPT) or to explain our findings about who was responsible and why.  In this part, I am going to address issues related to NPT and, in part II, those related to the destruction of the Twin Towers and who was responsible and why 9/11 was produced.

The “official” 9/11 flight paths

While Rodin contends that he is only going to focus on “a few presentations that provided, at least for [him], new information”, he not only does no more by way of discussing who was responsible and why than to mention in passing “government circles here and/or in Israel” but has nothing to say about NPT, even though several of the speakers, including Nick Kollerstrom, Christopher Holmes, and I, presented extensive, detailed, and scientific evidence in its support.  Moreover, since Israeli complicity in 9/11 and evidence that all four of the 9/11 crash sites appear to have been fabricated had never been addressed during previous 9/11 conferences—with the exception of Morgan Reynolds during the Madison Conference in 2007—it is difficult to believe that this did not come as “new information” for Rodin.  In order to appreciate the historic significance of The Vancouver Hearings, however, it may be appropriate to review the “official account” of what happened on 9/11.  According to The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)—with support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—the key events were:

* That 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers–Flight AA 11, AA 77, United 93, and United 175–outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of Osama bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistan.

* That two of those planes, Flights 11 and 175, both Boeing 767s, were flown into the Twin Towers, where the combination of damage from their impacts, the jet-fuel based fires and those that endured, weakened the steel and caused both of them to collapse in about 10 seconds apiece.

* That at 5:20 PM that afternoon, another enormous building in the World Trade Center complex, WTC-7 (also known as “Building 7″, a 47-story skyscraper,  also collapsed due to fires inside the building, even though it had not been hit by any plane and had no jet-fuel-based fires.

* That the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that approached on a northeastern trajectory at around 500 mph and, just skimming the ground and taking out multiple lampposts, created a spectacular fireball and extensive damage, with 125 casualties at the building itself.

* That another Boeing 757, Flight 93, crashed in Shanksville, after the passengers heroically attempted to regain control, which we know from phone calls they made–as others had made from other planes–where this plane virtually completely disappeared into the very soft earth.

* That the government identified the 19 hijackers almost immediately, where 15 were from Saudi Arabia and the number from Iraq was none, where these events were used to justify wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, the passage of the PATRIOT ACT, and the on-going “War on Terror”.

We have long known that every element of this account is riddled with claims that are not only false but even impossible, which I have summarized in “20 reasons the official account of 9/11 is wrong”, where Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never been able to prove that any of those alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes; David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown that all of the alleged “phone calls” from all four flights were faked; and Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, even though there are millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one!  And while an FBI spokesman explained why the NTSB had not conducted investigations of any of the four plane crashes for the first time in its history on the ground that “it wasn’t necessary because we saw what happened on television”, we did not see what happened in Shanksville on television and the only frame purporting to show what happened at the Pentagon features a plane that is too small by half to have been a Boeing 757.  What we did see on TV of events in New York is laden with anomalies.

Proving False Claims True

The title of Col. Nelson’s study, “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”, is relevant here, because falsehoods can mistakenly seem to have been proven true when their premises are false because of suppressed evidence, manufactured evidence, or other forms of fakery and fabrication. A great deal of the proceedings that took place during The Vancouver Hearings, therefore, had the function of a formal certification of the deceit and deception that characterizes the official account of 9/11, not because we did not know that it was riddled with false claims and was based upon fabricated evidence but because of the importance of further certifying that to be the case with qualified experts, who confirmed that:

The 19 9/11 “patsies”

(1) Flights 11 and 77  were not even scheduled that day and the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005;

(2) no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but one appears to have been flown toward the building and swerved over it as explosives were set off to simulate a plane crash;

(3) Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville, PA, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after its alleged hit on the South Tower;

(4) all four of the alleged “crash sites” were fabricated, where different forms of fakery were used in each instance in an effort to conceal how had been done; where,

(5) the Twin Towers appear to have been destroyed by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes exploded in a sequence intended to simulate a collapse;

(6) 9/11 appears to have been a “national security event” approved at the highest levels of the U.S. government and executed with the assistance of the Israeli Mossad.

These conclusions—with the possible exception of how the Twin Towers were destroyed—now appear to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, because there are no reasonable alternatives. The solitary exception (regarding how the Twin Towers were destroyed) is that the use of nukes may have been complemented by one or another kind of directed energy weapon. But any alternatives that posit the primacy of conventional weapons, thermite/thermate/nanothermite—which could have been used for limited special purposes—or continue to maintain a collapse of any kind, after The Vancouver Hearings, no longer deserve serious consideration within the 9/11 Truth movement.  Those theories have been defeated. They are not even physically possible.  Indeed, the “official account” of 9/11 is littered with violations of the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics, which means that it is not only false but cannot possibly be true.

An unusual aspect of The Vancouver Hearings is that they were conducted within a quasi-judicial framework in which each of the speakers was sworn in by one of the hearing’s panel of two judges, with the expectation of subsequently submitting evidentiary statements for the panel to use as the foundation for the preparation of formal indictments of those who appear to have been responsible for these atrocities, comparable to the Luala Lumpur Tribunal’s indictments of George W. Bush and Anthony “Tony” Blair. The evidentiary submissions and indictments that are based upon them, some of which have recently appeared on Veterans Today, including Susan Lindauer’s “Confessions of a former CIA Asset”, may well become the most enduring legacy of the hearings.  Let us begin with events at the Pentagon and follow up with the fabrication of the four “crash sites”, then turn to how the Twin Towers were destroyed and who was responsible (including Israeli complicity) and why, which no other 9/11 conference has ever addressed.

(1) What didn’t happen at the Pentagon

According to the “official account” of 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 that approached on a northeastern trajectory at around 500 mph and, just skimming the ground and taking out multiple lampposts, created a spectacular fireball and extensive damage, which caused 125 fatalities within the building itself.   The public needs to understand that events that violate the laws of aerodynamics and of physics are scientific impossibilities, where ground effect—the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas —would make it impossible for a Boeing 757 to fly closer than 60-80′ feet of the ground and that the effects of a plane traveling at 500 mph hitting stationary lampposts would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by lampposts traveling 500 mph:  they would rip through the wing, the fuel stored there would burst into flames, the plane would twist around and its tail would have broken off, while the plane cartwheeled into the ground.  The “official account” is not even aerodynamically or physically possible, where arguments that are based upon scientific laws among their premises properly qualify as “scientific reasoning”.

The first speaker to address the Pentagon was Enver Masud, founder and CEO of The Wisdom Fund, recipient of the 2002 Gold Award for THE WAR ON ISLAM, now in its 5th edition. An engineer by profession, he was residing near the Pentagon and observed its condition immediately after the hit, which he wrote about in 9/11 UNVEILED (2nd edition), perhaps the best brief introduction to 9/11.  Enver Masud not only explained that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, could not have executed the flight path of “Flight 77″ into the Pentagon, but that the plane itself would have undergone G-forces that would have caused it to crash into the lawn.  He offers the witness testimony of personnel inside the building, including April Gallup, but that other witnesses outside the building, such as CNN’s Jamie McIntrye, also contradict the “official account”.  Among his other important points, he explains that the Pentagon Damage Assessment Report does not comport with the crash of a Boeing 757 and that the Flight Data Recorded provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the NTSB does not show the plane leveling off for its approach to hit the Pentagon.

Barbara Honegger, Former White House Policy Analyst and, for more than a decade, Senior Military Affairs Journalist at DoD’s science, technology and national security affairs graduate university, she authored OCTOBER SURPRISE (1989) and “The Scarlet A: Anthrax Links to 9/11″, presents compelling evidence that the central fact of the Pentagon attack on 11 September 2001 is the same as at the World Trade Center: inside-the-building explosives, which no foreign terrorists could have had the access to plant, which, by itself, makes the “official account” of the Pentagon attack a fabrication on its face. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony converge to show that internal as well as external explosions went off just after 9:30 a.m., when the official narrative maintains that Flight 77 was still miles from Washington and did not approach the building until 9:37:46, where these primary explosions went off at locations far removed from the official “plane penetration path” in Wedge One, including in Wedge Two, and in the innermost rings well beyond the alleged C Ring “exit” hole.  Honegger’s study thus confirms and reinforces the presentation by Enver Masud.

Dennis Cimino, who spoke on Sunday morning, addressed issues related to the FDR data, which, according to the NTSB, was from Flight 77.  With an A.A. in electrical engineering, 35-years in EMI/EMC testing and field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer, his presentation fit with others about the Pentagon.  As Rodin accurately reports, “the most interesting aspect was his analysis of the AA77 FDR. It revealed that there could not have been a struggle in the cockpit because at no time was the autopilot disengaged which would have inevitably happened under those circumstances. Furthermore, the preamble of the FDR file, which normally carries identifying information of the plane it came from, had 000. This indicated that the file did not originate from AA77.” Dennis and I co-authored a study, ‘The ‘official account’ of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”, which he asked me to move to my blog after it unexpectedly disappeared from Veterans Today.  Here is what Dennis had to say:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Dean Hartwell, who holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, Masters in Public Administration, and law degree, J.D., is also the author of DEAD MEN TALKING: CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENT LIES (2009) on JFK, RFK and 9/11 and of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS: THE FAKED HIJACKINGS OF 9/11 (2011).  If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, after all, then what became of its passengers?  As Dean observes, Bureau of Transportation Statistics records, which were first discovered by Gerard Holmgren, reveal that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were scheduled to fly that day.  But if those flights were phantoms, then the passengers were imaginary, too.  As he illustrates in his evidentiary submission, the most famous passenger alleged to have been killed that day was the popular right-wing political commentator, Barbara Olson.  Her husband, Ted, then the Solicitor General of the United States, gave three different versions of his claim that she had called him twice from the airplane, even though we know from the research of A.K. Dewdney and David Ray Griffin that calls from those planes would have been impossible in 2001.  Even the FBI would eventually confirm that Barbara Olson had not had any conversation with her husband during 9/11.  Dean’s study removes a psychological obstacle to concluding that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that the “official account” is a fraud.

(2) The fabrication of all four crash sites

Since the presentations by Nick Kollerstrom (on Saturday morning) and by Christoper Holmes (on Sunday morning) can perhaps be best appreciated within the more general framework of how we know that all four of the “official crash sites” were fabrication, I shall begin with my own presentation, “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″.  As Dean observed, BTS records show neither Flight 11 (which officially hit the North Tower) nor Flight 77 (the Pentagon) was scheduled to fly that day.  FAA Registration records, which I also display, show that the planes associated with Flights 93 (the Shanksville crash) and Flight 175 (the South Tower hit) were not de-registered (or formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005.  Which raise the following questions:  How could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11?  and how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?  In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established (on the basis of studies of air/ground communications) that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was also in the air but, long after its alleged hit on the South Tower, was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA.  All four crash sites involved forms of fakery.

This is such stunning information, which completely pulls the rug out from under the “official account” of 9/11, that I am in a state of disbelief that Ernst Rodin does not even mention, much less discuss, these findings.   It also clarifies and establishes the position known as “No Planes Theory” (NPT), which might be better described as “No ‘official plane crashes’ theory” or, as Morgan Reynolds has proposed, “No Big Boeing’s Theory”.  Properly understood, NPT consists of the conjunction of the following four propositions:


(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;

(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.


NPT does not mean that no planes were involved in 9/11, since Pilots’ study of the FDR data suggests and CIT’s witness research has confirmed that a large plane—presumably, a Boeing 757—flew toward the Pentagon on a due east trajectory (as opposed to the acute northeast trajectory of the “official account”), far too high to have hit any lampposts and, instead of hitting the building, swooped over it, as the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research had told him, while explosives were set off to simulate the crash of a plane.  They appear to have left nothing to chance, where 125 casualties died when these events took place in the West Wing.

Shanksville is a relatively trivial case, but New York is another story.  Christopher Holmes, Ph.D., who is a clinical and forensic psychologist, the director of the Zero Point Institute and author of THE MADNESS OF HUMANITY (2011), gave a presentation inspired by a psychological and forensic examination of Simon Shack’s “September Clues” studies, which he elaborates upon in “Fabled Airplanes”.  Christopher began with a searching exploration of a blow-up of the alleged entry hole in the facade of the South Tower, observing that features are present that should not be present and that other features are absent that should have been present if a real plane had entered the building.  It was a stunning and effective discussion.  He amplified with an analysis of other indications of video fakery — which could include fake videos of real or fake planes but also real footage of fake planes — which provided powerful proof that no real plane had actually entered the building on 9/11.  In fact, given the laws of physics, that would have been an impossible event.

This is such a remarkable situation—where many, even within the 9/11 Truth community, remain convinced that violations of the laws of physics occurred on 9/11—it may be worth expanding upon this issue.  As Pilots has confirmed, the plane was traveling faster than a standard Boeing 767 could fly.  That has inspired some to infer that it must have been a “special plane”.  But no plane, no matter how “special”, could have made the effortless entry shown in these videos, especially when it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each floor was filled with 4-8″ of concrete and, at 208′ on a side, represented an acre of concrete apiece.  Imagine the effects were a commercial carrier to encounter just one of those floors in flight!  A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground.  Instead, it effortlessly passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air.  Its jet fuel should have exploded during its collision with the facade.  How could a 160′ plane traveling over 500 mph have possibly come to a screeching halt within 48′ and not blown out the other side?  The answer is, “It could not!”, which is one more indication that we are viewing videos that record a fantasy encounter.

The question thus becomes not whether we are witnessing some kind of video fakery but how it was done.  Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science, who has published on Sir Isaac Newton, and Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, founding member of the UK’s 9/11 Truth movement, member of the New York Academy of Sciences and author of 7/7: TERROR ON THE TUBE (3rd edition, 2012), in his presentation, “Did a Phantom Plane hit the 2nd Tower?”, may have answered that question. Consistent with the BTS and FAA records that I have cited, Kollerstrom discusses the research of Richard Hall, who conducted a 3-D study of the flight path found in the videos of the plane, where he was able to establish locations and times for its approach toward the South Tower.  He subsequently discovered the existence of a RADES military radar track of (what he presumed to be) the same plane, except that its trajectory was 1,400′ to the right of the video image.  He discovered that the same phenomenon occurred in relation to the Naudet Brothers film of the North Tower hit, where the RADES radar track was again 1,400′ to the right and, as in the first instance, missed the tower.  His account, which I believe to be correct, is that a real plane (probably cloaked) was used to project a holographic image of “the plane”, where the sound of the real plane was taken to be coming from the projected image, which could be flown faster than a Boeing 767, could enter the towers in violation of Newton’s laws and without exploding and come to a screeching halt, virtually instantaneously.

9/11 Truth Will Out

Ernst Rodin’s repeated insinuations that The Toronto Hearings were objective and scientific, while The Vancouver Hearings were not, is palpably false.  The difference is we were willing to consider the alternative theories that have caused so much division and distress within the 9/11 community and they were not.  The Toronto Hearings were less scientific and objective precisely on that basis, since it is logically impossible to establish what happened in cases of these kinds without comparing alternatives.  While it is entirely appropriate for Rodin to compare and contrast the backgrounds of David Ray Griffin and me, where David is a theologian and philosopher of religion, he could not find the words to report that I had earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, in which I have published more than 20 books and 100 articles, that I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years or that I was selected to be a Distinguished McKnight University Professor by the University of Minnesota in 1996.  That he places so much emphasis on science but suppresses my qualifications with regard to scientific methods suggests he was not on the up-and-up but was performing a subtle smear of The Vancouver Hearings by minimizing both its science (with regard to faking the crash sites) and its politics (by barely mentioning Israel’s role in 9/11).  Reasoning that is based upon laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics is scientific reasoning.  And that is the kind of reasoning that was pervasive at The Vancouver Hearings.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

A few lesser bones to pick with Ernst Rodin:  he belittles Splitting the Sky, who is one of Canada’s most famous and admired human beings.  When I read his comparison of this magnificent Native American to “a somewhat elderly rather agitated hippie on the stage addressing the audience in what is best described as a rant”, I became concerned that this man was not going to give The Vancouver Hearings a fair shake.  In my opinion, STS has more integrity in his least digit than Ernst Rodin in his whole being.  For all of his deference to The Toronto Hearings as adopting the better strategy of staying with less encompassing and (what he takes to be) more firmly supported positions, implying that they were “empirically based” while our hearings were “speculative”, he went out of his way to minimize the scientific findings that prevailed during The Vancouver Hearings, not only with respect to alternative theories of how the Twin Tower were destroyed but meticulous and detailed studies of what didn’t happen at the Pentagon and extensive and scientific documentation of the fabrication of all four “crash sites”, which anyone can judge for themselves.  The closest that I can come to a charitable interpretation of his remarks is that Rodin understands the nature of scientific reasoning no better than those who ran The Toronto Hearings, who displayed their disposition for controlling debate and by restricting the discussion of alternatives.

Since reasoning involving laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics qualifies as “scientific” and these studies were chock full of empirical data with observations and measurements as well as thought experiments, there appears to be no good reason for Ernst Rodin to have completely ignored these historic findings.  If the four crash sites were fabricated or faked (albeit each in its own different way), where two planes were not even in the air and the other two remained in the air four years later, then not only the American people but the nations of the world have been subjected to an enormous scamAnd we demonstrated that all four crash sites were fabricated or faked. The dimensions of the hoax are almost impossible to exaggerate, where Hollywood-style special effects were combined with pseudo-flights and imaginary passengers.  Bear in mind:  if none of these planes crashed, then there were no dead passengers; and if there were no dead passengers, then there were no Islamic terrorists to hijack the planes; and if there were no Islamic terrorists to hijack the planes, then there was no justification for the “war on terror”, the invasion of Afghanistan, the destruction of Iraq, or the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency.  They are part and parcel of the massive scamming of the world that is known as “9/11″.

NOTE:  The destruction of the Twin Towers and who was responsible and why will be addressed in Part II.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, organized its first conference in Madison in 2007, published its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and organized and co-chaired The Vancouver Hearings with Joshua Blakeney.


Jim Fetzer

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

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

Related Posts:

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

Posted by on September 7, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

57 Responses to "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I"

  1. MRFS  September 22, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Mr. Fetzer: You appear to have assumed above that I support the official theory, and that I am in particular defending the theory that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. I am not doing either. Please put your many assumptions in check, and please try to control your emotions while you read the remainder of this Reply. I’m not a stupid person, and I am not ignorant either. Yes, I am aware of the damages that are done to commercial airlines when they are hit by small birds etc., but I did not say and never did say that the Pentagon was damaged by a commercial passenger jet. Therefore, I don’t need to explain away the “official trajectory of a Boeing 757 skimming the ground at over 500 mph”, as you put it. Those are your words, not mine.

    Yes, the official theory is ridiculous. Nevertheless, the lines connecting the hole in the Pentagon with the diesel generator and the fallen light poles do need explanations. The Boeing that was seen by eyewitnesses e.g. at the Citgo gas station, passed over the Pentagon and landed at National, into the waiting arms of 94 workers who had previously infiltrated the ground crews at Dulles and National airports. See “Justice Department Accomplishments in the War on Terror.” On April 23, 2002, they were arrested on charges of falsifying Social Security applications and violating immigration laws. DOJ knew about those 94 workers long before 9/11. I have exchanged correspondence with Bert Stubblebine, and his response to me was that he had never seen the photographs I showed him.

    In particular, there is an important photograph showing what appears to be two planar, rectangular fuselage sections: one of those has a conduit or pipe attached to its length, and the other has an obvious compression gash at one end. Read that last sentence again, please. Those 2 sections are planar, NOT cylindrical as is the case with Boeing passenger jet fuselages. Those 2 items of debris are being hoisted by a construction crane that is visible in numerous photographs that were taken of the Pentagon after the crash, and the Pentagon is plainly visible in the background of that photograph. That was just one of the photographs which Bert Stubblebine admitted to me that he had never seen, before I showed them to him. Maybe you need to speak with him directly, because we are not talking rubbish or “straws” here, but forensic digital photographs of important crime scene evidence.

    So, your statement is not correct where it says: “the most conspicuous piece of fuselage showed no signs of having come from a violent collision.” I heard Stubblebine say, on camera, that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. But, in my opinion, people like yourself should have abandoned this habit of “negative identification” a long time ago, to focus instead on positive identification of the murder weapons. I take serious note of the fact that, in your reply above, you have totally ignored the damages to the diesel generator: that generator was not moved for a long time, so it is visible in numerous photographs taken of that location outside the Pentagon. Given the sheer number of photographs in which that damaged generator is plainly visible, I’m forced to conclude that you have been ignoring ALL of those photos, of which there must be literally many dozens in number.

    There are also the critically important damages visible on the Pentagon’s exterior facade, which were also frequently photographed during the period immediately after the crash and before the roof collapse. As for the Vancouver Hearings, I was rather amazed, maybe “shocked” is a better word, to hear David Griffin’s weak attempt to distract the audience from the Pentagon crash — with nonsense. Finally, please don’t patronize me: you don’t have all the answers; nobody does. And, to be perfectly blunt, your over-reactions above indicate to me that you are also prone to experience cognitive dissonance when presented with evidence that does not fit with your theories, such as they are. Does Veterans Today have a vested interested in protecting past and present U.S. Military personnel who aided and abetted 9/11?

    The departure of a FULL El Al Boeing 747 from JFK at 4:11 PM on 9/11/2001, destination Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, was assisted by U.S. military personnel, according to Wayne Madsen’s research on this flight. That flight departed when the Secretary of Transportation’s grounding order was still in effect, and had not been lifted for another 2 days. Contact Wayne Madsen for confirmation. p.s. Gordon Duff claims that “debris” was “trucked in”: I’d like to see hard evidence of what debris was “trucked in”, by what method(s) and when. The damaged skin from a Boeing 757 that showed up on the lawn, and photographed often, appears to be an obvious plant; so maybe it was “trucked in” and/or hand-carried by MIB. Without proof, Gordon’s claim sounds to me like hearsay.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm


      (1) I am glad you have seen through the “official account” of the Pentagon attack. I found your previous remarks ambiguous, where I wanted to direct your attention to the studies that show no Boeing 757 hit the building, with which I now see you agree.

      (2) The light poles may even have been pulled down as props to support the “official account”, which, as you observe, is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that lamppost research will confirm your speculations, but I am intrigued by the diesel generator.

      (3) You are confounding David Ray Griffith’s presentation at The Toronto Hearings with what took place at The Vancouver Hearings. I agree that his performance there left much to be desired. You may want to visit http://www.911vancouverhearings.com.

      (4) The flight taking Israelis to Tel Aviv is shocking but consistent with “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world”, where 9/11 involved collaboration between US neo-cons and the Mossad. See “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”.

      (5) Gordon may have meant that the debris was transported by truck to be loaded aboard the C-130 from which it appears to have been dropped. See “Seven Questions about 9/11″ and “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation” for more on this question

      Or, even better, see “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-jaccuse-zelikow-cheney-rumsfeld-bush-and-obrien-2/ where Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting the C-130 that day.

  2. Stewart Ogilby  September 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    Oops – I think I might have posted this in the wrong place previously.

    Jim, I have great respect for you and for the amount of diligent work you have done debunking the absurd official narrative of 911. The truth, simple as it really is, is emerging gradually. Wishing not to offend you, I do have one observation that I do hope you will take seriously. It is meant constructively, not merely for the sake of criticism or “one-upmanship”. You certainly have enough of that nonsense to cope with already. As I wrote in the opening sentence of my March 15, 2012 column, “It is tragic-comical to watch those who demand that the story of 3000 murdered victims be true turn to the show’s perpetrators for evidence.”

    Your quoting CNN to confirm the existence of Lt. General Timothy Maude prior to 911 tells me that you reject the obvious. Fake victim photos, fake “real time” TV news coverage, fake hijackers, fake airliner crashes, fake 911 website memorials, and an army of fake 911 “truthers, ought to be enough to lead you to speculate that the whole day’s hoopla was a huge audio-visual hoax prepared over years and costing millions of dollars. That investment was chicken-feed in terms of financial returns from resulting corporate war profiteering. Do I need mention anti-Arab propaganda, Mid-East turmoil and eventual imperialistic colonization and control of oil resources? For some people it is always, and only, about money and its resulting power.

    Your posting of the fake “This is an Orange”, purporting to be a real video of the demolition of Building #7, is another example of perpetrators presenting a digitally animated fraud to illustrate a “truth”. Have you not directed your brilliant analytical effort toward examining Mr. Simon Shack’s work pertaining to the entire network video footage of that “event”?

    In terms of your overall valuable research and elucidation of the lies of 911, my criticisms are minor and I look forward to your upcoming article about “who done it”.

  3. MRFS  September 21, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Concerning the light poles at the Pentagon, has anyone else considered the possibility that the bolts fastening the poles to their bases were tampered with — to make it easier for those light poles to fall without any direct contact with an incoming airborne object? I’ve seen photos of light poles that suffered collisions with the wings of small, single-engine propeller planes e.g. Cessna-class: the point of impact caused the light poles to bend severely at that point. By comparison, photos of fallen Pentagon light poles do not show similar bends; the overall integrity of those poles implies a more likely point of failure at their bases and ground-level fasteners: Google “pentagon light poles” for lots of photos. Also, the pattern of failed light poles does not line up at all with the final approach of a Boeing 757, or any other large commercial passenger plane, landing at National’s Runway 15 (153.3 degrees compass heading). Either the fallen light poles were totally staged too, or they fell when jet wash blew them over quite easily, after their base fasteners were loosened. Lastly, a few critics have tried to argue that all photographed aircraft debris had been “trucked in”; but those critics don’t seem to have any photographs, or any other evidence, of such delivery trucks. Contrast that claim with the clear damages that appear in many photographs taken of the diesel generator parked just outside the Pentagon’s exterior facade, and the chain-linked fence right next to that generator. Even false computer animations of a 757 hitting the Pentagon do try to illustrate how that jet’s starboard engine and starboard wing pylon collided with that generator. As such, the damages to that generator need to be reckoned with: the semi-circular “gouge” in a side panel facing away from the Pentagon fits geometrically with the intake cowling of an under-wing jet engine, and the linear gash in the top of the generator fits geometrically with an under-wing missile pylon.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm

      You are grasping after straws. Even if those lampposts had not been mounted at all, they would have ripped through the wing and the fuel would have been ignited. Are you unaware of the damage done to commercial carriers when they are hit by small birds which weigh in at only a few ounces? I have published so much on this rubbish that I am reluctant to publish more. See “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, for example, “Seven Questions about 9/11″, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'”, “The ‘official account of the 9/11 Pentagon attack is a fantasy”, and “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation”. On the fabrication of all four of the crash sites, see “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″, The Vancouver Hearings, or the talk I presented in Seattle before the hearings:

      “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (13 June 2012):

      Part 1

      Part 2

      Your attempt to defend the presence of the lampposts is rather amusing, given the mass of contradictory evidence. Have you also explained away the official trajectory of a Boeing 757 barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph, which is not even aerodynamically possible? or the absence of a massive pile of aluminum debris at the alleged hit point, where there are no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage? Do you understand that not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the building? that witnesses in the position to know, such as April Gallop and Jamie McIntyre, reported no evidence that any large airplane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon? or that the most conspicuous piece of fuselage showed no signs of having come from a violent collision or of having been exposed to fire, included a piece of vine and has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia in 1995? or that Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblelbine, top expert on military photographic intelligence, concluded that no plane had hit the Pentagon?

  4. Stewart Ogilby  September 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Jim, I have great respect for you and for the amount of diligent work you have done debunking the absurd official narrative of 911. The truth, simple as it really is, is emerging gradually. Wishing not to offend you, I do have one observation that I do hope you will take seriously. It is meant constructively, not merely for the sake of criticism or “one-upmanship”. You certainly have enough of that nonsense to cope with already.

    As I wrote in the opening sentence of my March 15, 2012 column, “It is tragic-comical to watch those who demand that the story of 3000 murdered victims be true turn to the show’s perpetrators for evidence.” Your quoting CNN to confirm the existence of Lt. General Tiothy Maude prior to 911 tells me that you reject the obvious. Fake victim photos, fake “real time” TV news coverage, fake hijackers, fake airliner crashes, fake 911 website memorials, and an army of fake 911 “truthers, ought to be enough to lead you to speculate that the whole day’s hoopla may have been simply a huge media hoax prepared over years and costing millions of dollars. That investment was chicken feed in terms of the financial returns from resulting corporate war profiteering. Do I need mention anti-Arab propaganda, Mid-East turmoil and eventual imperialistic colonization and control of oil resources? For some people it is always, and only, about money and its resulting power.

    Your posting of the fake “This is an Orange”, purporting to be a real video of the demolition of Building #7, is another example of using the perpetrators’ fakery to illustrate a “truth”. Have you not directed some of your brilliant analytical effort toward examining Mr. Simon Shack’s work pertaining to network video footage of that “event”?

    In terms of your overall valuable research and elucidation of the lies of 911, my criticisms are minor and I look forward to your upcoming article about “who done it”.

  5. Raptor  September 12, 2012 at 11:19 am


    I’m talking reality, not Physics. Lamp poles don’t fly at 500 MPH, we both know that. A stationary lamp pole would be sliced in half by a force moving at 500 mph…..absolutely the type shown in the photos at the Pentagon event. They had no damage so this argument is useless…that’s my point.

    If you want take a car and park it in an intersection. Now drive another into it at 120 mph, see which one is worse for wear when the smoke clears. Oh and it doesn’t matter what they are made of, steel, aluminum, or plastic..

    I appreciate your work, as well as the effort…lets just not run down any rabbit holes when it comes to all of this. I’ve already said that I believe ” NO PLANE ” at the Pentagon…..My issues is with the knowing what is unknown…. and I know full well you know exactly what I mean.



    • Jim Fetzer  September 12, 2012 at 11:25 am

      No, you are talking nonsense by someone who has no understanding of physics. The effects would be the same either way. I gather that you have no grasp of Newton’s laws of motion. Moreover, the lampposts appear to have been pulled down as props on a stage. We even have photos that I believe show the Pentagon even before they were pulled down. I will have to do a verification and get them up somewhere. Try again.

    • abirato  September 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Once more, we are arguing about fake scenes. Threads at cluesforum.info make sense when they state that the highway was probably closed around the Pentagon, and what we saw was once more media fakery. Why trust those images if you don’t trust the official 5 frame image released long after? There is simply no way to verify any of the media when you agree that the media is 100% controlled (via your own Operation Mockingbird citations on your radio show). Physics does not apply to fake scenes.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm

      Official documents and records can be useful in FALSIFYING the “official account”. The official trajectory of Flight 77 is not even possible, because it violates the laws of aerodynamics and of physics. On your account, we would all stand around mute and unknowing because you think that, if some of the evidence is faked, we can’t figure out what’s going on. That’s not true with regard to JFK and it’s not true regarding 9/11. You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between confirmation and disconfirmation (or falsification). The evidence I am deploying, by and large, is public or official but falsifies what we have been told by our government. I hope you will give this additional thought.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm

      It’s known as a “thought experiment”, which exemplifies what would happen under a hypothetical scenario. It can be easier to think though what would happen if a lamppost flying 500 mph were to hit a stationary plane: it would rip the wing off, the fuel stored inside would burst into flame, the plane would pivot violently and its tail would break off, then it would cartwheel into the ground. None of this happened. Yet that is precisely what would happen if the lamppost was stationary and the plane was flying 500 mph, as the government claims. It’s a reflection of Newton’s third law and the relativity of motion.

      Plus the highway was not closed off. The trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, was in front of the Pentagon and told Roy that he had watched as a large plane (coming in on a different, due east, trajectory) flew toward the building and then swerved over it. Dave Ball by name, I tried to interview him on my radio program, “The Real Deal”, but he was reluctant to do so. He was found dead in an abandoned building a few weeks later. Witnesses are better of making their knowledge public. Then there is less reason to take them out. Dave, I am sorry to say, made a mistake.

  6. Raptor  September 12, 2012 at 4:54 am

    The thing is, the glaring thing that is. Is that some of this is very very true, while some is absolute conjecture. One being the description of what would or would not happen to an aluminum light pole if struck by the aluminum wing of an aircraft traveling at 500 mph…That’s pure conjecture period, unless of course one is ignorant of what said wings do to 100 ft tall Oak trees, or others under such circumstance. Not to mention what the tree does to the wing itself.

    Anyway that’s probably a poor example, just a thought.

    Absolutely no large plane at the Pentagon, and everyone who was glued to their TV set saw a plane hit Tower 2. It were only those who were actually there that had said they didn’t see WHAT hit the Tower. But they were brainwashed into believing it was a plane after they were all shown footage from TV.

    Had it only been a plane then those Heroic Firemen would have eventually extinguished the fires….That’s why you had people trying to tell intelligent folk that ” OH GEE, SHE KNOCKED OFF THE FIREPROOFING ” LOL………That’s too crazy to even consider let alone pitch, but people allowed it…..just like the magic fireball, and the magic bullet.

    Too many things that don’t matter, and too many things that don’t make sense all rolled into one giant ball of crap. No wonder people get so confused. Yesterday ALL of the usual suspects were out in full force trying to spin the, lack of effort by the Bush Admn, their failure to heed warning….If what some here are saying is true, then a warning had no relevance whatsoever. So which is it?

    Ben Bonk’s sit down with Bush………yep, some of us actually read. Maybe that’s what some are counting on, but it doesn’t account for their selective memories. I’ve always found that to be a giant turnoff, not to mention a huge distraction.


    • Jim Fetzer  September 12, 2012 at 5:50 am

      You are telling me that the causal effects that would be brought about by a plane flying 500 mph hitting stationary lampposts is “absolute conjecture”? Have you never studied physics? Are you ignorant of Newton’s third law? The effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting stationary lampposts would be the same as the effects of lampposts flying 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. The wing would be ripped apart, its fuel would explode, it would pivot violently and its tail would snap off, while doing cartwheels onto the lawn, none of which happened.

      I am especially surprised to hear this from Raptor, who usually offers more informed commentaries. He seems to think that the aluminum composition of the lampposts would make a difference, as though fender-benders cannot take place between cars when they are both made of steel. I would have thought that common experience with automobile accidents would have been enough for anyone to appreciate that what we have been told cannot possibly be true because it violates the laws of physics as well as of aerodynamics. Does he want to challenge them, too?

      Among the most interesting claims to which we have been exposed, of course, is the rubbish about the SEAL raid on the compound in Pakistan, when Osama bin Laden died on or about 15 December 2001. (See, for example, Nick Kollerstrom, “Osama bin Laden (1957-2001)”.) It was too tempting not to kill him for a second time to justify keeping Guantanamo open, troops stationed in Pakistan, and (purely by coincidence) getting the birth certificate issue off the front page. The recent flap regarding the book about it is compounding one deception by means of another.

  7. abirato  September 12, 2012 at 2:34 am

    Stewart you are doing a fine job getting Jim to move all his efforts over to addressing complete media fakery and vicsims. We know he is very busy doing his research on his hologram theory; but like you I agree that many of us wish he could pursue the amazing work at septemberclues.info and put this puzzle to rest once and for all.

    The sad result of cluesforum.info is that ALL media is controlled (Soviet style) and everything we see and read should be presumed fake. Shootings, NASA events, unemployment numbers, are all highly suspect. This complete lack of trust may have been initiated by outside forces to completely destabilize the country and this is the real problem.

    Thanks again Stew, I just wanted to add my voice of support.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 12, 2012 at 5:37 am

      My friend, Preston James, sent me a link to this rather interesting article from CNN:

      Three-star general may be among Pentagon dead
      September 13, 2001 Posted: 4:17 PM EDT (2017 GMT)

      WASHINGTON (CNN) — The number of people killed when a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon may have reached 190 and includes a three-star Army general, Pentagon sources said Thursday.

      The figure takes into consideration the 64 people on the hijacked 757 that slammed into the southwest section of the sprawling defense office complex. The Defense Department is estimating that 126 Pentagon workers are still unaccounted for and believed dead in the aftermath of the terrorist attack.

      As employees returned to work Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were sweeping through the Pentagon in response to an early-day bomb threat. The FBI received a telephoned threat during the morning rush as thousands of workers returned to the Pentagon, forcing a rapid evacuation. An all-clear message from investigators allowed everyone to return to the building a short while later.

      As those 24,000 military and civilian employees reported back to work at the Arlington, Virginia, complex, damaged heavily from the impact of the airliner and a stubborn, subsequent fire, Metro subway trains resumed regular service to the facility’s underground station and buses continued to operate from nearby Pentagon City.

      Half of the building remains closed because of smoke and structural damage, and workers will have to double up in offices. Arlington County, Virginia, emergency officials said they are assuming they would find no more survivors.

      (There is more.)

      The final official count of Pentagon fatalities, of course, was 125, so they were within one at this point in time. (I am not assuming that this number is necessarily correct, since it is being contested, but I would not be surprised if it were. Faking passenger manifests is one thing, but deaths at the Pentagon–in my present opinion–is another, though I am willing to be proven wrong.)

      The three-star general is reported to have been Lieutenant General Timothy Maude in an entry in Wikipedia on the 9/11 casualties. There is more, of course, including ruminations by Paul Wolfowitz, who was undoubtedly deeply involved in the planning of 9/11, about what would be done by the United States by way of retaliation:

      The campaign, Wolfowitz hinted further, would be drawn out.

      “I think one thing is clear… You don’t do it with a single military strike, no matter how dramatic. You don’t do it with just military forces alone. You do it with the full resources of the U.S. government,” he said.

      “It will be a campaign, and not a single action. We’re going to keep after these people and the people who support them until it stops.”

      Which may be the first sketch provided to the American public of what would become the “War on Terror”, the pseudo-justification of which was one of the most important objectives of the 9/11 atrocities, about which I shall have more to say as I continue my reports on The Vancouver Hearings.

    • Garibaldi  September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am

      This article is from Controlled News Network, of course. Always right on the ball. Guess I better go see if they reported anything right around noon on 9-11, about no fatalities showing up at Arlington Hospital.

    • Garibaldi  September 12, 2012 at 11:29 am

      By the way, ya really gotta love CNN- “World Leader in News”. They always deliver, even if it’s one year, or eleven years later. (I guess that pristine passport has worn a little thin over the years…)
      As they say- “the postman always rings twice”. I wanted everybody to see this, but it goes out especially addressed to Stewart, Dennis, and Dean.
      It doesn’t get any better than this, and “nobody does it better” than CNN.
      ( Rather pricey production values included- Action parts sold separately.)

  8. tx_progressive  September 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    As one of the founders of the 9/11 truth movement, thank you for getting the ball rolling. However, I have to agree with Richard Gage on this one. Allegations of “mini-nukes”, holographic projections, and beam weapons are a little over the top. Get over it, planes did hit the twin towers, and another tower which wasn’t hit was pulverized in a similar fashion. These events were adequately captured on film, so they’re pretty tough to deny. Nanothermite was conclusively identified in the dust; nukes would have left lasting radiation. We’re not sure what hit the Pentagon, but it might have been a plane of some kind. Please stick to the things that are known with certainty, and stop speculating about things which aren’t.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm

      It’s embarrassing when I hear rubbish like this from those who have not studied the evidence. Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day. Flights 93 and 175 were in the air, but Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and Flight 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly entered the South Tower.

      There are too many amateurs who have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t support beam weapons, but they have to be studied BEFORE they are rejected; and the proof of mini or micro-nukes is simply overwhelming. Have you read the pieces by Jeff Prager and Don Fox, which are accessible at The Vancouver Hearings’ web site, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com? And if not, why not?

      Some of us are doing our best to figure out how all of this was done. For a guy who doesn’t even recognize that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, you are embarrassing yourself. Try “The official account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon is a fantasy”. What good can you possibly be doing when you don’t know the evidence, yet come onto a public forum and attack those of us who actually have studied it?

    • wolf  September 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      I didn’t believe the ‘no planes’ theory either…until I watched septemberclues(dot)info

    • alyon  September 12, 2012 at 6:16 am

      I find it funny that I would ask the same of the A&E “stick to the things that are known with certainty, and stop speculating about things which aren’t”. We know from the work of Mark Hightower that nanothermite doesn’t have the detonation vorticity to explain how the towers were literally annihilated into dust and yet A&E stands firm on nanothermite having been the principal explosive. We know from the analysis of Jeff Prager that daughter products from mininukes are present in the dust samples taken by the USGS and yet A&E won’t investigate the use of mininukes. We know that based on Newton’s laws that planes couldn’t fly through the TT like butter, leaving cartoonish, cutout, while we are told the wings from the plane that hit the Pentagon folded in on themselves on impact. These are just some of the knowns that demand further investigation and yet A&E keeps speculating impossible feats can be achieved with nanothermite alone.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 12, 2012 at 7:24 am

      Nice points, many of which I discuss in Part II, which should be published later today. In the meanwhile, Kevin Barrett has a new article about the latest from the front in New York, “9/11 Truth takes New York!”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/11/911-truth-takes-new-york/

  9. Raptor  September 11, 2012 at 8:48 am


    I wanted to say something in regard to the NPT and it’s involvement in the event known as 9-11. First off when you ask: ” How does one explain those who saw planes in NYC that day ” The answer is a simple one, actually it’s too simple for most to comprehend. I mean nothing sinister by this simple yet oh so accurate observation.

    The streets were crowded that day with interested onlookers..How many would you say, would you guess? In a city of millions.venture a number…now..just how many would you guess DIDN’T see planes that day?

    Think about it openly and then recall all of the over the top MEDIA driven reasons why those who said they never saw a plane were quickly wiped from most peoples memory.

    They have no interest in those who never saw a plane because the official story had already been written and had to be followed, otherwise the train ends up in the ditch. THINK….They had about an hour to either see planes, or not see planes…..after that they were all running for their lives as Twin no. 2 came crashing down. Once that happened all talk of planes ” NOT BEING SEEN ” took an immediate backseat.

    Once I saw the face of NPT on camera during an interview I knew right then and there the depth of the cover-up and just how big the psyop actually was that was being run on anyone asking questions.

    How many are unwitting? How many absolutely witting as well as willing is unknown, but they are real nonetheless.

    I can say I’ve done far too much on 9-11 to ever forget the obvious, yet sometimes the obvious can be obscure. I think that’s what one runs up against when discussing NPT.

    Dennis about nails it with his take although the Nasty Israeli angle gives me a bit of a headache. Could be a simple game of pin-the -tale on the Israeli Donkey while the American’s simply ran off with the cash and God knows what else.. JMHO


  10. sumwoman  September 10, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Just wondering when will video recordings of the lectures be posted on-line?

  11. cascadedavid  September 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Again, much thanks to all who tirelessly work on this. I have no concept of the checks and balances proven to insure accuracy in research.

    It makes sense to me that the perps would want to see well ahead of time as much footage as possible, rather than risk hurried mistakes that might occur in a one take scenario, if at all possible.

  12. Stewart Ogilby  September 8, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Now we are getting somewhere. The overwhelming obstacle to persons accepting the fact that the whole 911 thing is merely a media hoax is their unwillingness to believe a lot of innocent people did not die that day. Let’s turn this around. The perpetrators had no guarantee that the hoax would be pulled off completely successfully. I ask you, if you were a perpetrator would you risk being instrumental in mass murder in the event the hoax did not succeed as planned? Of course not. There had to be steps taken to see that nobody got killed in the charade.

    Exposure of the vicsim, or datafakes created by persona software programs and presented in thousands of fake photos created by photoshopping and morphing, techniques relatively new in 2001, will remove the obstacle to persons accepting the fact that 911 was created by our mainline media moguls as a huge anti-Arab, warmongering, civil liberties eliminating, and empire building hoax. That is why in-depth research on “victims” and their “families” is so critical. Go to it.

    • markboughton  September 11, 2012 at 4:19 am

      ‘nobody got killed in the charade’
      Are you for real ?
      At a minimum hundreds got killed when the buildings came down.
      That’s a given. Check the various videos taken. There were thousands of people on the streets and in the surrounding area.

  13. deanhartwell  September 8, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    CLARIFICATION: We get 125 names for those who supposedly worked in the Pentagon and who supposedly died as a result of a plane striking the Pentagon. These are, of course, separate names from the 64 alleged passengers on Flight 77.

    It would be easy for those in charge of the cover-up to make up 125 identities for Pentagon employees given the fact that over 30,000 people work at the Pentagon. Who outside the plot could really challenge the list?

  14. Stewart Ogilby  September 8, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Dean, You are right on! The problem seems to be that people can’t wrap their brains around this. They invariably fall back on things such as “What about people who jumped from the towers?” A digitally animated 102-minute 911 show was broadcasted in segments, Flight UA-175, crowd scenes, people jumping, skyscrapers smoking and then blowing up from the top down, actor-witnesses, a fake BBC broadcast, building #7 collapsing, etc., seems to be imprinted in the heads of those who watch TV and videos. TV news has never been quite so exciting. Besides, it is tantalizingly and even pleasurably exciting to contemplate horror. Such films generally do well at the box-office. The masses will never accept the fact that it was all a huge hoax and a first-class media show. The only possiblility we have of getting this across is to illustrate that their decency and compassion is being abused, even today, by those who control the networks and their beloved talking movie boxes by presenting them with fake 911 victims. I seriously doubt, given the state of US mainline media, that we have much of a chance here.

    • deanhartwell  September 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Thanks, Stewart. Now to continue this hypothesis in as big a picture as I can think of:

      Hypothesis: the events of 9/11 were a hoax scripted ahead of time and executed. On the day of, TV fakery, special effects and false information fed to key members of the media gave the impression to the public of a terrorist attack.

      Cause: Reports of WTC1 “struck” by a passenger jet set the public up to pay attention to what followed. Images of WTC2 “struck” by a passenger jet created a sense of fear. Politicians and “talking heads” warnings of a terrorist attack intensified the fear. At this point, few doubted the official story told to them. The day goes on with more reports of planes crashing and people dying. The name Osama bin Laden emerges as the one behind the crime, etc.

      Effect: Few want to hear proof that people have actually died. People are locked down emotionally. Soon anyone who openly asks questions is branded a troublemaker. Calls for unity go out to further stop questions at a time when proof was available.

      As for those in the Pentagon, the names presented are presumed to be those of real people who died in the “plane crash.” We get the number as 125 dead. But Wikipedia tells us that over 30,000 people work at the Pentagon! How hard would it be to make up identities for those who died when “they” composed such a tiny percentage of the whole?

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      No. The Pentagon “victims” are separate from the Flight 77 “victims”.
      I have the separate lists for both. But PERHAPS they were all faked.

  15. deanhartwell  September 8, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Stewart, the “Vicsim Report” is not preposterous at all. It gives us a framework of providing an alternative story.

    The Vicsim approach forbids assumptions about people and deaths. Instead of the leading question, “We have not heard from the 3,000 people who died so they must have been killed, right?” it asks a straightforward question: “Should we take the alleged pictures and names of victims at face value?”

    Instead of the assumption that people died MERELY BECAUSE OF THE OFFICIAL THEORY SAYING SO, the story of images of people being merged together and linked to identities comes forward. The falsifiable hypothesis becomes: the pictures were merged and the identities were faked.

    It picks up steam from proven facts that two of the flights (11 and 77) did not fly and two others (93 and 175) flew beyond the time of their alleged crashes. It gains further with the further wall of facts shown in this article which pick the official theory apart.

    The best question is this: Can anyone contradict the Vicsim theory of composite pictures and fake identities for the alleged victims of 9/11?

  16. Stewart Ogilby  September 8, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Jim, Your approach is, as always, exemplary. That last question is a good one and deserves to be seriously addressed. We all have other things to do with our lives but there are those who are concerned enough about perplexing alleged 3,000 or so missing bodies to pursue the matter. You are a great organizer and role model for those who ask such important questions about the 911 business. Isn’t it time that we all look more closely at Shack’s “Vicsim Report”? It seem less preposterous as time goes by, doesn’t it?

  17. Tigrr  September 8, 2012 at 9:23 am

    See youtube — “CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11″.
    Yeah, the Bush WH did it. Congress and CIA knew.
    See youtube — “Shocking JFK deathbed confession by insider! (John F. Kennedy assassination revealed)” – YouTube (Jesse Venturas show)
    Same Bushs involved in ‘Big Event’ (JFK assassination)
    Little wonder the Marines and military are pissed with this governement.

  18. Stewart Ogilby  September 8, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Jim, I am neither making claims nor presenting an hypothesis. I do understand that our perception of reality is unconconsciously skewed by individual reactions toward perceived authority combined with a priori assummptions of veracity of data conveyed by audo-visual means, e.g., network television. Your question can best be answered by taking a couple of hours to study Simon Shack’s apparently controversial work presented at SeptemberClues.info and on his forum, CluesForum.info, especially the VicSim Report. The question (yes, it is a valid question) of nearly 3,000 deaths of real persons on 9/11 can only be resolved by in depth research of the alleged victims and, especially, of purported surviving family members. Failing that, all else remains a matter of unexamined credibility and anecdotal support. Too big to be a lie? That may be the assumption upon which perpetrators of 9/11 depend to discourage such victim research, combined with inate human reactions to the subject of horrific deaths. Such research must be pursued, regardless of preconceived impressions.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 9:35 am

      You are outlining an excellent research program for yourself. Don’t you appreciate that I already have my hands full with “the big picture”? Take a look at my most recent posts here on VT. Yet you are faulting me for NOT DOING MORE? Dean Hartwell asked me to post this for him:

      Stewart, I am intrigued by the possibility that we were given false information about 125 Pentagon employee deaths on 9/11. What if we start this discussion by assuming nothing? If people at the Pentagon died, where would they have been taken OR who would proclaim them dead?

  19. Stewart Ogilby  September 8, 2012 at 6:41 am

    Dear Robert Salt, I am so sorry to hear that you lost six of your friends on 9/11. Do give us their names, birthdates (if possible), last residence addresses, and places of employment, Over the years I have lost five of my closest friends. I can only imagine how stricken you must feel to have lost so many friends simultaneously. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    Jim – Your referral to “casualties at the Pentagon” does logically beg the question. It assumes the conclusion to be determined following research into claims of named 9/11 victims having had real lives. Let’s finally do our best to “flesh out” these named 9/11 victims whose memories are besmirched by being referred to by insensitive persons as “vicsims” or as “datafakes”.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 7:02 am

      Robert Salt’s comment is on “Truth and Shadows”, Stewart. Yes, those were “reported” casualties at the Pentagon, but up until now, I have had no reason to question their authenticity. And am I correct in my interpretation that you believe these persons may have been murdered separately and apart from 9/11 and that that would fit with the fabrication of the rest of the crash sites?

      I think that’s a remarkable hypothesis. Do you have any good reason to believe it, such as evidence that goes beyond mere speculation? Any of us with military service would find it difficult to imagine how 125 personnel working in the Pentagon could be murdered and not have their deaths noticed. Let me know why you are pounding on this prospect and any evidence you have.

      Doesn’t it make more sense to gather them together in a single, isolated location with the documents and records related to the missing money, and then take them out in a single strike using pre-positioned explosives, for example, which could be covered up by a fabricated plane crash? I can’t see the point of faking their deaths more than they were already faked. I am at a bit of a loss here. Tell me more.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 7:21 am

      Dennis adds:

      The accomplices to the looting had no choice but to protect the LOOTER, because the LOOTER had done this 2.3 TRILLION gig long long long before 9/11, and the investigators at the Pentagon were only just beginning to get a handle on how many other times it had occurred.

      THIS is why the buildings got rigged. Insiders in the Pentagon knew that the Navy’s department looking into this was discovering not just ONE batch of 2.3 TRILLION gone missing, but SEVERAL INSTALLMENTS OVER THE YEARS, amounting to more than 100 TRILLION DOLLARS shipped offshore to Israel.

      This rigging of the NYC buildings and the Pentagon began at a point in time when insiders in the Pentagon knew that ultimately, a hearing like McKinney’s would come about and EXPOSE IT finally.

      McKinney had no idea at the time she had in fact found the GIANT SINK HOLE called Carlyle Group / Rothschilds looting of the U.S Treasury via the Pentagon Spending budgets since 1949 or so.

      Eisenhower’s speech about the “Military Congressional Industrial Complex” got edited to merely ‘drop’ the reference to Congressional lack of oversight in the looting that had been going on for many many many years.

      I’m certain if you contact McKinney directly, she would tell you that I am in fact correct, that her ‘hearing’ on Capitol Hill on September 10th, 2001, was just the mere tip of the zionist looting ICEBERG there.

      And THIS is why the zionists had NORAD help. Because this goes all the way back to BEFORE JFK WAS MURDERED.

    • Garibaldi  September 8, 2012 at 8:08 am

      Stew’s not throwing in the towel, Jim, and neither am I. Every time I see that cheesy showcard with the mug shots of all “nineteen” of those reputed “hijackers” anymore, I can’t help but think of Mossad’s outrageously slipshod hit in Dubai, replete with a whole freshly cooked batch of phony passport photos. To be brief, my point is this- if it’s already well established that most, if not all, of the alleged “hijackers” are still extant (not “extinct”), how can it be such a stretch to assume that most, if not all, their so-called “victims” may still live and breathe, or at best, were merely “victims” of stolen identity, or never even existed in the first place?

      For starters, all Stew is asking for are NAMES, PLEASE, to be followed up with respective addresses, employment histories, SSDI DEATH RECORDS et cetera…a “fleshing out” of the “vicsims”, so to speak. Why should such a gumshoe routine take such a herculean effort, or colossal leap of imagination, from such an unassailable paragon of “logic” as yourself?

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 8:20 am

      Listen, I think it’s a great idea! GO FOR IT! You are as well-positioned
      to pursue this as am I. My own projects are abundant and pressing. So why
      don’t you pursue your own agenda and let me pursue mine? This is ridiculous.

      GO FOR IT! Taking out the budget analysts, the financial experts, and the
      accountants–not to mention the documents and records related to the missing
      funds–was a brilliant stroke! But if THAT was fabricated, too, EXPOSE IT!

    • Garibaldi  September 8, 2012 at 9:13 am

      So sorry to keep pushing your buttons on this, so, as you so astutely recommended, I WENT FOR IT, Professor, and lo and behold, the very first button I pushed produced the following result-
      Author? Agenda? Ridiculous?

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

      Excellent! Why did you not mention that I MYSELF POSTED THAT on the Scholars forum?
      Since you already have a leg up on this, GO FOR IT! DO WHAT YOU CAN DO. DO MORE!
      We have already proven the whole event was a scam. More proof would be most welcome.


      Read related story
      ‘I’m not dead’: Social Security agency makes grave mistake for thousands

      WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans.

      Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said her staff started making inquiries after the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected by Scripps Howard News Service. The file is a public record intended to protect families of the deceased from identity theft and other types of fraud.

      “While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said. “A sampling of those names did not yield any matches in the DMF and confirms their apparent absence.”

      She said her staff has contacted the Social Security Administration, the New York State Department of Health and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, only to receive “conflicting answers as to why there is a lack of reporting on this matter.”

      So Maloney is asking Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and the public health commissioners for the state of New York and New York City, jointly, to account for the reporting error.

      “Would you explain why individuals killed on 9/11 would be missing from the DMF?” Maloney asked in her letters.

      __ Contact reporter Thomas Hargrove at hargrovet@shns.com.

    • Garibaldi  September 8, 2012 at 10:15 am

      Dennis, thanks for the laughs, they come pretty hard these days. Here’s your gefilte fish-

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 10:21 am

      Let me add that I am open to the faking of victims on 9/11, including at the Pentagon.
      I was talking about REPORTED casualties, about which I am willing to be proven wrong.
      But it seems to me to be a cheap shot to fault me for not having done this myself.

      When they have something serious to report, then I hope they will let me know–and if
      it is significant, I would be glad to post it here on Veterans Today. In the meanwhile,
      we are making progress, piece by piece, in dismembering the “official account” of 9/11.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Dennis comments:

      At least I got Garibaldi to laugh at this for a minute. As you and he probably remember from prior episodes with Trowbridge Fijord, there in the comments section of the “Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is a FANTASY” article we had up for a bit, we got everything from stern scoldings to implied threats of lawsuits hurled at us for insinuating the official story was in fact, a load of lox ‘n bagels with a bit of bull pate on the top of them.

      I think Dean Hartwell’s work is pretty good in that he puts forth a very good analysis of how these ‘vicsims’ got created and pawned off on an ever so gullible American sheeple public who for the most part weren’t capable of discerning a crash test dummy from a testing lab, from a human being, in most cases, if presented with pics of those in wreckage.

      When the Zach Moussoui ‘show trial’ that only in your wildest nightmares could you imagine anything could pale in comparison to what was being planned by O’bammy for Khalid Sheik Mohammed who got waterboarded so many times while incarcerated, he cannot be differentiated from a sack of dried prunes today due to the repetitive and wholly banal and quite against the Geneva Conventions, serial immersions, in some cases, as many as 60 some odd times a week….then comes along the Moussoui ridiculousness and out get trotted orange jumpsuit clad corpses with nary a bruise on them, for display on OGRISH until someone with a brain decided that this was a bit much for humans that slammed into a heavily reinforced wall at 465 knots in a frangible aluminum tube, allegedly, and remain in ONE PIECE!!!!

      It took a lot of arguing with Colleen Rowley over months to convince her that the major reason why the F.B.I. was ignoring her about Moussoui was that the C.I.A. wanted just enough people in the law enforcement communities, particularly an anti terrorism unit in Chantilly, VA. who I used to talk to one of the agents there at, about the cover story and patsification of Osammy Bin Decomposing and his merry band of NORAD defeating box cutter ninjas. This particular special agent, just before much of the year 2000 had ended, was suddenly seeing nothing but O’Sammy commercials within his anti terrorism unit’s data base.

      To me, it was clear someone was being set up for a big fall, as he had intimated that O’Sammy had tried to buy miniature submarines in Minneapolis from some company that produced them, so that he could carry out some form of underwater attacks on the U.S. Why? Was O’Sammy taking a shortcut to the U.S.S.A. thru a subterranean tunnel of love?

      Effectively, if ‘Frank’ at the anti terrorism unit of the F.B.I. could candidly chat about O’Sammy in the year 2000, having suddenly discovered him rising up from the dull noise and din of the reality that no significant terror threat existed, except in the utter horse shit presented in Able Danger crap, more or less parroted by C.I.A. director and ‘MARTYR’ George Tenet, who per his story tried to warn the U.S. of the report given to George ‘moron boy’ Bush that “O’Sammy was determined to STRIKE the U.S. by using aircraft flown as cruise missiles” by Condi Rice when she wasn’t shopping for expensive italian shoes, per testimony that ‘nobody could have foreseen the use of commercial aircraft’ when the F.B.I. was cranking out pamphlets with the WTC towers on them and commercial aircraft strike scenarios in those.

      If I could have conversations with F.B.I. agent ‘Frank’ in Chantilly about O’sammy being a threat, my big question to him was this one, which I think he’d remember if he reads this; “So why isn’t someone sending him a tomahawk suppository then??”, as is the Clintonstoned mis-administration propensity for milk factory and other wholly harmless and legitimate ventures that have since been proven to have been mossad disinformation fed to these idiots by the dual passport holders who infest this government?

      In all honesty, so much of this stuff transcends what National Lampoon put out in the early 1970’s, in jest and humorous parody about American lifestyles. It almost makes me wonder if Chris Miller, one of the Lampoon writers, wasn’t on the staff at C.I.A., aka as MOSSAD WEST, during this run up to the FALSE FLAG attack that we know as 9/11/2001?

      Tragically for the sake of the nation, far too few people have a clue where to begin to look at the utter absurdity of this shit the government has put out there regarding the G.W.O.T. (glow ball war on TERR-OR” as I call it. In the 1960’s, it was “duck and cover because the commies are gonna NUKE YOU” and that morphed into; “Brown people in caves in Afghanistan hate you for your home ownership” crap. How ironic it is that due to these ‘3’ wars, fewer and fewer american’s own homes, and now live in their cars, if they are so lucky.

      This was a three card monty that American’s were too stupid to avoid, and sadly, eleven years later, the country, though skeptical of the official story, is far from being lucid or intelligent or for that matter, critically thinking capable enough to see the long long litany of absurd and ridiculous errors these assholes committed in this fraud and mass murder fest on Sept. 11, 2001.

      It makes me wonder how much more ridiculous it has to get before enough wake up here and STOP IT. Because it must end. It’s one thing to believe the lies on Sept. 12, 2001, but it’s another matter altogether in the ‘Twilight Zone’ to for some of us look into the “lights on and nobody is home” looks of our fellow citizens. That’s simply tragic.

  20. Preston James, Ph.D  September 7, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    This article is excellent. The distilled results of the Vancouver Hearings have now completely cracked the 911 case, destroyed the USG official cover-up forever, and fully exposed the 911 attacks as a false flag/stand-down inside job used to serve as a pretext to elicit massive primal fear in the American populace in order to motivate an unprovoked, undeclared, illegal, unConstitutional war for corporate profits, big oil and the Shadow Govt’s main cutout, the Neocons, who appear to have taken a dominant leading role in the 911 attacks with full support from the USAF and JCS as directed by Cheney through the NSC he ran and Rumsfield.

    Yes, Jim you with the help of your team of independent researchers have cracked this 911 case, and no more USG lies about it will wash anymore. Good work and many thanks. It has been a long hard struggle with many huge roadblocks and sophisticated psyops in your way and all the great researchers who have taken this case apart piece by piece.

    Finally, thanks to your long term pioneering research and the great staff and Editors at VT, the truth has been now been told and the official coverup and their USG web of lies has been forever exposed and debunked. You deserve highest commendations for a job well done. The truth is now available for anyone that dares to spend the time examining your massive works and all the available pioneering research you have assembled on the 911 false flag inside job attacks. The age old psyop defense of accusing doubters of the official USG lie as needing to believe conspiracies to feel secure, just won’t wash anymore. It has been fully exposed for what it is–right out of the American psyops playbook.

  21. FactversusHype  September 7, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    You know JF, it was hard to grasp the no plane theory right off, but analyzed enough, I have to agree with something GD wrote in his ‘special ops’ piece, something like a plane going into the building it ‘would have bounced off like a ping pong ball’. That fits. I knew instantly when the towers fell ‘does not compute’, and while took me too many years to return to that moment, thanks to someone bringing up the ‘story’ inconsistencies, using the same instinct with the no plane theory, it fits. The nose and entirety of a plane wholly melting into all that structure, no.

    The only question is what was up with the people on the ground who ‘saw the planes’. A hologram? They were plants? I know some interviewed by phone were media insiders so of course their stories are fairy tales, though I wonder about the citizen on the street types who said they saw them crash. Don’t know that it matters because I can’t buy the ‘planes’ theory now, but it makes you wonder about some seemingly legitimate people who say they saw planes crash into the buildings.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 7, 2012 at 9:15 pm

      Yes, it appears to have been done by projecting a hologram. The witness reports support a hologram over CGIs and video compositing, but Richard Hall has put the final pieces together. The military radar data shows a plane that was flying 1,400′ to the right of the projected image, where the sound of the real plane was mistaken for that of the projected image. He found the same data track for the hit on the North Tower as well–and even discerned how the cut-outs in the facades of the building– which may have been done using nanothermite–were accomplished. For more, see, for example,

      (1) “Ideology, Israel and 9/11″

      (2) “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (13 June 2012):
      Part 1
      Part 2

      Mike Palecek just sent the following earlier today, by coincidence:

      “Maybe you’ve already seen this, but I found this in the comments section on Truth and Shadows:
      “Robert E. Salt says:
      August 28, 2012 at 4:00 pm
      This article was written to confuse people and discredit the fact that there were no jetliner attacks on 9/11. I was working on the 27th floor on the north side of the north Tower on 9/11. I can tell you for a fact that a plane never hit our building that day. You can search April Gallop on YouTube, and she’ll tell you nothing hit the Pentagon that morning. There was an explosion, and she was lucky to escape with her infant son. It’s for sure nothing was in that small hole in Shanksville, and it’s a safe bet that the south Tower wasn’t hit by a plane either. Special effects belong in the movies and not on the six o’clock news. I can name six friends who lost their lives. It’s for sure none of the jumpers survived as well as those trapped on the upper floors.”

  22. Stewart Ogilby  September 7, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Jim, Let us postulate that the release of that Pentagon budget discrepancy only a day before 9/11 could easily have prepared a cover story for the presence and “deaths” of special financial people at that location. To verify deaths, or more precisely, to verify and document previous lives of alleged victims and the existence of their surviving families ought to take merely a fraction of the time and effort spent on other aspects of the huge 911 media hoax. That taking this time and effort seems to have escaped competent domestic 9/11 researchers is curious. Ought not a close look be taken at alleged victims and surviving families of that day’s entire media charade? The light is beginning to dawn, is it not?

    • Jim Fetzer  September 7, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      You are suggesting that the casualties at the Pentagon might have been killed separate and apart from the events of 9/11, in particular, the staged attack on the building, which was merely a “cover story”? I must admit that this thought has never crossed my mind. I am not especially good at doing that kind of research, but I know a couple of others, including Dean Hartwell, who might want to follow up. Thanks.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Dennis Cimino has asked me to add this response from him to your post:

      Stewart, what happened at the Pentagon is the ‘core’ of 9/11. The stuff that took place in NYC that day was merely a PsyOp to support the waging of war on Iraq and Afghanistan for the zionists who control the U.S. and who have serially, more than one time now, taken more than 2.3 TRILLION dollars (twice since 9/11 this has occurred, as well) of American’s taxpayer’s dollars and repatriated that money to support Israel for the Rothschilds. This is ‘why’ the events of 9/11 were mostly window dressing to cover up and obfuscate the facts that Cynthia McKinney brought to light in the hearing on the Hill the day before, roasting Dov Zackheim’s sorry zio ass, as well as the bimbo Controller who couldn’t answer Cynthia even a little bit about why the Pentagon lost track of so many TRILLIONS of dollars.

      This serial looting has been going on a long time but until Cynthia McKinney’s ‘surprise’ hearing about the looting by Israel, it was never a necessity to do this kind of operation.

      It is my professional opinion that 9/11 occurred fundamentally to utterly destroy the United States finally by the gutting of the last vestiges of any civil liberties we had left, under the Bush regime, and the ‘emergency’ necessity to do something like this was in the fore immediately after McKinney aired that out on Capitol Hill the day before.

      Their hands were forced. Israel was in a position where it’s looting of the U.S. Treasury was fully exposed by McKinney’s work and investigatory findings.

      The Pentagon was the PRIMARY TARGET of 9/11. The other stuff merely sauce for the goose. If you look at how greedy these zio’s got, Howard Krongard and his brother at the C.I.A., buddies of Frank Lowy and Larry Silverstein, did the PUT OPTIONS on AAL and UAL stock holdings, but these transactions were traceable back to the C.I.A. and Krongard’s I.P. address at C.I.A. Sitting at his comfortable armchair, this zio murderer sought to enrich himself on the blood of those to be murdered by his agency on 9/11/2001.

      The Cynthia McKinney hearings forced them to do the operation ahead of schedule. Virtually the entire operation was to obfuscate and to cover up the fact that Israel had been siphoning and still is siphoning money out of the United States via the back channel which is the Pentagon budget.

      But per your very adroit question regarding the casualties at Pentagon, nobody can be assured of shit. The DoD has a gun to its TREASONOUS HEADS and will go to any and all lengths to protect Israel, and that means, faking victim identities to propel the concept that 19 arabs with box cutters could do this to America that day without any NORAD interference of any kind.

      When our indictments are fully made public, you’ll see why and we are in fact very on top of WHO did this.

      Thanks for your comments!!! :)

  23. Jim Fetzer  September 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Dennis Cimino has asked me to add this commentary to the discussion of the hearings by Rodin, who in passing suggests that his expert analysis in an area in which he is supremely qualified is off-set by the opinions of amateurs. This is one more indication that Rodin was over his head in Vancouver:

    Interestingly, Ernst Rodin references the alleged FDR work of Frank Legge and Warren Stutts as a rebuttal, but provides not one bit of background that gives either of these men the requisite background or professional expertise to have decoded four more seconds of the FDR data that the folks at L-3 and the N.T.S.B. were not able to do. Furthermore, he doesn’t talk about the fact that Legge and Stutts state that American Airlines had their own ‘proprietary’ data sequencing of the data parameter stream into the Crash Protected Memory modules they fly, which on it’s face is ‘absurd’ and ‘unreal’ but wholly unsubstantiated by any documents or facts that would make any sense as to ‘why’ exactly the F.A.A. would allow American Airlines to have their own proprietary data sequencing in THEIR flight data recorders, and furthermore to what specific purpose would any airline so desire to deviate so grossly from the way in which the parameters are sequenced in the write to the memory. It’s a stretch to give either of these guys any credibility whatsoever, being that neither of them has ANY experience with FDR’s, or the certification of them, or for that matter, how the data is formatted. Furthermore, their position is that the AIRCRAFT ID and FLEET ID are not in the preamble or header of the file but encoded within the flight parameters themselves. This is absolutely ludicrous and utterly not substantiated by their alleged FDR decoding work.

    If Ernst Rodin so wishes to cite these guys as credible counter arguments, he should publish their lack of credentials in the necessary areas of aircraft certification or in the testing and certification of FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS before offering up their so called ‘fake’ evidence as a counter to the work I have published.

    The Legge-Stutts’ work is fraudulent and its sole intent is to take the last known position of what the government said was a bona fide B-757, also known as N644AA, from a height way above the roof of the building at an altitude meaning it could not have impacted the building, and then by ‘magic’ and bullshitting, puts the plane at ground level at impact, not high over the building where it could not have impacted it.

    Giving credence to such non-sense is quite disingenuous and wrong, because these two gentlemen do not hold the requisite experience with regard to aircraft certifications, F.A.A. documentation, or for that matter, FDR testing and development or certifications work in any way. Allowing their work to be cited as a rebuttal of sorts is more than a bit of a stretch.

    When either of these guys can show real documentation that came from the F.A.A., which gave American Airlines a reason for having non-standard–and different from EVERY SINGLE L-3 MODEL 2100 FDR IN USE BY ALL AIR CARRIERS–data sequence, with the documentation that shows that American made a case to the F.A.A. for that non-standard sequencing, then it might be believable…but it is not believable. Nobody in their right mind would believe that the F.A.A. would so authorize American Airlines to have their OWN PROPRIETARY DATA FORMAT within their fleet, or for that matter, that these guys had the ability and the expertise to decode what the FDR vendor or the N.T.S.B. was unable to decode.

    The AIRCRAFT ID and FLEET ID being wholly zero’d out is indicative that this FDR record was written to by a bench unit and that was not necessary for the extraction of the data from that crash protected memory module.

    I think that Ernst Rodin really needs to re-evaluate citing ‘non-experts’ who publish unsubstantiated bullshit, obviously done in a fashion to make sense of ‘why’ the last known data record shows the plane well inside the outer walls of the Pentagon, at an altitude that made it impossible for the impact at the outer wall to have occurred.

    This is simply not credible evidence cited by either Frank Legge or Warren Stutts, or for that matter, Ernst Rodin.

    Had Ernst Rodin cited the extensive multi page rebuttal to their alleged decoding work which was published in the forum at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, he could have seen that both of these frauds tucked their tails and ran from that cogent and concise rebuttal and did not offer explanations for any of the points I made about this fakery of theirs.

    I’m still waiting for that cogent and concise rebuttal by these frauds named Frank Legge and Warren Stutts who have no business decoding anything meaningful, let alone analyzing FDR data records…

    The last data point in the decoded FDR data provided by the N.T.S.B. puts the alleged aircraft above the roof, very high, well inside the outer wall of the building. It is not factual that the reason for this is that the radar altimeter could not keep up with the data to the degree necessary that makes the entire final trajectory not fit the pole strikes or the irrefutably accurate eye witness accounts that prove the aircraft’s final trajectory was not what the government asserts, and that a flyover did in fact take place there at the Pentagon, not a building impact by an aircraft too high, moving way too fast for any B-757 at that altitude, absolutely in contravention to the 5 frames of video the government did in fact release to us to allegedly prove a plane struck the Pentagon that morning.

    There can be no doubt that a flyover did in fact take place, and that the eyewitnesses who were interviewed by both C.I.T. and the National Archives (ARMY) who did conduct interviews of the witnesses who saw the plane approach from a very very different trajectory–and at a far slower speed–and then abruptly throttle up and pitch the nose up at the last moment, could not have struck the building in the way the government bullshit story, or for that matter, the folks at AE911TRUTH, via Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage’s assertions, would like us to believe. It’s simply ludicrous given all the information cited in my article (see the link provided in Jim’s article above).

    Furthermore, this kind of REVISION of HISTORY by the scum who did this murder that day, is so very typical. First, they snuck in and finally deleted the involved aircraft from the F.A.A. registry, YEARS LATER, not within days as would be the case had the planes crashed that day. Next, they altered the B.T.S. schedule data. On and on and on there is a pattern of disinformation agents like Legge and Stutts and their henchmen there at AE911TRUTH, going way out of their way to fix the very bad mistakes made by the government when they finally released data or failed to do the right thing by immediately de-registering those aircraft HAD THEY TRULY BEEN DESTROYED ON 9/11!!!

    It’s ludicrous to give Legge and Stutts–or for that matter, the F.A.A. or the N.T.S.B.– the ability to keep modifying their official bullshit story over and over again. At this rate, there won’t, in ten years, be anything left of their FIRST attempt to so bullshit
    the world, for they will have modified it all, sneakily, and with the aiding and abetting of organizations such as AE911TRUTH who legitimize their destruction of evidence by parroting these guys as bona fide researchers when they are not.

    It’s wrong. It’s sad. And it’s blatant evidence of the fact that years later, their goal is to fully fix every error they committed so future generations who look into this won’t be able to see the UTTER BULLSHIT and LIES they committed in the aftermath of their murder. All thanks to guys like Ryan and Gage and their buddies….

    • etominusipi  September 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm


      a minor point, in connection with:

      the witnesses who saw the plane approach from a very very different trajectory–and at a far slower speed –…

      this makes sense if you think of Norman Mineta’s testimony — (my memory may be faulty here) the ‘young man who would come in and say, Mr Vice-President, the plane is 50 miles out..do the orders still stand?….. the plane is 30 miles out…’. Mineta seemed entirely sincere, and apparently sacrificed his departmental career with this gesture, yet with a plane traveling at 500 knots the timeframe of my mental image formed from his words didn’t quite fit — now it does.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm

      I discuss this in “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien”. I also presented it on “Hannity & Colmes” (twice) during 2006. It is strikingly significant.

  24. Stewart Ogilby  September 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Jim, Thank you for the excellent article. acceptable. You are a keen researcher and deserve immense credit for your work on 9/11 and the JFK assassination. You mention, almost in passing, that 125 humans lost their lives in the Pentagon event. May I assume that you, or another, has determined this to be a fact? If so, please disclose how that has been verified and by whom. This important question does in no way imply that the “no victims theory” may be as pertinent as the “no planes theory” despite a clear observation that nothing gleaned from official or media sources regarding what did or didn’t happen on 9/11 can be taken at face value.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Given the fabrication of the “passenger manifests”, I think you raise a fair question. It would be far more difficult to fake these deaths, however, since Pentagon personnel would be familiar with one another and their deaths relatively easily verified. I would note that as many as three dozen of those 125 were budget experts, financial experts and accountants, who were there in the West Wing with their documents and records attempting to track the $2.3 trillion that Secretary Rumsfeld had announced was missing from the Pentagon budget the day before.

      That was an odd thing to do for any experienced Washington politician, who would know that a big story like that, put out so early in the week, would be likely to “grow legs”, as they say. I can imagine the call that Rumsfeld made to the section chief directing that he bring all the Pentagon records and documents related to the missing funds together to track it down, since he had been embarrassed by having had to make the announcement that day. When brought together in one place, of course, they make a very inviting target for termination, data and all!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login