9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II

by Jim Fetzer


“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”― Arthur Schopenhauer

The evidence that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place is simply overwhelming, even if there are 9/11 Truth groups that want to avoid it.  Not only did Flight 77 not hit the Pentagon, but Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and, even though we have all seen videos purporting to show Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 hit the South, we know that those videos are faked or fabricated one way or another.  As Pilots for 9/11 Truth has shown, Flight 93 was in the air on 9/11 but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had purportedly crashed in Shanksville; and Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had purportedly effortlessly entered the South Tower. Indeed, FAA registration records show that the plane corresponding to those flights were not deregistered (or formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005, which means that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place.

Those who want to contest these findings are going to have to refute Bureau of Transportation Statistics data that shows Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and FAA registration data showing that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered until 28 September 2005.  Since they prove that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place―which defines “NPT” (or “No Planes Theory”), when it is properly understood―they find themselves in good company, because no less an expert than Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, whose own society has established some of these key findings, has declared that Pilots will never accept NPT―apparently, regardless of the evidence!  We all know planes are shown in those videos, but, whatever they may be, they cannot be Flight 11 and Flight 175. I am not implying that Rob is an agent of disinformation; rather that, by succumbing to the temptation to substitute his personal preferences for objective proof, he has become one more in a long line of “useful idiots” who are incapable of reasoning from premises to the conclusions they support.

Rob Balsamo is far from the only prominent leader of the 9/11 Truth movement who allows the strength of his subjective opinions to override the weight of the objective evidence.  Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones have sought to promote the myth of “explosive nanothermite” long past the point where its incapacity to pulverize concretemuch less decimate steel, had been established on the basis of objective scientific evidence.  I therefore find it gratifying that, in their latest documentary, A&E911 has scaled back on their previously exaggerated claims and produced a documentary that I can enthusiastically support.  The situation with regard to the intensely defensive supporters of Judy Wood―whose dedication is so zealous that I personally regard them as members of a cult―however, is rather different, since they have demonstrated that, no matter how reasonable I could be in supporting the study of her work, they are going to attack and attack and attack, because I have not shown sufficient deference when I suggest that her work has not ruled out the use or mini or micro-nukes, where my position received vindication during the hearings, as I shall demonstrate.

Subjective bias or paranoid tendencies cannot explain all of the deviations displayed by different 9/11 leaders, however.  A fellow named Ian Henshall, for example, manages a group, Reinvestigate 9/11, in the UK.  When I received an email from him, I sent him links to my last five or six articles here at Veterans Today to share with his members.  He wrote back to inform me that he does not want to discuss “the more radical views, which even if true would not help”, which tells me that he is not serious about 9/11 Truth but prefers to run a social club where 9/11 can be discussed over tea and crumpets!  I am finding it difficult to draw inferences about him, insofar as his father worked for MI-5, but when there is such an abundance of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that all four of the crash sites were faked, it seems to me there was nothing radical about what I was sharing, which is based upon official government records from the BTS, the FAA, and independent studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

In his latest newsletter, “9/11―Eleven Years On and Still No Answers”, he offers these “unanswered questions”:

Could 9/11 have been nipped in the bud by the CIA’s then secret Osama Bin Laden unit who identified at least two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers as they entered the US, or the FBI’s three field offices which were refused permission to investigate individuals connected with the attacks?

Was 9/11 really such a surprise, as claimed by the Bush Administration? Not so according to newly released CIA documents (7), (8). Bush received several CIA intelligence warnings that attacks were ‘imminent’ in the summer of 2001. Yet Bush ignored them and took no defensive measures. Why?

Richard Clarke, (9) Bush’s anti-terrorism co-ordinator, has accused the CIA of deliberately withholding information that could have prevented the attacks. Ali Soufan, at the time the FBI’s lead Al Qaeda expert, has also criticised the CIA for blocking investigations of suspects prior to 9/11 (10). Why would the CIA and senior FBI administrators have made these decisions?

Since Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, as even our own FBI has acknowledged, and died on 15 December 2001, where the flights were phantoms and hijackers were the stuff of legends, I find it difficult to believe that anyone takes Reinvestigate 9/11 seriously.  Egad!  Scholars was publishing press releases about the faking of the audio and video tapes since Osama’s death as long ago as 28 May 2006, “Osama Tape Appears to be Fake, Experts Conclude”.  So what has Ian Hanshall been doing with his copious free time?  I no longer have any doubts about why there was not a substantial turn out from the UK 9/11 movement, when on 14 July 2010, Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon and I presented a symposium at Friend’s House in London, “Debunking the ‘War on Terror'”, for which Ken O’Keefe, the hero of the Mavi Marmara attacks, served as our master of ceremonies.













It seems to me that, if Ian Henshall is attempting to promote 9/11 Truth, he is doing a rather poor job of it.  I am personally inclined to believe that the four major findings of The Vancouver Hearings―that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757; that all four 9/11 “crash sites” were fabricated; that the Twin Towers were brought down using micro or mini-nukes; and that these events involved complicity between the CIA and the Mossad―can function as a kind of litmus test of 9/11 research integrity.  If, with the exception of a possible role for DEWs in the destruction of the Twin Towers, these conclusions have been established beyond a reasonable doubt (because no alternative is reasonable), then those who continue to dispute, to ignore or to deny them may not be who they claim to be. To the best of my knowledge, Ian Henshall has shown no interest in discussion or debate about any of them.  For the duration here, however, I want to return to the results of The Vancouver Hearings of 15-17 June 2012, regarding how the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed, where we know the “official account” is hopelessly indefensible.

The “official account” of  the Twin Towers

Here are three of the key elements of the “official account” of 9/11, where we have shown that the first two are no longer tenable because they depend upon appeals to phantom flights and to “crash sites” that were fabrications:

* 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.

What we have not yet shown is that the purported “collapse” of the Twin Towers and the destruction of WTC-7 were not consistent with the story that jet-fuel based fires had caused the steel in the Twin Towers to weaken, which led to a series of collapse of one floor upon another.  Here is a diagrammatic representation of what happened, according to NIST and THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), where the residual fires caused the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse, which brought about the cascade of one floor collapsing after another and the complete destruction of the South Tower and then the North.  This was ironic by itself, since the fires burned longer in the North Tower, which was “hit” first, than in the South, yet the South “collapsed” first.  The story is a fantasy, however, since these very modest fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause steel to weaken and a “collapse” of either tower turns out to have been an engineering and physical impossibility on multiple grounds, as Chuck Boldwyn,  especially, has demonstrated again and again. I have interviewed him more than 15 times, including this one:

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

As I have explained in four of the first five points made in “20 reasons the ‘official account’ of 9/11 is wrong“,

2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 

4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt.

5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any 
”collapse” sequence.

Indeed, although we cannot reconstruct the towers to conduct tests on its resistance to fire, history did that for us.  A huge fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower on 13 February 1975, which burned for three or four hours at temperatures estimated to be around 2,000 degrees F.  After it was extinguished, remarkably, none of the steel had to be replaced, which vindicated UL’s certification.  This is the occasion on which the decision was made to install fire sprinkler systems in both buildings, which would have extinguished the very modest fires that remained after the jet fuel (which appears to have been pre-positioned) was consumed in those spectacular fireballs.  The absurdity of the “official account” has been effectively lampooned by Jesse Ventura, who has observed that his camping stove, which is also made of steel, uses propane gas, which burns at a higher temperature than kerosene, yet his stove does not melt with he cooks with it.  Indeed, these are the kinds of points that are made so well in A&E911’s new documentary, which demonstrates that the “official account” of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 is wrong.  It was recently broadcast by PBS in Colorado and now appears on the verge of going viral:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

On the destruction of the Twin Towers

Among the consequences of the “thermite sniffers” arrogant attitude in denigrating every student of 9/11 who did not defer to its privileged dogma of explosive nanothermite, alas, is that it suffocated research on how the buildings were actually destroyed by invoking what turns out to have been a myth, while also implying that the dust had been subjected to a thorough study, when that was far from the case.  Indeed, while “Explosive Evidence” does a great job explaining what did not happen and that the “official account” is false, The Vancouver Hearings featured multiple speakers who addressed the elements besides thermitic chips that appear in dust samples collected by the USGS and in water samples collected by the Department of Energy, which provide proof of how it was done, namely: that the destruction of the WTC has to have been a nuclear event, which we would not know but for studies of the dust, which revealed the presence of elements that should either have been absent or not present in the quantity found, including Barium and Strontium, Thorium and Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Chromium and Tritium, which are overwhelming indications that the demolition of the Twin Towers was primarily a nuclear event. Five speakers address the destruction of those massive buildings, whose presentations may be summarized as follows:

Charles Boldwyn, M.S. in chemistry, 2-years in a Ph.D. program in polymer science at University of Akron; 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, Special Forces; more than 20 years as high-school math, chemistry and physics teacher; and has fifteen (15) interviews on “The Real Deal”, including “The Twin Towers did not Collapse”,

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

  He has made the nice point that, because the steel was tapered from 6″ thick at the base of each tower down to 1/4″ at the top, the very idea that the top 14 floors of the North Tower could have collapsed (because of fire) and brought about a cascade of one floor upon another represented 1.4% of the mass of the steel, which could not possibly have overcome the resistance posed by the lower 98.6%.  One of the most interesting aspects of Chuck’s work is that he has come to the conclusion that mini or micro nukes IN COMBINATION WITH thermite/thermate/nanothermite could account for all of the effects that were observed on 9/11, including the so-called “toasted cars”, as he explains in his presentations, including “Answering Judy Wood’s ‘Must Answer’ Questions”, found on the Scholars forum.


There are real possibilities for bridging some of the divisions within the movement insofar as, as long as A&E does not exaggerate the explosive properties of nanothermite, there may well have been more than one role that it played on 9/11, where the explanation provided by Richard Hall for the creation of the cut-outs on the sides of the towers appear to have been done using a method that may have involved nanothermite and, according to Kevin Barrett, in his “9/11 Truth takes New York”, Richard Gage has expressed a willingness to take a serious look at what did or did not happen at the Pentagon, especially because of the work of Barbara Honneger.  On both scores, this would be a most welcome development, because we can undoubtedly accomplish more working together than when in conflict.

Before turning to the presentations of Jeff Prager and Don Fox, I would like to note that a theory about the use of nukes has been propounded by Dimitri Khalezov, which posits 150kt nukes in the subbasements of all three of the buildings, WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.  I interviewed Dimitri on “The Real Deal”, which you can listen to here:

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

The catch, of course, is that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were done in completely different ways, where all the floors are falling at the same time and there is a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the original, while all the floors remain stationary and the buildings are being blown apart in every direction from the top down with the Twin Towers.  Those charges would have shattered the bathtub, which is a dike within which the towers were constructed in order to prevent Hudson River water from flooding beneath Lower Manhattan, some of the most valuable real estate in the world.  That is the principal reason they had to contrive a novel method of demolition, where WTC-7 was a classic “controlled demolition”, while the towers were a demolition under control, but far from a “classic” one.  Consider this video about the collapse of WTC-7, where, in a nutshell, it could be said that, while WTC-7 imploded, the Twin Towers exploded.  They were very different, indeed.  Consider “This is an orange”:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

So if nukes were used, they were not deployed as Dimitri Khalzov has proposed but in some completely different fashion.

Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time.  (See his 9/11 America Nuked.) In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers.  The elements that have been found in these dust samples provide an astoinshing array of proof of nukes:

Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.

Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

* Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes elaborated upon by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the Twin Towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices, which includes a specific theory about how it was done.  Among the points he makes in his lecture, “Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’”:

― In a Deuterium and Tritium fusion reactor, a single gallon of seawater could produce as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline.

―Deuterium (heavy water) is virtually unlimited, where only 1 part in 5000 of the Hydrogen in seawater is Deuterium.

―Tritium is rare and has no substantial natural source, since tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.3 years. Tritium needs to be obtained by breeding it from lithium, where the abundance of Lithium in Afghanistan, which was not reported by The New York Times until June 2010, may be the real reason for our invasion of Afghanistan.

―Two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers pulverized in mid-air from the top down and destruction proceeds through path of greatest resistance at near freefall speed.

― Debris ejected upward and outward and one chunk of debris was ejected 603 feet from the North Tower into the Winter Garden, which required extremely powerful explosives.

―DOE reported having detected 55 times background levels of Tritium in the basement of WTC-6 even 11 days after 9/11.

―NIST found no evidence of explosives, although, as A&E has observed, it also admitted it did not look for them.

―AVRIS image data shows ground temperatures of 1,311 degrees F on 9/16, which indicates that something akin to “the China Syndrome” was taking place at Ground Zero.

While Judy Wood, Steve Jones and Morgan Reynolds all deny that nukes were used on 9/11, Judy’s definition of a directed energy weapon as “energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed” could also apply to the mini-nuke theory.  In particular, in Jeff and Don’s view, the Twin Towers were most likely destroyed by an arrangement of mini-nukes that appear to have been configured to explode from top to bottom to simulate a free fall collapse.  If they were set to take out 10 floors at a time, for example, and exploded at the rate of one 10-floor segment at a time, then the destruction of those 110-floor buildings would take around 11 seconds apiece, which is a close approximation of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), which asserts that the South Tower was destroyed in 9 seconds and the North in 11, for an average of 10 seconds.  Here is a model of how it may have been done that appears to be an appropriate representation of this theory of how this was done:

Remarkably enough, this diagram did not come from Don Fox and Jeff Prager’s work but instead from “The 9/11 Operation: A Summary”, which was compiled by A. True Ott, Ph.D., between October 2001 and the end of 2004.  As he explains, his dissertation and research followed the groundbreaking work of Linus Pauling and asserted via independent research that each mineral on the periodic table of the elements, in its pure hexagonal crystalline form, pulses a specific hertz resonant frequency based on its atomic weight and unique electron configuration.  We met via his current radio program, “The Story Behind the Story”, during which he interviewed me for three two-hour segments about 9/11 over the past three days.  He previously co-produced a show by the same name at KSUB Radio in Cedar City, UT, which won a Peabody Award.  The most important information he presents about the nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers came to him from a Finnish military expert, who asked to remain anonymous, and was confirmed by a source at the Pentagon.  The convergence of their independent research is quite remarkable.

* Clare Kuehn, a University of Toronto graduate in history and student of philosophy, mathematics and the arts, discussed the research of Judy Wood, Ph.D., WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, presenting  evidence for the use of “DEWs” as “Directional Free or ‘Low-Input’ Energy Weapons”.  She reviewed Judy’s arguments based on temporal considerations that no “pancake collapse” could have taken place, which would have required some 96.7 seconds, an argument I had published in her chapter of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).  According to Clare, Wood has a theory, not in the sense of a rumor, speculation, or guess, but in the positive, explanatory sense, namely: that field effects create odd properties for EM devices and that these were used on 9/11 in NYC, though exactly how the posited weaponry (weaponry she would take to be implied by the evidence) works in detail, she does not know or say.  Wood denies having a theory, but if she has no theory, then she has not explanation; and some of her advocates call her book “a textbook” in a misguided attempt to suggest the evidence  she presents is so clear that all we have to do is to follow it as a logical argument, where they appear to be unable to appreciate that any explanatory argument qualifies as “a theory”.  She reports that  Wood does not attempt to grapple with the fissionless fusion claims of Prager in detail in any of her videos.

Clare also made a point to emphasize and expand on Wood’s named scientists, in public science, which might have found evidence of odd field effects. She specially mentioned public and private (putative black) projects which might indicate that such field effects have weaponizable potential and that maybe they have been weaponized. Wood and Clare have attempted to defend Hutchison’s videos from Ace Baker’s attempts to fake them.  While conceding that Ace had every right to see if they could be faked, Clare also argued that, not only did he fail, in salient features, to fake Hutchison’s videos, but in fact did not and could not attempt the levitation of water or the iron bar which collapses and flakes. Moreover, in support of the possibility that all or some of the fusion present on 9/11 in NYC might have been due to EM field effects, Clare referenced Dr. Julian Schwinger, who contends that EM may well be able to produce fusion (cold fusion). This is contrary to the alternate cold fusion method of Dr. Steven Jones–the same Dr. Jones of nanothermite for 9/11, who is not only a nuclear physicist but, some believe, a cold fusion obfuscator, and who also taught courses on Directed Energy Weapons of various kinds, which, some would suggest, he ought have been discussing more openly.

The points that Wood tends to accent include (1) the burn victims and whether this was due to nukes or to EM effects; (2) the damage to bathtub, which was modest and certainly not what would have been expected had those huge buildings not been converted mostly into dust; (3) the “toasted cars”, which she believes can only be explained on the basis of EM effects; (4) the “flipping” of cars and people being lifted, which she believes can be explained on the basis of  “weird-sounding” levitation effects; and (5) the presence of Hurricane Erin, which she  suspects played a key role on 9/11, either as a source of energy or in drawing the dust away from the city and out to sea. She believes that certain features of the damage to the WTC, such as the circular holes in WTC-5 and the scooped out center of WTC-6, require the use of some kind of weapon that properly qualifies as “directed energy”.  The presence of so much unburned paper has also drawn her attention, not to mention those who jumped from the towers that day, many of whom appear to have been attempting to flee from some kind of very intense experience that, she thinks, had to have been MORE THREATENING than leaping eighty or more floors to their death, which is stunning by itself and very disturbing.

Clare presented additional support for Hutchison in the form of a paper which purports to be about a test on Hutchison’s samples. It claims to have found accelerated atomic decay (“mutation of elements”).  But I have to point out that Chuck Boldwyn has offered explanations for the kinds of effects that Clare emphasized, with the possible exception of whatever terrified the jumpers from the towers.  He has elaborated his responses to these rather odd and intriguing phenomena, including during his exchange with Morgan Reynolds on “The Real Deal”, which can be heard

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

 I did my best to give full credit to her book in my review, which appeared on amazon.com and has drawn more than 1,000 commentsnot about the book, mind you, but about my review! Here is what I published about her book:

5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful argument by elimination, May 20, 2012
By James H. Fetzer

This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (Hardcover)
Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that appropriately functions as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done in this masterpiece has classically been referred to as a “prolegomenon”, or as a prelude to further research. The word “indirect” belongs in her subtitle, since “Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″ is exactly right.

She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite either. And she offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using mini or micro-nukes, although there is room for dispute as to whether or not she has actually shown that they cannot have been used.

What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go–and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds–they are all going to be measured on the basis of the stupendous accumulation of photos, graphs, diagrams and studies that she has assembled. This is an exceptional work that moves us far forward in the study of 9/11.

–James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth


Her dismissal of the possible use of mini or micro nukes at the WTC, which she presents on pages 121-122, is flimsy and insubstantial.  She certainly did not prove that they could not have been used to demolish the Twin Towers.

Dwain Deets, former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Dwain evaluated alternative explanations of the WTC-7 in “Approaching the Puzzling Destruction of WTC 7” and of the Twin Towers in his presentation, “Assessing Alternative Theories about the Twin Towers”.  As Dwain observes, these destructions are unusually difficult to analyze because so much of the evidence has either been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. The assessment approach includes a judgement of the quality of evidence as well as the consistency between the evidence and particular theories. For this evaluation, Dwain selected nine factors representing a sampling from an even larger list of perplexing questions associated with the Twin-Tower Destructions. On one end of this broad spectrum of issues are several that appear to convey the idea the towers were destroyed in a “surgical” manner. If this were in fact the case, the planners could well have had in depth knowledge of the structural details and been skilled in the art of building demolition. On the other end of the spectrum is indirect evidence that for some parts of their demolition, something much less “surgical” may have been employed, rather more like the placement of small tactical nuclear devices.

The theories that Dwain assessed were (1) the Runaway Open Office Space Destructions (ROOSD) with Explosives, which is more generically referred to as a “progressive floor collapse,” (2) explosive demolition, which is advocated by A&E911,  (3) directed energy weapons (DEWs), and (4) some combination of mini or micro nuclear devices.  He selected nine factors as the basis for his evaluation, which were selected from a larger set, where that subset of criteria were the following:These criteria enabled Dwain to conclude that neither the ROOSD theory or the explosive demolition theory were as competitive relative to the selected criteria, where the best supported turned out to be the use of mini or micro nukes.Although this assessment strives only to address the Twin-Tower Destructions, some items of evidence may have been products of one or more of the other WTC building destructions. While there could be extensive arguments over the criteria Dwain invoked, I have no doubt that inference to the best explanation would yield the same conclusion, namely: that the mini and micro-nuke theory confers the highest probability on the observable evidence and thus qualifies as the preferable alternative.  While I do not deny that the possibility remains that DEWs may have played a contributing role, there is no room for doubt that the principal causal mechanism for the destruction of the Twin Towers was mini or mico nukes.  And I presume no one will contest the inference that, if they were used to demolish those massive, 500,000-ton buildings, it lies far beyond the realm of possibility that the destruction of those buildings was done by planes, fires, and Islamic terrorists.

Rodin’s Reflections about the Twin Towers

In case anyone suppose I have lost track of Ernst Rodin’s review of The Vancouver Hearings, even though I have faulted him for serious shortcomings in Part I, re the presentations about the Twin Towers, he was far closer to the mark here:

In as much as there are at present, apart from the official explanation, essentially four theories how the collapse of the Twin Towers could have come about Mr. Dwain Deets tried to approach the problem scientifically by examining each one in relation to the major known observations from ground zero. Mr. Deets has an interesting scientific background with an MS degree in physics as well as one in engineering. He worked for many years in a research capacity at NASA and in 1996 was appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. His NASA career is documented [here]. In the 1970s he published work on prototypes of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which then evolved, via Global Hawk, to the current Predator. As such, he is a person who deserves to be listened to. Being a scientist he was not concerned with value judgments as to which collapse theories are legitimate and which ones off the pale this is why he included: ROOSD, nanothermite, DEW and mini-nukes.

Like most everybody else I had not heard of the ROOSD model (Runaway Open Office Spaces Destruction) before but Deets explained that the fundamental idea is:

“If the OOS [open office space] portion of the originating floor is ‘separated’ from the columns, it will drop unimpeded to the floor below. This separation could be [achieved] by carefully placed cutter charges, or by a more dramatic displacement of the upper block of floors laterally, such that one side of the upper facade drops free of the row of columns below. This could ‘strip away’ the first several floors below serving the same effect of ‘separating’ the floors from their supporting columns. The floor below, not designed to arrest this fall, will join in a runaway cascade of OOS floors to the bottom, known technically as a progressive floor collapse.”

Mind you, Mr. Deets did not invent any of these four theories he merely evaluated them within certain parameters which included: Crush rates; Debris patterns; Nano-thermite; Temperatures (immediate); Persistent heat; Vehicle anomalies; Tritium; Basement blasts; Radionuclides. He then created a rating scale and scoring system as to which one of the four theories would correspond best to observed data. Based on this limited material mini-nukes achieved the highest probability of having been involved in the destruction of the towers. Deets emphasized that this should not be taken as the final word but merely as an example for how the scientific method can be used to assess explanatory probabilities for a given event.

I have to add that the ROOSD theory, which Jeffrey Orling has advocated, appears to me to be even more preposterous than the “official account”. As Ernst Rodin has observed, it maintains that the floor trusses collapsed, one upon another, in a veritable cascade of floors. The model that comes to mind is that of a 45 rpm record player, in which the records drop, one upon another, until there are no more left. The difficulties appear to be so obvious that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously. First, the core columns, like the spindle on the 45 record player, would remain standing. Second, there would have been a stack of trusses, just as there would have been a stack of records, only in this case about 110 trusses high. Third, it would not have brought down the steel support columns, either, which means that it would have left a cage-like structure standing in place. This theory is so discrepant with the gross observable evidence that I am stunned that anyone should take it seriously. It should properly be added to the trash bin of has-been theories about 9/11.

NOTE:  The Vancouver Hearings conclusions about who was responsible for 9/11 and why will be presented in Part III.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science.  The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.

Jim Fetzer

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

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

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

Related Posts:

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

Posted by on 7:45 pm, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Foreign Policy, Government, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

42 Responses to "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II"

  1. johnanderson  October 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Thank you Dr Fetzer, for your work on this age defining event.

    My mother used to tell me,

    ” The truth will stand, when the world’s afire ”

    and the truth of this tragedy needs to be exposed and recorded.

  2. LC  September 27, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Presidential admission to WMD used on 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_WrXJPMSAs&feature=related

  3. LC  September 25, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    What happened to link to Mr. Prager’s 9/11 dust page?

  4. Ken Rechtstein  September 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Thank you Dr Fetzer for your courageous and untiring efforts to cast light over the 9/11 events, unveil the plots that led to such tragedy and unmask the Institutions and men who stood and still stand for the subsequent cover-ups.

    I have been following the Vancouver Hearings and, I think that they will go into HISTORY as a milestone of what honest and gifted-determined-truth seeking citizens can achieve in defense of ethical values and justice against constituted MAFIAS that have literally hijacked-sequestrated and/or are APPOINTING subservient governments in the USA-EU, forfeiting Constitutions, discarding International Laws and substituting to a “Government by the People and for the People” a Police State, at the sole service of the PARALLEL GOVT.

    I hope that would be Ph.D students will take the subject into account. The Vancouver Hearings are a tremendous source of themes that can be taken up, in order to prevent the distortion of HISTORICAL FACTS, the way it happened after the WW II, substituting to hidden truths myths and fables.

  5. LC  September 19, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Thanks and watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36PnPaBlbio&feature=player_embedded#!

    • duay khwaam nap theuu  September 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm

      You can hear the same speech by Dr. Dahlia Wasfi as used in this video, and spare yourself a lot of quickly-cut images of war by searching her name at youtube. Also this video seems to call for taking up of arms against the American government. This video has at least 3 or 4 copies running at the same time at youtube now.

      I would rather we appeal to reason than stir up emotion.

  6. LC  September 18, 2012 at 8:18 am

    Does this 300 ton piece fit into your equations? http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9-12-12-911-bombshell1.pdf

    • Jim Fetzer  September 18, 2012 at 8:34 am

      Nice! Thanks for linking to this, where the photos can be found at the original:

      9/11 bombshell: WTC-AMEX 300 ton bullet

      9/11 Nuclear Bomb Signature preserved by American Express Tower:

      A massive 300 ton piece of one of WTC buildings was, instantanously, shot into the corner of AMEX Tower 200 meters away, cutting through AMEX like a flying ax piercing a watermelon, with its tail-end sticking out, and probably killing dozens of people (of whom we never heard!) Shooting that 300 ton bullet compares with shooting the 300 ton Los Angeles museum rock (Levitated Mass), as a cannonball (to target the AMEX Tower), required a force of at least 60,000,000 Newtons (= 60 Kilo-tons), according to this force formula:

      F = m X a = 300 X 200= 60,000 tons= 60 Kilo-tons

      60 kilo-tons is three times the force of the atomic bomb which destroyed Hirosima in 1945. Therefore, New York was nuked on 9/11/01 by individuals within USA, using U.S. atomic weapons plus many other hi-tech devices.

      The “9/11 truthers” have ignored this irrefutable atomic proof-of-fact for any one, or more, of these reaons:

      – they have NOT been aware of this 300 ton bullet due to media blackout of this subject and its pictures;

      – to sell their books and articles for profit; – to continue the 9/11 disinformation campaign;

      Plugging into the above formula any acceptable numbers results in many kilo-tons of force, only achieveable with Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction (NWMD), and not with any of the comics of “the 9/11 truthers”, or those of “the 9/11 Commission” (comics such as: hitting, collpasing and burning, acceptable only by elementary school level fans of idols like Superman).

      911 Terrorist Face Imprint Found in American Express Tower Window

      Shooting this Russian monster as a bullet, probably needs less force than shooting the WTC-AMEX 300 ton bullet:
      What is this? Captured in Russia 2012

      WTC Waterfalls Memorial Bombshell:
      “The beauty of the design is that it maintains the footprints of the buildings. It gives you a sense of how large the buildings were.” Now, Salessi’s personal thoughts: “The real beauty of WTC waterfalls is their true function, which (I believe) is

      My advice: don’t near Ground Zero without a Geiger!

      Russian general reveals truth about 9/11 Believe Your Own Eyes (Media brain-wash to make believe)
      Veteranstoday: 9/11/2012/truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii (Part-1 2 3 to continuously
      decontaminate (wash-down) the underground nuclear radiation of the atomic blasts of 9/11”!


      The 300 ton bullet sliced through 10 floors, at a corner (one of the hardest edges of the building):
      Another massive piece destroyed same side of arch, and its roof (below). Each of the below fully loaded trucks may weigh 30 tons max. Shooting the 300 ton WTC bullet equals to shooting 10 of these fully loaded trucks as one massive bullet, while shooting even one of these 30 ton trucks (weighing like a tank) as a cannonball is impossible without an atomic explosion. Buildings veiled to conceal extent and nature of damage (above & below).

      Another colossal piece destroyed same side of arch:

    • LC  September 19, 2012 at 11:20 pm

      Link to formula was http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpforce/force_equation.php Just plug in 300,000. Kilogram=300 tons and the 200 & see result. OK?

    • LC  September 20, 2012 at 10:20 am

      Correction: I see author had probably misread 6118297.2778676 kilogram force in above formula as 61 Kilo tons rather than 6.1. Kilo tons and rounded it down to 60 rather than 6 kiloton. But, his well taken point is that even if this was ONE KILOTON (or even half Kiloton) it was still a nuclear bomb force. Another important point is that this 6 Kiloton was the force needed only to shoot this 300 ton piece. The rest of the nuclear energy was obviously used to pulverize the building into atomic dust and make it vanish… So the totality of the nukes must have been a lot more than this 6 Kilotons, may be 100 times more. Only the people who installed the nukes know the real numbers. If they are reading this they have a duty to disclose those numbers.

    • LC  September 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Take up your arguments with the author on his own website, or with the physicist who provided the painstaking work on this web-page. Meanwhile author corrected his obvious mistake now linked: http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9-20-12-copy-of-9-12-12-911-bombshell-with-corrections1.pdf from top of web-page: http://kareemsalessi.wordpress.com/wachovia-drug-cartel/ My response to you is that you seem to be a member of the coverup team because your statements are with certainty, now that you can’t deny the nukes needed to do this. I do recall having seen massive pieces of buildings shot away from WTCS before the dust clouds appeared. I think one of those films was called 911 Mystery, produced by a woman (2006). Other official documents I had seen showed NIST’s own calculation of the weight of this 300 piece and that it had come from a WTC. I think you guys really needed to nuke the entire Manhattan so that not to leave any recoverable evidence at all!!! Well, try that on next 911.

    • LC  September 21, 2012 at 9:53 am

      Thank you for your attempt “– to continue the 9/11 disinformation campaign;” as stated in that link.

    • LC  September 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoSEDuUOPJ0 supports NUKES explained above at least at these minutes into the film: 21 (above 300 ton bullet), 38 (man 100 yards from WTC flew with atomic-waive force), 42 & 77.

    • Gordon Duff  September 22, 2012 at 10:01 am

      nothing other than radiation sickness
      nice try

    • LC  September 22, 2012 at 11:18 am

      bp: but you have proven to be from a prompt cover-up campaign team!!!.

  7. LC  September 17, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    What about this 300 ton monster which ties in with all sorts of nukes:

  8. Jim Fetzer  September 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Donald Fox asked me to post the following, which I cannot confirm personally but which would not surprise me:

    I got an email recently from a former DOE physicist who stated that:

    1. 9/11 was the product of the DOE nuke labs and the DOD. It was a nuclear event.
    2. Judy Wood’s book was written by the CIA. I’ve heard that other places as well. In any case there is absolutely no merit to anything related to Judy Wood.
    3. Judy Wood and her crew are an intelligence operation. This person stated that Morgan Reynolds is running the op. I’m not sure who is running the op but I’ve believed Judy Wood is an operative for some time now.
    4. Steve Jones is covering for his old buddies at the DOE. Again I suspected this all along but an insider confirmed this.
    5. John Hutchison has DOE connections. There is no scientific merit to anything he’s done but he works for the DOE in some capacity. Most likely as an operative.

    As far as I am concerned Judy Wood is the new John McAdams. I’m not going to waste anymore time debating the merits of DEWs (as related to 9/11) because there are none. Breaking down Judy Wood’s material has as much merit as breaking down Posner’s or McAdams’ books.

    I’ve heard different accounts as to what types of bombs were used at the WTC. The Anonymous Physicist believes that only good ole fission devices were used and that the tritium was planted. I seriously doubt the government would plant tritium at Ground Zero. 911U.org believes that 3rd generation pure fusion devices were used. At this point I’m leaning towards mini-neutron bombs. But that is not set in stone by any means. Whatever was used certainly had a fission and a fusion component. Pure fusion devices wouldn’t leave uranium and thorium and the heavier elements in the dust samples or the China Syndrome aftermath. Pure fission devices wouldn’t leave all the tritium in the water samples.

    Cold fusion can be ruled out because, yes, there was high heat at Ground Zero.

    “The buildings were demolished with hand grenade sized weapons employing fusion and fission properties.” I agree with Jeff’s statement 100%. That concurs with everything I’ve researched.

  9. Jim Fetzer  September 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Of course! I bring together the best experts I can find to cover different aspects of 9/11, just as I did in the case of JFK. I don’t pretend to “know it all”, but when I find the right people, we accomplish a lot.

  10. Jim Fetzer  September 15, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Don Fox writes:

    I would say that if someone is having difficulty accepting the mini-nuke hypothesis then consider this:

    1. We see huge explosions that send debris upward and outward from WTC1 & 2. Some of the debris is ejected over 600 feet.

    2. A massive pyroclastic cloud covers Lower Manhattan in a fine coating of cement dust. Similar to a volcano in energy output.

    3. Dust samples collected after 9/11 by the USGS contain radioactive fallout including uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium. This is a dead giveaway of fission devices being detonated at the WTC. Pretty much case closed right here.

    4. The DOE collects water samples that contain 55x background levels of tritium 11 days after 9/11. This is a dead giveaway of a fusion detonation. Again case closed.

    5. The China Syndrome Aftermath: ground temps at Ground Zero are 1,500 degrees F 6 MONTHS after 9/11! Unexploded mini-nukes kept reacting deep underground until they dug everything up in March 2002. Then they hauled in and out hundreds of trucks loads of dirt to remove the contaminated soil.

  11. Jim Fetzer  September 15, 2012 at 6:45 am

    A fellow named Todd Marshall has written me about the use and nature of mini-nukes. I pointed out to him that he was commenting on Part I and suggested he take a look at Part II. He has done that and replied as follows. In his last paragraph, he seems to think that we are claiming WTC-7 was done using mini-nukes, but that he has concerns even after reading Part II invites further discussion, where Don Fox has replied and, to my surprise, suggests that he may believe that WTC-7 ALSO involved mini-nukes:



    Two mentions … nothing concrete.


    Lots of mentions of mini-nukes but nothing in the article that says what they are, how they work, what they can do, examples of where they have been used. It just sort of assumes we know what they are … same as we know what dynamite is. I, for one, don’t know what they are. I can’t imagine how they could be used for a controlled demolition which takes lots of precision placement of charges and removal of material.

    I then followed one of the links in hearings-ii:


    I use open office and it won’t open this powerpoint.


    Seven (7) points of “proven nuke evidence” but no example of how a nuke could be used here. Every nuke example I’ve seen has a big mushroom cloud over it.


    Really good presentation. Seems to present lots of forensic evidence that the destruction was non-conventional … but just seems to assume mini-nukes exist and were used. But still nothing that says here’s what mini-nukes are; here’s an example of what they can do; here’s how you would blow these building up using them.


    Old movie from 1962 near Nellis AFB. Ivy Flats exercise? Deployment of low yield nukes … Davey Crocket. 9:17 “detonated perfectly releasing its lethal radiation”. Small mushroom cloud. Lots of radiation. Insignificant crater. Blast area less than a football field. Nothing to show effectiveness of blast. 15 minutes in, still only one use of non-conventional weapons. At 16 minutes, “2 simulated nuclear fires”. Successful termination of exercise. Simulated decontamination with conventional brooms. You’ve got to be kidding!!! The whole thing is a simulation about how a battalion would deploy a Davey Crocket.

    I’m sure there is much more but it will have to wait for later. If there were any real evidence of a mini-nuke, the preceding video wouldn’t even be included in the presentation as it’s 40 years old.

    James, this is subterfuge. We don’t have to determine how WTC7 was done to hang the people who said it was done by fires in that building.


    Todd Marshall
    Plantersville, TX

    • Jim Fetzer  September 15, 2012 at 6:49 am

      Here is the response to Todd from Don Fox:


      Download the free MS PowerPoint viewer to read PP presentations: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=6

      Mini-nukes are low-yield nuclear bombs. Mini-nukes are classified technology but the government admits they exist and according to a declassified Department of Energy document from Jan 2001 they state that it’s a “mere fact that the US has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work.”

      The Baltimore Sun published a story on June 16, 1993 entitled “Pentagon eyes age of ‘mini-nukes’ Small weapons for small conflicts.” You can read that here: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-16/news/1993167188_1_nuclear-weapons-warhead-small-nuclear

      So we know that mini-nukes exist and are suitable for use in demolition work. None of us are demolition experts so we can’t tell you exactly how one would go about using mini-nukes to demolish a building. But I can see the results of their work and conclude that the demolitions of WTC1, 2 and yes 7 were mini-nuke events.

      I’ve spent most of my time researching how the Twin Towers were nuked. However I have spent some time on Building 7 and if you look close you do see evidence for nukes. 7 was destroyed in a completely different manner than the Twin Towers. With 1 & 2 you see obvious use of nukes as the buildings were destroyed by a series of mini-nukes detonated from the top down. Debris is ejected upward and outward then a massive pyroclastic cloud covers lower Manhattan after each building is demolished. Building 7 is more like a classic controlled demolition where it appears that the support columns were destroyed and the building comes down at free fall speed in a vacuum. The building comes more or less straight down. No debris is ejected upward or outward. So I don’t see any mini-nukes being used above ground with WTC7 like they were with the Twin Towers. However after 7 comes down the massive pyroclastic cloud once again engulfs Lower Manhattan. The pyroclastic cloud looks the same as the Twin Towers. So it appears to me that below ground they detonated mini-nukes. It takes a lot of energy to form these pyroclastic clouds of fine cement and steel dust. Nukes are known to blast material into very small particles and that’s what we see with WTC7 like we did with the Twins.

      I’ve heard that they had “cleaner nukes” in the basements of each building. These nukes were there to make sure that in case some of the other bombs didn’t detonate they wouldn’t leave any evidence behind.

      I’ve got a 5 minute YouTube video on my blog that shows all 3 buildings coming down. Check that out here: http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/jim-fetzer-real-deal-appearance-7912/


    • Jim Fetzer  September 15, 2012 at 10:14 am

      Here is a response to Todd from Jeff Prager:

      Hi Todd,

      I don’t know what you’ve read, what you’ve researched or what you know about nuclear demolition.

      What I can do and the only thing I can do is provide you with virtually unequivocal evidence that 911 was, in fact, a nuclear demolition.

      To that end please find attached an excerpt from a larger book of mine which proves that 911 was a nuclear event. While this excerpt is a complex analysis using both physics and chemistry it was written such that most laymen should easily understand the science.

      This report references Chemistry Table One at the USGS web site linked here:

      My opinion mirrors Don’s. 911 was a nuclear event.

      There is publicly available information that the Pentagon was also a nuclear event. A doctor living within a mile or so (approx) of the Pentagon, just returned from an expedition to measure radioactivity somewhere out of the country and still in possession of sophisticated measuring equipment noted a significant increase in radioactivity just after the Pentagon was attacked.


      “Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward. In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a “Radalert 50″ Geiger counter. One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm. “That’s pretty high,” Cindy Folkers of the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington. The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and “detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the [very short lived] alpha.” This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor’s Geiger counter. “The question is, why?” Folkers said. If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building. — “Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP.”



  12. Raptor  September 14, 2012 at 6:11 pm


    You’re becoming emotional, that’s not very becoming. You may insult me at will, it’s no skin off my back. I made a simple request and your retort speaks volumes. I’m not denying Jim, I’m questioning based on what I know about basic Highrise construction. Does that make sense to you?

    The Freedom Tower has a concrete core ( reenforced ) and an open office space floor plan design just like the Twins had. And people wonder why people like me ask simple questions..


    • Jim Fetzer  September 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      Pointing out that the burden of proof falls upon you is not becoming emotional. I have no idea where you come up with this, but my frank opinion is that your position is absurd. It is certainly inconsistent with the photographic record of the construction of the towers, their blueprints and their designs. How could they have a concrete core? There were 47 massive core columns made of steel at the center of each. If you can present evidence to the contrary, then do that. You have done nothing but spin words to defend your bizarre theory. If you can falsify the prima facie case established by the evidence I cite, do that. Otherwise, you are making yourself look very foolish.

  13. Raptor  September 14, 2012 at 10:14 am

    I challenger you to post a photo of either Twin in the construction phase that I, or anyone else, has yet to see. I bet you can’t, unless of course you have access to those that we do not. We’ve all seem them over and over….and the vids of the construction phase flat suck.

    See this is my main bitch with all of this 9-11 BS…how long will you beat this drum?

    Let’s see some photos that we’ve not seen before, not the presser type propaganda crap that have been archived and tossed about for years..

    You had how many core columns? 47-48…..how long per..? 30 ft–40 ft….How tall were those buildings again…1,000 ft—1,100…..Where are these columns? Where are they in Ms. Wood’s pics?

    I’ve seen what were said to be core columns, complete with the numbers, all of it…..I’ve got lots of photos of them, just not anyway close to the numbers necessary to make what’s been told the truth.

    You have made a great point in regard to mass at the top vs mass at the bottom as it relates to the collapse. That point alone should tell most people with an interest that the official story is fiction. There was ZERO resistance to mass that fell, ZERO and if that doesn’t explain what actually happened to even the dumbest of stumps, then 11 years worth of pounding is pointless……Wouldn’t you agree Jim?


    • Jim Fetzer  September 14, 2012 at 11:01 am

      As I have REPEATEDLY explained, there is a very comprehensive photographic record of the construction of the Twin Towers that is not consistent with your (to me, bizarre) claim that it had a CONCRETE CORE. The extant photographic records–together with blueprints and diagrams of the plans for their construction–stand in stark contrast to your contentions. They thereby establish what is know in the law as a “prima facie” case for the use of steel in the core columns, not concrete. A prima facie case established sufficient evidence to accept its conclusion IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY PROOF. So you not only appear to be denying abundant and compelling evidence that you are wrong but you have done nothing to show why you are right. You need to advance evidence that constitutes a REFUTATION of the prima facie case that I have presented. So you are not only ignoring the evidence but the standard of proof that you are obligated to advance IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. You cannot falsify a prima facie case by hand-waving and mere words. You need some proof! Which means that the challenge is on you to substantiate your claim. You seem to understand logic no better than you do evidence.

  14. ricohands  September 14, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Great work. Keep ‘em coming. It’s truly astounding, with all this evidence, how many still believe the official line.

  15. markboughton  September 14, 2012 at 3:46 am

    I still haven’t read Ms Woods book but am led to understand that she has put forward no particular theory.
    a) Could some confusion concerning dust samples be attributed to the mixing of dust from WTC7 and the towers, as it seems to be agreed that different methods were used and
    b) is it possible that DEWs were not used on WTC7 because of its location
    Sorry I can’t research this myself at present (angles of destruction and toasted cars etc) but my generator is being repaired and available power is limited for the time being.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 14, 2012 at 5:39 am

      Her definition of a “DEW” is simply a device that produces far greater energy than conventional explosives, which can be directed, if you read this article more carefully. The destruction of WTC-7 appears to have been a classic “controlled demolition”, which appears to have been done using conventional explosives. Barry Jennings of the New York Emergency Management unit was in the building that morning and heard explosives going off, had a stairwell blown out from under him, and felt himself stepping over dead bodies. He gave interviews, some of which have not been sanitized, that you can find on YouTube. Later in the afternoon, as Larry Silverstein told PBS, he spoke with a “fire commander” and told him there had been so much destruction and loss of life, perhaps the best thing to do was to pull it–“and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building come down”. So far as I can see, there is no good reason to believe that the demolition of WTC-7 involved nukes. If I am right about that, then the elements found in the dust samples–which were collected and studied by the United States Geological Survey–did not come from WTC-7 but from whatever was used to blow apart the Twin Towers from the top down in a demolition that was under control, but which was definitely NOT a classic “controlled demolition”. So if I am right, then you are wrong, where we appear to have abundant and compelling proof of the use of nukes on the WTC. For a discussion of the differences between the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7, see “An analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, which is several places, including ATS. The nuke hypothesis fits the Twin Towers but not WTC-7.

  16. cascadedavid  September 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Thanks Jim. I keep thinking about the possibility that the CEG was done in advance. I wonder if locals might spot anything in the background that shouldn’t be that day. There are probably good reasons why the background was whited out later that day… Needle in a haystack.

  17. James Robertson  September 13, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Brilliant stuff Jim thank you. Really shocked at the quality of the work that you and others have done. The only problem is the real story is so complex and sounds so unlikely that it’s gonna be hard to convince people of some of this stuff. None of that is your fault of course. Thanks again.

  18. bahmi  September 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    People get fixated on some explanation that they think they know more about than anybody else. They focus on one little element that they think they’ve researched more/better than anybody else. However, when placed against the totality of evidence, the radioactive elements, burned cars, responder interviews, lo!, their stories melt as if nuked. Creating the huge volume of dust took a special summation of energetics. Only a nuke could provide those energetics. Still, it’s hard to fathom why Jones and some other “experts” hold fast to various theories like thermate/thermite.

    In this regard, any ideas as to how many shills were employed on these dramas? We are not talking innocent bystanders, we are talking about people who were just working for a day’s pay or bought into a certain line of reasoning and realized their boss was bought and paid for and they were, too. Many early responders were threatened to keep their mouths shut, and they did. But, nature hates a vacuum and some spilled their beans.

    Jim, thanks for the fantastic body of work leading us to where we are today.

  19. Raptor  September 13, 2012 at 11:51 am

    If the Twins were indeed built as advertised ” no concrete in the core ” that is, then nukes and extremely hi-tech magic wouldn’t have been necessary. To me it’s key to this issue of what actually caused the collapse. If the cores consisted of Steel beams, and only steel beams, then the demise of those Towers would have been a walk in the park, only that wasn’t an option because simple c-4, or the like, would have left too many large bread crumbs behind. One being large to massive chunks of everyday office materials. Everything from PC’s, to desk’s, and the usual building furnishings one would expect.

    Just my humble opinion but I think the reason Judy asks some of the questions she does is because it’s possible ” HIGHLY POSSIBLE ” that those cores were not as told by FEMA and the rest.

    It’s hard to account for things that never existed in the first place. Yes I could be way way out in left field here, I’ll not deny that, but I’m not buying the things turned to dust BS. It just doesn’t make any sense..as in some did and some didn’t, which in turn only adds more confusion. It seems confusion is what some want when it comes to all things 9-11. I find that troubling, always have.

    That dust was mostly concrete, as I’ve said before, I’ve poured hundreds of yards of the stuff and know a thing or two about it. I can’t imagine a building the scope of those Twins having none within their cores, and if people would be a bit more honest, they’d agree. Having re-enforced concrete cores would grant the use of mini nukes a wide berth, very very wide…..because then they’d be needed in order to keep from severely damaging the very valuable surrounding areas….and they would also assure the complete deconstruction which was seen in every single video of the event.

    Now you can better add heat into this nuke equation, and then the grounds temps as seen on thermal images, this would better back this nuke angle up as to making complete sense, even to the layman.

    Without that and going with the official account, you end up with a collapse taking 10-x’s as long as what was witnessed and running the risk of toppling one of those structures onto a few other multi-million to billion $$$ buildings…and if not that………then you spend a BILLION just to clean up and finish pulling down one, let alone two……..but wait it was three………..this is where you’re led to believe that building 7 was different and it wasn’t even hit by a plane…yada yada yada…

    I’d love to see a CD of a 1,000 foot tall building just to illustrate how much work would be involved in the process, how much removal of support structure just to make it possible. The effort would be enormous as would the expense, not to mention the mass of all carried away after being stripped from the building prior to the demo… This is something Gage NEVER talks about………….never…..and people have to ask why? Come on already……


    • Jim Fetzer  September 13, 2012 at 11:57 am

      There is an extensive, even copious, photographic history of the construction of the Twin Towers. Photos and films were taken virtually every day of their construction. I am sorry, Raptor, but you seem to me to have lost your way. Some parts were blown out and about, but those buildings were destroyed below ground level. We know the city was filled with millions of cubic yards of very fine dust–the study of which has supported the conclusion that this was a nuclear event. Get over it! The gap between your subjective beliefs and objective proof is growing larger.

  20. Stewart Ogilby  September 13, 2012 at 8:27 am

    Great work again, Jim. So now we know – no hijackers – no commercial airliner crashes – soon the final “bizarre and preposterous” additional narrative of nearly 3,000 bodiless souls will be added to that unthinkable hoax. As for old asbestos-laden WTC structures, they were blown down, not up as in the fake movie. Rather than belabor clever hi-tech demolition technology, how about now going to the two most important two questions of this huge media hoax that was broadcasted as “breaking news” that day – BY WHOM? and WHY?

    • ableirato  September 14, 2012 at 8:08 pm

      The main thing that needs to be addressed is why all the theorizing over fake media. It’s a waste of time. How about addressing the emergency drills done that morning that cleared the entire Lower Manhattan area of people? How about addressing the fake tenants as mentioned by Phil Jayhan’s letsrollforums? How about empty towers and total video fakery? How about reviewing September Clues’ cluesforum.info vicsim report, which makes it clear the victims were fictitious? How about ongoing media fakery to this day, from Japan to the current Libya embassy?

  21. Thomson  September 13, 2012 at 7:29 am

    Cognitive Dissonance/Schizophrenia/PTSD/Irrationality – Total Dysfunction = Insane Rage afflicting the weakest among us. Because of 9-11 Cover-Up. There is absolutely no legitimacy to our laws, and no hope for future generations to share in the benefits of an enduring civilization, because now all science, medicine, industry, economics, energy projects, and infrastructure are run by truth-denying, mentally-paralyzed zombies, for whom the profit motive is the only value. Meanwhile, the human conscience never dies. We all do have an unconscious mind, an “Id” if you will, and its power cannot be denied at will. We are looking “Mass Guilt” in the face, for the crime of our own betrayal of everything that’s right, and the result is that we are speedily engineering our own demise, in various and sundry ways. A common death wish is manifesting all around us. Bizarre justice, indeed. “This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day; thou canst not then be false to any man.” But when evil is called good, and good is called evil, a man can no longer be true to himself. He will destroy himself as well as others. (P.S. – Sending along a request please for news on the status of Captain May.)

    • johnanderson  October 11, 2012 at 11:06 am

      A lot of what you have said, is spot on. But do retain hope for mankind to evolve, and US citizens to shake the distractions of media, and start to think free.

  22. duay khwaam nap theuu  September 13, 2012 at 1:59 am

    Here is the short URL link to part I of this series:
    9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I
    September 7th, 2012

You must be logged in to post a comment Login