FACEBOOK
TWITTER
James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview
Iran Review – Interviews
James H. Fetzer: Mossad Played a Crucial Role in 9/11 Attacks
Interview with James H. Fetzer
By: Kourosh Ziabari
(THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) - More than one decade after the 9/11 attacks which completely diverted the path of the U.S. foreign policy and led to the waging of two lethal, erosive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and killing of thousands of innocent civilians, an influential, diligent group of researchers and authors have dared to question the authenticity and veracity of the claims made by the U.S. government that they were Islamist terrorists who crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon and killed some 3,000 people.
One of these high-ranking, renowned researchers is Dr. James H. Fetzer, a retired professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.
According to Dr. Fetzer, George W. Bush and his administration officials were responsible for the atrocities which happened on September 11, 2001. He firmly believes that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the U.S. government tries to withhold this truth from the public; however, he has written tens of articles for different magazines and news websites, providing evidence of the involvement of Israel’s intelligence service in the attacks.
Dr. Fetzer has edited several books, such as “Murder in Dealey Plaza: What we know now that we didn’t know then”, which are dedicated to the study of the assassination of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Among his seven authored scientific books are “Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits” and “The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds?”
Dr. James H. Fetzer took part in an exclusive interview with Iran Review on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and answered some questions about the uncertainties about the horrendous incident which took place 11 years ago in the heart of New York.
Q: Would you please talk about the difficulties and problems the 9/11 Truth movement has faced during the past decade? Does the U.S. government directly persecute or put pressure on independent researchers and authors who cast doubt on the official accounts given of the 9/11 events? What about the mainstream media? Have they made efforts to silence you and other researchers such as David Ray Griffin, Christopher Bollyn, Webster Tarpley, etc. who believe that 9/11 attacks was a false flag operation?
A: The most serious problems confronting the 9/11 Truth movement have arisen from conflicts internal to the movement coming from various factions, which have adopted negative and even hostile attitudes toward the others. One branch is the conservative, public-relations oriented branch, such as the 9/11 movement in the UK led by Ian Henshall, which doesn’t want to ruffle feathers by addressing the discoveries that make a difference, such as the use of mini-nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that all four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways, and that the Mossad played a crucial role in 9/11. We have all heard about WTC-7 and other hum-drum aspects of 9/11, but it has not done what was originally hoped by arousing the public. More of the same is not going to do it, either.
Then we have the “thermite sniffers”, led by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, who insist that this obscure incendiary could have blown apart the buildings, which, as T. Mark Hightower has shown, turned out to be physically impossible, and the “plane huggers,” such as Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who want to hang onto the myth that these big Boeings actually crashed on 9/11, when all the evidence contradicts them. Ironically, Pilots has done some of the most important work on this subject, including establishing that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly entered the South Tower. With friends like these, 9/11 Truth doesn’t have to have disinformation ops working against us to be fragmented, even though there are plenty of them, too.
Q: Some authors and researchers have argued that there were explosive materials which caused the Twin Towers to collapse after the planes associated with Flight 11 and Flight 175 crashed into the North Tower and South Tower. Is there compelling evidence confirming this? Somewhere you argued that these flights were formally taken out of service until September 28, 2005 and non-existent planes cannot crash into a colossal building in the heart of Manhattan. Would you please expand more on these two points?
A: Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, while FAA Registration data show that the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered or formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, How could planes that were not 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?Although it sounds like a stretch, the hits on both of the towers appear to have involved the projection images of planes–though in the case of the North Tower, it really does not look much like a plane at all–as I have explained in many places, including “Planes/No Planes and Video Fakery” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo.” Until you study the evidence,
“Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):
- Part 1: http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
- Part 2: http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
it is very difficult to believe. I resisted the very idea for a year and a half until Morgan Reynolds convinced me that I had to study the evidence. Now that I have, I can’t believe we were taken for such a ride! If there were no “Big Boeing” plane crashes, after all, and these were phantom flights, then the passengers were imaginary. And if the passengers were imaginary, then there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes. And if there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes, the whole “War on Terror” has been justified by an elaborate hoax.
Q: Do you have any information of the possible complicity of Israel’s Mossad in carrying out the 9/11 attacks? We’ve heard of the story of 5 dancing Israelis who had set up cameras directed at the Twin Towers before the planes crashed into the buildings, and were seen celebrating and congratulating each other after the towers collapsed. What’s your take on that?
A: The evidence of Israeli involvement and Mossad participation in 9/11 is abundant and compelling. Christopher Bollyn has a book about it, which goes overboard about nanothermite, but otherwise offers important evidence about this aspect of the case. Articles by Alan Sabrosky whom I had invited to speak during The Vancouver Hearings but medical problems intervened, elaborate on many aspects of Israeli involvement. And the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” does an exceptional job of brining together an enormous body of proof that even the transfer of the World Trade Center from the New York Port Authority into the hands of Larry Silverstein was part and parcel of the larger plan. An exceptional study, “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, by Nicholas Kollerstrom, a historian of science from the UK and an expert on the London 7/7 subway bombings, which recently appeared in Veterans Today, is required reading on this issue.
Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the possible involvement of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks? The FBI website had blacklisted him as the world’s most wanted terrorist, but did not attribute the 9/11 attacks to him due to a lack of sufficient evidence. We also know that in the 1970s and 1980s, CIA and other Western intelligence agencies along with the Saudi government armed, equipped and financed him to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. So, is it rational to claim that bin Laden has revolted against his former allies and the ones who had once backed him unconditionally?
A: Osama bin Laden was “our man in Afghanistan.” When first asked about 9/11, he explained that he had nothing to do with it, that it was contrary to the tenets of the Koran to murder innocent women and children and that, while he had differences with the U.S., especially over stationing its forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, the most holy sites in Islam, that there is a “government within the government” that brought 9/11 about and wanted to blame Muslims, even though they had nothing to do with it. And, indeed, as Elias Davidsson has documented, the U.S. has never been able to prove that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of those planes, while David Ray Griffin has noted that a half-dozen or more of those alleged to have been aboard them were found alive and well after 9/11. Interestingly, another expert who remarked that there is a “government within the government” of the U.S. was former President William Clinton.
Q: In one of your articles, you cited the accounts of William Rodriguez, the janitor of the North Tower and reports by a scientific lab at the Columbia University which attested that huge explosions took place at least 16 or 17 seconds before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. What does this fact indicate?
A: Willie’s reports have been confirmed by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job,” where they compared very precise seismic data from a geological lab run by Columbia University with FAA and military radar data for the alleged impact times of the planes and found that they occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the alleged impacts. Since that would have been rather difficult for Islamic terrorists to have arranged, it provides powerful proof that 9/11 was indeed an “inside job.” The graph that summarizes their study, which can be found on-line at Scholars for 9/11 and 911studies.org, also appears in “Seven Questions about 9/11,” which can be found at Veterans Today along with photographs substantiating that no Beoing 757 hit the Pentagon, substantiated in Vancouver, as I explain, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I.”
Q: At the Vancouver Hearings, you submitted the names of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as the possible accomplices of the 9/11 atrocities. Would you please talk about the reasons you named them, along with Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, as those who should be held accountable with regards to the 9/11 events?
A: The key players in relation to 9/11 were the neo-conservatives in the Department of Defense and the Israeli Mossad. Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, for example, had as his area of academic specialization before entering government the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S, which is what he gave us in the 9/11 Commission Report. As Elias Davidsson has shown, the government has never shown that the alleged hijackers were abroad any of those planes. As David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown, all of the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked. As Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed, although there were millions of uniquely identifiable pieces from those four aircrafts, the government has yet to produce even one! Neither the FBI nor the NTSB even investigated those “crashes,” claiming that it wasn’t necessary because “we saw what happened on television”. But it was all a fraud.
Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush and an obscure Minnesota Air National Guard pilot named Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, all played roles in managing these atrocities or in covering them up, which I have detailed in “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien.” The others’ roles are relatively obvious, but Lt. Col. O’Brien was piloting the C-130 that was circling the Pentagon, from which the debris that later showed up on the lawn appears to have been dropped. One especially conspicuous piece of fuselage has been tracked back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. I discussed all of this with the BBC, but it misrepresented my position by switching photos that I was talking about with others taken later. See “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation.”
Q: Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared the commencement of his War on Terror. As the first move, he attacked and invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, he occupied Iraq. We can think that Iraq was occupied because its vast oil reserves should have been dominated by the U.S., but what was the reason for the occupation of Afghanistan? Was this country of some geopolitical or strategic importance to the United States?
A: Of course, the Taliban offered to surrender Osama bin Laden if we could prove that he had been involved, which we promised to do but of course ignored. The invasion of Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, less than one month after 9/11. An article that appeared in The New York Times on 13 June 2010 discussed the vast mineral wealth of that nation, including gold, iron, copper and especially lithium, which is used in computers, triggers for nuclear weapons, but especially in electric car batteries and a reported new process to extract cheap energy from sea water. We appear to be there to do for Afghanistan what the first Secretary of the Treasury under Bush, Paul O’Neill, said the Bush administration was doing to the United States: looting! When we are done looting, we will leave Afghanistan.
Q: U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the 9/11 attacks created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” So, do you believe that the U.S. government had been waiting for such an opportunity to find the pretext to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and declare Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the Axis of Evil? Can we think of the 9/11 attacks as a broader plan to dominate the Middle East and its vast oil reserves?
A: Our presence there appears to have more to do with the Israeli “master plan” to dominate and control the Middle East than any longing for more oil. Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Commander of NATO, has reported being informed immediately following 9/11 of a plan to destabilize and overthrow the governments of seven nations in five years, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but working up to Syria and eventually Iran. This appears to be what is driving the US presence there, where the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, which ought to be registered as a “foreign agent,” dominates Congress and U.S. foreign policy. Some wags have suggested this country ought to be renamed “The United States of Israel,” which, I am sorry to say, is very close to the mark, especially with regard to foreign policy.
The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has made it their practice to condemn anyone remotely critical of the actions of Israel as “anti-Semitic,” including a recent article in which Gordon Duff, Alan Sabrosky, Kevin Barrett and I were offered as examples of “anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorists.” But I agree with Michael Moore who, when asked if he believes in conspiracy theories, replied, “Only those that are true!” There is abundant and compelling evidence that 9/11 was brought to us by the US neo-conservatives and the Israeli Mossad. When asked who could have had the resources to pull off 9/11, intelligence experts have been unanimous that only two agencies could have done it: the CIA and the Mossad. Astonishingly, California, where I was born, has just passed a law making any criticism of the actions of the government of Israel “anti-Semitic,” which is completely absurd, as I explained in, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” It is symptomatic of the political power Israel exercises over the United States.
Q: You have just invited Susan Lindauer to speak at the Vancouver Hearings. We know that she has been a U.S. intelligence asset and helped with the facilitation of talks between the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein. What have been the most revealing and important parts of her testimonies regarding the 9/11 events?
A: What Susan reveals is inside information that 9/11 was an “inside job.” She served as the liaison between the CIA and Saddam Hussein, who was so eager to avoid war with the U.S. that he offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars per year for the next ten years. If that was not enough, he said, make it the next twenty [years]! Imagine where the U.S. would be economically if we had only taken up his proposal? Instead, when Susan learned of plans to attack Iraq, she protested vigorously to President Bush. For taking that step, for speaking out about her concerns over the injustice of it all and the violations of international law that would be involved, she was harassed, intimidated, imprisoned and tortured. This is a stunning case that reveals the depths of depravity to which the U.S. has sunk. I have just published her astonishing, horrific story, “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset,” on Veterans Today.
Q: We are observing the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As my final question, I would like to ask you to give us an overview of the whole story that happened on that day. What realities have remained obscured and hidden so far?
A: 9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration, which included the invasion of several nations in the Middle East and the creation of a new century of American domination of the world for the next 100 years. The evidence supports the inference that 9/11 was a “national security event” which was authorized at the highest levels of the American government–the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon and The White House. It facilitated a reversal of US foreign policy and extraordinary constraints on the Constitution of the United States, which have dramatically increased the centralization of political power in the executive branch and dominating the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has been especially ominous, where DHS has now requisitioned more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo, which is not even permissible in the conduct of warfare under The Geneva Conventions. Combined with more than 300 FEMA camps around the country, which I have discussed in “From America to Amerika: The End Game” (with Dennis Cimino), every American should be alarmed at the parallels with the rise of The Third Reich in Germany before WWII. As a former Marine Corps officer, I am extremely apprehensive over the future of my country, which has been transformed from the most admired and respected nation in the world–along with our “gallant ally”‘ in the Middle East, Israel–to the most despised and reviled. I never expected that the U.S. would turn to “the dark side” in my lifetime, but it already has.
Key Words: 9/11 Attacks, U.S. Foreign Policy, War on Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamist Terrorists, World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon, Israel’s Mossad, Fetzer
NOTE: This article is republished from IRAN REVIEW (13 September 2012) and may be found at this link.
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=222538
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Sep 13 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Editor, Foreign Relations, Government, Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Muslims or Bin Laden did not do 9-11. ZERO An Investigation Into 9 11 (FULL documentary).flv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaVNl-drsck&lc=YF1j37ONxOnj8oxxsBWF1kAn0844EtOvSRxe-svcqZo&lch=email_reply&feature=em-comment_reply_received
Moving forward:
The fact that there are so many POSSIBLE alternate conclusions as to what happened, with the ELIMINATION of the official narrative from possibly being accurate, creates the logical and inescapable conclusion that 9/11 was a lie.
Israel was caught taping 9/11 as it occurred. In order to implement the plan, inside help was needed. The plan devised benefited both factions towards numerous ends. Viewing this from a “10,000 foot level’, the “incident” gave death to over one million Iraqis, created Afghanistan, a war arguably as bad or worse than Vietnam, Iraq, Gitmo, American torture, a degradation of our international reputation, the crumbling of our economy for bankers and other financial elite, TSA molestation checkpoints, cancer-giving Chertoff Body Scanners, the Patriot Act, NDAA, and 9,000+ (who knows the real number?) dead American men and women who had full and joyous lives to live otherwise.
When pointing the gun: shoot the warmongers.
Yeah Yeah Rahnameh
All very good arguments but now tell me how YOU are going to get an investigation started.
Bullet points would be best. You can use Who, What, How, When, Where and Why.
I suggest,
Who will conduct the investigation? Who will appoint the panel?
What will it concentrate on? What angle will it start from?
How evidence will be examined? How will it be interpreted?
When will it start?
Where will it be conducted?
Why it is of so much importance to America and the world to have an independent enquiry?
I find it difficult to contemplate a punishment appropriate to the crime if the findings accord with those put forward.
As a start get behind the 9/11 truth movement by signing their petition!
A good place to start would be to strengthen from within. Making America strong by enforcing our borders. This would mean all illegals out. Dual citizens out, especially in our Government. Register Lobby groups as foreign when they are. We need a POTUS like Andrew Jackson who would get rid of the Fed and fire thousands of radical Judges (Hellerman and Muckasey come to mind) and Government officials (the Rabbis throughout the Pentagon). By this example maybe we would stop electing the Liebermans and the McCains and the Levins to office. It is too late unfortunately, but one could dream.
Well, if you read “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien”, right here on VT at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-jaccuse-zelikow-cheney-rumsfeld-bush-and-obrien-2/ you should acquire a better conception of where we are going with this. We are compiling evidence that substantiates indictments for participation in 9/11 or for covering it up, which we plan to submit to appropriate international judiciary tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court. The US courts are controlled and dominated by those who have an interest in protecting Israel and concealing complicity by the American government. So we are pursuing the available alternatives.
Jim Fetzer
I read J’accuse.
United we stand divided we fall?
How many signatures have you collected so far? What is your time line?
Do you think international tribunals are better equipped to deal with this?
The USA is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.
Who is providing the evidence? What time frame for a considered response do you expect from an international tribunal?
Sorry Jim, but really, let the 9/11 Truth movement get on with it without you being a sea anchor to their efforts.
Robert, that and Susan Lindauer’s piece, “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset”, are just a few of the evidentiary submissions being compiled by the judges who participated in The Vancouver Hearings and who will be preparing the actual indictments to be submitted to appropriate judiciary bodies, such as the International Criminal Court, which the US recently rejoined. Our lead judge, Alfred Weber, was a member of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, which has brought charges of international war crimes against George W. Bush and Tony Blair. See, for example, “PRESS RELEASE: Bush and Associates Found Guilty of Torture” (11 May 2012), http://criminalisewar.org/?p=1040
Previous conventional lawsuits by Morgan Reynolds, on the one hand, and by Judy Wood, on the other, were pre-emptorily dismissed. Judge Hellerstein has been so eager to resolve a suit agains the airlines WITHOUT HEARING EVIDENCE by relatives to some of those who allegedly died that he has reverse judicial procedure to determine DAMAGES before determining LIABILITY, which, as I see it, is an obvious attempt to bribe the plaintiffs and keep the airlines from appearing in court: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2007/09/sept-11-lawsuit.html
Here is an informative article by Christopher Bollyn about the way in which the judicial process is being perverted to extend the cover-up http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/110490 Here is an article about our efforts, where the expected date for the issuance of indictments–given the complexities involved in their preparation–has been rescheduled for early in 2013, where there is a far greater prospect of indictments being handled in an objective and unbiased fashion by international tribunals than in US, especially New York, courts.
9/11 Vancouver Tribunal expected to issue Indictments in 9/11 events around Labor Day 2012
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/06/911-vancouver-tribunal-expected-to-issue-indictments-in-911-events-around-labor-day-2012-2301214.html
VANCOUVER, B.C. – The 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal is a citizen’s tribunal of conscience that was duly constituted by the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings June 15-17, 2012 in Vancouver, B.C.
Alfred Lambremont Webre, one of the Judges on the Tribunal states, “As a duly constituted citizen’s tribunal of conscience for the events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal has jurisdiction under natural law and justice; declarations of natural law, such as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights; international humanitarian law such as the Geneva Conventions; and national laws such as national, state and provincial criminal [statutes] prohibiting murder and conspiracy, for any jurisdiction whose citizens died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
The 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal was convened by a worldwide community of citizens who participated in the 911 Vancouver Hearings (June 15-17, 2012) in Vancouver, BC and via streaming internet from diverse locations around the world including the United States, India, and elsewhere.”
During the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings, 19 expert witnesses gave sworn testimony as to names, titles, and implicating evidence for individuals, each of whom is alleged to have acted as part of a common plan as a leading co-conspirator in the events of 9/11 and for whom they are aware of prima facie evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact.
9/11 UFO at World Trade Center
During the Hearings, one of the expert witnesses presented video of exotic technology used at the World Trade Center on 9/11 in the form of an apparently remote-guided wing-less sphere or UFO that flew into a World Trade Center tower. When the UFO sphere was filmed from a vantage point below the UFO, the holographic image of a commercial airliner cloaked the UFO. Yet when the UFO was filmed from above from another vantage point, only the UFO sphere appeared in the film.
9/11 Vancouver Hearings Judges Alfred Lambremont Webre and Connie Fogal at Hearings, June 17, 2012.
9/11 Vancouver Indictment
Following the Hearings, these 19 sworn expert witnesses and additional expert and eye witnesses on 9/11 have been requested to file further written submissions and affidavits with the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal on or before July 15, 2012 as to individuals for whom there is prima facie evidence that they acted as part of a common plan in the events of 9/11. Each expert witness is being asked to provide a detailed summary of implicating evidence for each such individual named.
From these evidentiary submissions, the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal plans to develop and issue an Information and Indictment of individuals alleged to have participated in a criminal, common plan and conspiracy to carry out the events of September 11, 2001.
Labor Day 2012
The 9/11 Information and Indictment is expected to issue around Labor Day, 2012. The Information and Indictment will be accompanied by an Evidentiary Report, setting out the evidence of probable cause for the indictments of the Accused.
Legal implications of the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal
Following the issuance of an Information and Indictment against specific named individuals who allegedly participated in a common plan and conspiracy in the events of 9/11, there are multiple legal venues in which the criminal charges in the Information and Indictment can be prosecuted and tried, and verdicts and judgments reached and enforced against the Accused.
A. International law – The alleged crimes of the Accused in the Information and Indictment may be found to violate the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and constitute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. At the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings Judge Alfred Webre stated, “The 9/11 false flag operations may qualify as a war crime, genocide, and crime against humanity, inter alia, if it can be demonstrated that the true intent of the 9/11 perpetrators was to carry out 9/11 as a pretext for invading Afghanistan, which invasion and war has been found to be genocidal because of the use of depleted uranium weapons and other reasons. So the legal chain of culpability is there, under the Nuremberg precedents of a crime against peace and stating an unjust war. The Tokyo Tribunal for War Crimes in Afghanistan, in an opinion by Judge Niloufer Bhagwat, found that U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration had committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity through the horrific birth defects and other widespread genetic and health damage cause to Afghan civilians through the U.S. use of depleted uranium weapons.”
The 9/11 Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 Vancouver Commission to the national courts of any of the more than 100 nations, such as Germany and Spain, that are signatories to the Rome statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution and enforcement, as well as to the ICC itself. The chief prosecutor of the ICC, to the criticism of many throughout the world, has failed to act on over 400 complaints on war crimes in Iraq and in Afghanistan by US and UK forces, and has privately stated he will not take jurisdiction of 9/11.
B. U.S. Congress – The Indictment of the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal can be taken by the 9/11 Vancouver Commission to the U.S. Senate and to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the Accused Treason under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which provides, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
There is legal precedent for such an action. In November 2007, a Memorandum was presented to senior Congressional staff and personally to Rep John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee setting out sufficient prima facie evidence of Article III(3) treason in connection with the events of 9/11 by George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other Jane and John Does. Senior Congressional staff acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations in the Memorandum. Rep. Conyers took the Memorandum home to Detroit, MI over the Thanksgiving 2007 holidays promising an answer as to whether he would move on the file after the Holidays. To this date, no answer has been forthcoming from Rep. Conyers.
C. Canadian Parliament – There are various concurrent efforts to have the Parliament of Canada investigate the 9/11 events, as NORAD is a joint Canada/USA function and 26 Canadians were killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The 9/11 Vancouver Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 Vancouver Commission to members of Parliament and the Senate, including the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leaders in the Parliament of Canada to appoint a Public Inquiry to investigate and report on possible criminal violations by Canadian persons or U.S. persons, including U.S. government employees or contractors/agents, and other individuals flowing out of the 9/11 events.
D. Prosecution for murder – The 9/11 Vancouver Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 Vancouver Commission to any District attorney and/or U.S. Attorneys in the United States of America, and to any Public Prosecutors in other nations whose citizens were killed in the World Trade Center or the events of 9/11. The alleged Accused, Co-conspirators and persons acting in a common plan to cause, facilitate or support the events of September 11, 2001 can each be prosecuted for murder by a U.S. attorney, by a district attorney or by public prosecutors of a nation whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001.
E. 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal – The 9/11 Vancouver Commission can establish a formal Tribunal for a trial of the Accused under the 9/11 Vancouver Indictment. This trial would be heard by the 9/11 Tribunal Judges, with appointed prosecutors, counsel for the Accused and due process for the Accused. A sister tribunal of conscience, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, has successfully tried George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al. for war crimes in Iraq.
9/11 Vancouver Tribunal & Commission
Judges on the 9/11 Vancouver Tribunal include Constance (Connie) Fogal, B.A, B.Ed, M.A., LL.B, and Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd. Connie Fogal is former leader of the Canadian Action Party, former Vancouver Parks Board Commissioner, former Director, Kitsilano and Vancouver Community Resource boards; lawyer with the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee to oppose what Fogal sees as threats to Canadian constitutional sovereignty. Alfred Lambremont Webre is a Judge on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, submitted a Memorandum to the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 9/11 and was a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty.
The 9/11 Vancouver Hearings were organized by Prof. Jim Fezter, PhD, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, edited its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ (Madison) and produced its first DVD, and co-organizer Joshua Blakeney, Graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, 9/11 activist, Staff Writer at Veterans Today, and now the Canadian correspondent for PressTV, Josh was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to study “The Origins of the Global War on Terror”.
The 9/11 Vancouver Commission, charged with rolling-out the Indictment and Information to alternative legal venues, includes Prof. Jim Fetzer, Josh Blakeney, Kevin Barrett and John Duddy. Kevin Barrett is a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist and one of America’s best-known critics of 9/11, is co-editor of 9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE: CHRISTIANS, JEWS AND MUSLIMS SPEAK OUT (2006), and author of TRUTH JIHAD (2007) and of QUESTIONING THE WAR ON TERROR (2009). John Duddy is a philanthropist with a deep interest in bringing justice in 9/11.
Information:
9/11 VANCOUVER HEARINGS
http://www.911vancouverhearings.com
9/11 Vancouver Hearings: Expert witness Pilot Dennis Cimino testifies on fraudulent flight data recorder (FDR) found at Pentagon on 9/11.
WATCH ON YOU TUBE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmGi5YeQ_Bw
Jim
The Vancouver Hearings, its attendees, participants and supporters form the body of your above report. I hope it has the clout you are suggesting it has, and not just carried away with its own hype.
I must admit it sounds impressive and I do not want anything to stand in the way of justice, or your efforts, but the courts you refer to do not have a track record of achieving any convictions. You are after all going for very big fish and following the correct procedures for indictments without the support of media and most likely a hostile legal combatant and unreliable judiciary, is a very tough call.
I may have to stand corrected as to the USA and its current standing in the International Criminal Court. I thought the USA had notified the UN that it will not accept the Statute, as was when it was a prior signatory. The USA together with Israel and I think Sudan claim they have no legal obligations arising from former representatives’ signature of the Statute. Has this again changed? Is the USA again bound by the Rome Statute?
Obama Rejoins ICC, US No Longer “Rogue” State
JUSTICE, AMERICA? DOES OBAMA REALLY MEAN IT?
American War Criminals Now Subject To Laws US Enforces on Others
by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today, May 5, 2012
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/03/obama-rejoins-icc-us-no-longer-rogue-state/
In a surprise move, President Obama signed an executive order rejoining the International Criminal Court, an organization established originally by the United State to enforce international law and punish war criminals.
The US left the court under Bush in order to protect those responsible for kidnapping, drug running and torture.
They may now be arrested, even if American office holders or members of the military or CIA, which, oddly enough, many of those responsible for such heinous crimes are.
Almost all facing prosecution are, curiously enough, members of the Republican Party and are trying to spin a return to freedom and justice as America giving up rights. The only right sacrificed are the rights some of the 1% and key officials had to murder, rape, steal and run drugs.
They may now be arrested under the same laws that applied to Gaddafi, Saddam and other “war criminals” that America has seen fit to bring to justice.
A careful read of one of the trickiest documents I have ever seen limits arrests of US elected officials as long as they are in office. Language protecting the military is less clear if not clear at all.
In doing so, Obama even puts himself at risk but the risk is far higher to Ashcroft, Gonzales, McCain, Lieberman, Bush (all), Cheney and a list of war criminals who may number in the thousands.
As to how far the ICC is willing to go is questionable. The organization tends to arrest only those of dark skin or targets of American foreign policy.
Perhaps that will change with the Arab Spring and elections in Europe which has gotten rid of some and may eventually remove nearly all the old leaders, most of whom are potential suspects in war crimes.
When we see Interpol put the cuffs on McCain and Lieberman and “perp walk” them out of the Senate, we will know we may get America back.
Jim
I have conducted some further basic research and it appears that as of now the U.S. is not a participant in the International Criminal Court.
A brief history is as follows. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court but has a caveat that the ICC does not accord with the Constitution and does not accept the crime of aggression. (one of a number of legal technicalities yet to be sorted out)
Whilst it is a step in the right direction the U.S. is not currently bound by the court. The ICC has no legal jurisdiction over any U.S. citizen accused of committing a crime of aggression under the statute. The ICC is controlled by the U.N. which with its veto powers no doubt can frustrate any efforts to bring justice to the criminals behind 9/11.
My view is that to have success it has to be conducted within current American law. That is not to say that International nations cannot bring charges in relation to their own citizens however that will bring the same result as the trial of the U.S. in Malaysia did.
I see the civil courts having a far greater chance of obtaining a result, and then a snow balling effect, but it would come with a great financial burden.
That is why everyone needs to unite on this cause and support whoever has the greatest chance of success. Financial clout will have a great bearing on any successful outcome.
Robert,
Thank you for this. You may well be right and I wrong. The most recent discussion I can find makes it clear that we have not rejoined the ICC and that it may be some time in coming, which is very troubling. We have multiple options for submission of our indictments; however, it is acutely disappointing that the ICC does not appear to be among them:
U.S. Engagement With The International Criminal Court and The Outcome Of The Recently Concluded Review Conference
http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/06/15/u-s-engagement-with-the-icc/
QUESTION: A process by which eventually you hope that you can join?
MR. KOH: I think our basic conviction is a strategy of engagement is good for the court and good for U.S. interests. We might as well start that process and make a serious effort at it, which is what we did. And as I said, the reaction was favorable. On the last day, they said, “We’re delighted to see a situation in which the U.S. is part of the solution for the court and not part of the problem.”
AMBASSADOR RAPP: I mean, it’s clear that joining the court is not on the table, as far as a U.S. decision at this time. But as you know, the United States takes a very long time to adopt international conventions and treaties, and sometimes doesn’t. I mean, it took us 40 years to ratify the Genocide Convention.
I think what we’re looking at here is how this court develops. We want to see it develop responsibly, to focus on crimes that involve truly massive intentional attacks on civilians, both in terms of the decisions made by its prosecutor on where to open investigations and also by its chambers, its trial chambers that have to decide whether, sometimes, to authorize those investigations or to issue arrest warrants.
And I think over time, there’s a possibility that we may gain confidence in this institution and that would enable us to move forward. And who knows what the future may hold? But at this time, we recognize that this institution is the international court where justice will be delivered if it can’t be delivered at the national or the regional level, that the United Nations is not going to step up and establish a Rwanda or Yugoslavia court and spend a hundred million or more a year on a court, as they have with those, when 111 countries are dues-paying members to this one.
To Jim Fetzer and Rollo
I started to write a post several days ago where I was going to make the point that the total credibility for calling for an investigation into the cause of the buildings collapsing can be destroyed by all of these conflicting theories.
I was going to suggest it is really not that important what theory is most likely believed by most of the readers. What is important, is what approach causes enough citizens to cry out for and succeed in getting a totally independent investigation that will draw its own conclusions as to what occurred. Hopefully plausible and accurate conclusions.
Getting that investigation ratified and under way is the number one objective.
I fear it may be too late as those intent in covering up the investigation have ammunition pointing to the fact that all these differencing theories can be put in the bunkum basket of conspiracy theories and thus the official theory stands.
I now have listened to another divisive claim as to what happened on 9/11
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/further-down-the-911-rabbit-hole.html
My suggestion to all of you arm chair scientists and private investigators is to get behind the 9/11 Truth movement and sign their petition calling for an investigation.
It has the greatest momentum and the greatest chance of getting some traction with some 10,000 signatures to date. Only a drop in the ocean at this stage to influence the powers to be.
If you really are into finding out the truth, get the investigation started and accept the findings rather than ruin any chances of an enquiry by stating conflicting viewpoints.
Great stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn_HFEDNZ_Q
This is bizarre. You put up a bunch of faked explosions and such. What is the point of that? You have been defending the proposition that real planes hit the North and the South Towers, which is physically absurd. And this series of disjointed fantasy scenarios is your reply?
If you really believe that real planes entered those buildings and created those cookie-cutter cut outs, then you really are a gullible sap. I don’t think you even know what my position is. So tell us: What is my position? And why are you citing all this movie fakery as “great stuff”?
No, I just came across this when I looked up Michael Bay. I thought it was cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Aircraft#Timeline
Read the entire timeline, I though you and GD were smarter then this?
It’s “smarter than”. And what are we supposed to have missed?
I was an engineer and executive liaison between Hughes Aircraft and GM. However, Hughes forced me to sign over an instrument patent under threat of termination and blacklist, the instrument was for measuring electrical signal ratios, worth billions. You will find this electronic circuit in many applications today, from auto to complex applications. All was taken by threat.
Thereafter, I was flown (weekly) to plants all across North American to solve complex problems, an executive and engineering liaison between Hughes and GM, and also worked with Raytheon.
The above was not the only time my inventions were stolen, another was taken later, and how gifted engineers and veterans are treated in the US. The other was associated with wealthy family member of one of these companies; I worked directly with executives within small circle during this time.
Later, I managed large infrastructure projects around the world, primarily technology based projects. It was my job to form teams with engineers and scientist and determine the companies and institutes necessary to accomplish the tasks, and the partnerships required. To accomplish complex objectives requires partnership of companies who specialize in various areas of expertise; however, this requires skilled teams for determining their abilities to achieve specific tasks. Something you may wish to consider.
You may find this interesting. Good luck, Jim.
Rollo I hear your response, and I do love jim Fetzer…He has a lot to put forth that others won’t hear,or say,in any other arena. The No Planes thing in all four crashes is definitely hard to take as we have been manipulated by Mainstream media-that is for sure! I look at the towers and what has been seen, including the Missile coming from the aircraft,before it hits the tower,looks like a ‘Fuel Tanker’ Air Force with the strange Pod. Was this also a manipulation to disuade us from what we thought we saw??!Don’t know, yet with all alledgedly manipulated Info and the strange collapse of these buildings, we can safely riot that the truth from the official weasils, has not been exposed…
Yes, I know for a fact that he means well and does noble work. And unfortunately I suspect I will draw his full ire once he sees this. But I want the leaders of the 9/11 movement to have unimpeachable work. Not tentative or reasonable work. Unimpeachable work. Unfortunately, I find the information marshalled for the no plane theory highly suspect, and I’m a dyed-in-the-wool truther… A regular Joe coming across it would scoff and walk away, with nary a second thought. We really can’t afford that.
Rollo, I am trying to be kind. The impossible physics of events you ware watching appears to be completely beyond you. The fact that you do not understand the argument does not show that my work on this subject is not “unimpeachable”. So do your best to reconstruct my argument. Why do I believe that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower? that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon? that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville? that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower?
I gather you are an elderly man. That you tend to believe what you see on television, even if what you are being presented is aerodynamically and physically impossible. Well, that’s fine with me. But it does not follow from your incapacity to understand the evidence I have presented that there is anything wrong with these arguments. I have presented them so many times I am blue in the face. If you think I have anything wrong, then show me what I have wrong and how you know.
First, from over 20 videos and perspectives, we see that some kind of plane flew into the South Tower. An amateur video recorded from over two miles away picked up a delayed audio of jet engines and then collision. Was there a loudspeaker in the vicinity of the WTC that blared the engine noise? Or did the feds get to every single video and camera pointed at the WTC that day and add the engine noise? No, wait. Two loudspeakers because the frequency and amplitude of the engines would decrease from someone in the south and increase for someone in the north.
Proceeding from the near obvious observation that there was a plane that flew into the building, the impact, exit, and explosions appear entirely consistent with a plane impact, physically and visually. Did you think the plane was going to hit the building, crumple up, and then slide down the face of it to the ground like in a cartoon? A 767 weighs roughly 100,000 kg–about 3 tractor trailers. Moving at at least 400 mph which is 178.8 m/s yields 3.2 million kJ of kinetic energy (not even including the potential chemical energy of the fuel which ignited inside). That’s a lot of energy. A series of external steel beams will NOT resist such an impact.
Last, with the videos you posted from February 20th, how can I possibly trust your reasoning and logic? Those videos were absolutely garbage and prove nothing, except that graphic designers can do interesting things with video. But we already knew that à la Michael Bay.
How shall I put this. I think you are sincere and your heart is in the right place, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are calculating the impact of the plane on the building without considering the resistance posed by the building to the plane. I suppose I ought to be stunned, but now I can see that your arrogance has gotten the better of you. Yes, the plane would have crumpled, its wings would have broken off, and bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. Did you think it would effortlessly pass into the building with no loss in momentum? I asked before whether you had studied physics. Perhaps Newton was not covered. The effects of a plane traveling over 500 mph on a stationary 500,000-ton building would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building traveling over 500 mph. This cannot have been a real plane.
Where do you take into account the resistance posed by those eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses and anchored at one end to the core columns and to the external steel columns, which were filled with 4-8″ of concrete? And, by the way, insofar as you seem to have overlooked it, if this “plane” could have effortlessly penetrated this massive steel and concrete building with no loss in momentum, then why did it not blow out the far side? The plane is 160′ long; a tower is 208′ wide. So there were 48′ feet during which, according to your hypothesis, it came to a screeching halt. By my calculation, that must have occurred in .056 of a second. So is that your position? This plane that can penetrate steel and concrete with no effects whatsoever, losing no velocity at all, nevertheless comes to a screeching halt in .056 of a second? Is that your position?
And how could such a plane pass all the way inside the building BEFORE its fuel exploded? That is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? It effortlessly passes through the steel facaded and overcomes the resistance of eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represent an acre of concrete apiece, WITHOUT EVEN SLOWING DOWN? And now you want us to believe that there was no little friction and heat from the passage that the fuel did not explode UNTIL THE PLANE WAS ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE BUILDING? Surely you jest. The cartoon is your theory of a “magic plane” to parallel the “magic bullet” advanced by THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT. So you appear to be here as a some kind of shill to promote the impossible physics of the entry of “Flight 175″–is it also your view that this REALLY IS FLIGHT 175?–even though anyone who understand the initial conditions that were present given the features of the building vs. those of the plane and who understands Newton, as you do not, would appreciate that what we are viewing is a cartoon and a fantasy.
How many physical absurdities are you willing to embrace? We have an aluminum aircraft that could be compared to a flying empty beer can. It is impacting a massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete tower, which has an intricate lattice structure. Is it your model that this is like a stack of coins, where there are fifty cent pieces, then quarters, with nickels, pennies and dimes stacked on top? So if some sharp object, such as a knife, were to strike it just right, one of those dimes, say, might be knocked out while the rest of the stack remained? Except, of course, those coins would have to be welded together to represent a Twin Tower. You could no more knock out a floor of a tower than you could drive a car through a massive tree. If would splatter all over the tree, just as a real plane would splatter across the facade of the building. Someone is trading in garbage and abuses logic and evidence, but that person would not be me. Your position is physically absurd.
And, by the way, just to be clear about the issue of engine noise, what you do think is my own position? Why don’t you spell it out? What is my hypothesis about how it was done? Is there no solution to the question you raise about noise? Have I blundered and missed something? Or is it more like the other way around, namely: that you have no idea what I have offered to explain how it was done. I don’t want to embarrass you, Rollo, but you’re doing a good job of that by yourself. So tell us: What is my position?
What is in fact your explanation for the Doppler effect of the noise from both the north and south?
There’s nothing unusual about the impact into Tower 2. In fact, what we see is all very reasonable. We do NOT see a plane emerge from the other side. The only intact pieces that emerged from the other side were either the engines or the wheels from the look of it. These are very dense masses (unlike the aluminum frame) which if they did not hit one of the concrete floor sections (and given their spatial separation on the plane one pair would not have) would have gone all the way through, having come in at an angle that would not have intercepted the core columns. And one or two chunks did exit. This is consistent with what we would expect.
On the other side, we just see compressed air, ignited fuel, and shredded material emerge from the other side. This is exactly what we would expect to see. The whole plane did not impact solely concrete. Perhaps 2/3 of the plane penetrated the wall and outer steel frame while 1/3 was blocked by the planar concrete floors as you point out. And we do in fact see matter falling from the initial site of impact down the south face.
Wings, bodies, seats, and luggage would have been completely destroyed, compressed, and malformed beyond all recognition. The plane did not crash in a field… I would not expect any of those items to survive intact with such a collision and such force and energy. In summary, everything we saw was perfectly consistent with the structural layout of the tower and the speed and trajectory of the plane. I’m not sure how this is all so “physically impossible”.
Egad! Your position is incoherent. The “plane” effortlessly enters the South Tower with no diminution in its velocity. (Frame-by-frame analysis shows it passes through its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.)
It does not explode until after it has passes its whole length into the building, even though it ought to have exploded from the friction and tremendous heat generated by its collision with the building, eight (8) floors of steel trusses. But on your theory, there was no collision!
Those eight (8) floors, of course, were covered with 4-8″ of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves), each of which represents an acre of concrete. We know what happens when a commercial carrier encounters a tiny bird in flight. How about encountering just one of those floors?
But, no, according to this man, the “plane” made an effortless entry completely into the building in violation of Newton’s laws without its crumpling, its wings or tail breaking off, or bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. “There’s nothing unusual” about it, says he.
As though this were not sufficiently absurd to qualify his being carted off to a home for the mentally bewildered by men in white suits, he also maintains that in less than .056 seconds it completely came apart INSIDE THE BUILDING, where (most conveniently) it cannot be seen.
Not only can it not be seen, but Christopher Holmes inspection of the cut-out on the South Tower during The Vancouver Hearings showed that features that should not be present if a plane had performed this feat are present and that others that should be present are not present.
On the one hand, he maintains that this “plane” could slice through the external support columns and eight (8) floors of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete and, on the other, that it could ALSO come to a screeching halt in .056 of a second AFTER HAVING ENTERED.
But how could a plane capable of the former have also done the latter? His position is incoherent, which means that it cannot possibly be true. He does not share with us his name or qualifications. Here is what our nation’s most distinguished pilot has had to say about this.
He holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman, including Airline Transport Pilot (with 23 type ratings), Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.
His name is John Lear, where you can find his affidavit at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the He also hold 17 world records and was given the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968.
8. No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:
A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact (photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355.shtml).
C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.
D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:
a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.
F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12″x36″. The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.
G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have ‘evaporated’ even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.
PERSONALLY, I am astonished that Rollo comes here again and again to make posts that violates laws of physics and of engineering. It is, of course, his right under the Constition to make as big a fool of himself in public as he likes, but we are far past the point of absurdity.
That’s quite a lot of passionate ad hominem attacks, Jim. I haven’t done that even once. I don’t feel like I need to amp up my argument in such a way.
It seems like you’ve completely danced around my argument. You do realize that the plane impacted glass windows at various points, right? Can you tell me what happens to a landing gear portion if it hits a window? Does it crumple up like an aluminum can or does it break the glass and move into the building with very little reduction in velocity? You talk as if the only thing the plane encountered was a pure block of steel and concrete. If an engine hits a steel beam at 500 mph, those beams WILL NOT withstand! They will break and the engine will proceed through the building, yet in shredded form. The weight of the plane is roughly 100,000 kg. Again, three tractor trailers. If I connect three loaded tractor trailors end to end and accelerate them through the air not to 100 mph as on the highway, but ~500 mph, they’re going to go through! Once again, 1/3 of the area the plane encountered would have been the concrete and steel trusses you repeat constantly. The other 2/3 would be glass windows and exterior steel columns. They would not be able to resist a 767 hitting them at 500 mph.
I can see that you will only keep rambling on as if you alone embody the laws of Newtonian physics, but the reality is, if you pose this hypothetical scenario to any high school physics teacher or college professor (without the context of 9/11), they will laugh at your interpretation. Again, you seem to think that a 767 moving at 500 mph should hit a building, crumple up, and then slide down the face of it to the ground like in a cartoon. I can’t really argue against that because it’s just such a silly scenario.
Suppose we adopted your hypothesis of the cheese-grater or cheese-slicer theory, where the windows provide the opportunity for parts of “the plane” to pass through? Since the windows were small and narrow, covering well less than 50% of the facade of each building, less than 50% of the plane, no doubt including the engines, should have passed into the building.
More than half should have crumpled up, where most of the wings, the whole tail, and bodies, seats and luggage fell to the ground. But on your fantasy scenario, not only more than 50% but actually the whole plane not only effortlessly enters the building intact–it then comes to a screeching halt in less than .056 of a second. You have advanced this nonsense and yet don’t blink a eye!
Your most blatant fallacy is to offer an analysis of the force imparted by the plane WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS OF THE RESISTANCE POSED BY THE BUILDING! How gullible are we supposed to be? We all know the first and second laws, so why not discuss the third? How much resistance was posed by a massive, intricately latticed, 500,000-ton building and the eight (8) floors intersected?
Why you are persisting with this lunatic theory when I have not only demonstrated that it violates Newton’s laws but that it ought to have burst into flames from the friction created by its impact with the building is beyond me. I have quoted extensively from our nation’s most distinguished pilot, who among many other points observed that
A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact (photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355.shtml).
C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.
Frankly, the readers of this publication deserve better. Why don’t you write up something and have it published somewhere to display your ignorance to an ever-growing segment of the community? I am incredulous that you are willing, even eager, to embarrass yourself, again and again, when you do not even know my position.
Also, are you going to keep dodging my other question?
What is in fact your explanation for the Doppler effect of the noise from both the north and south?
You don’t even know my position or you would know the answer to the question. You need to do some homework before you begin posting rubblish like this. Who are you and what is your background and qualifications? Do you consider yourself as qualified as John Lear to address these issues? And how can you persist when I have demonstrated, again and again, that your arguments are physically indefensible and even absurd?
Let’s begin with what you should know but apparently do not.
What is my theory of how these videos were created?
What account do I endorse about Flight 175?
“You don’t even know my position or you would know the answer to the question.”
Yes, that would be the point of my asking you what your position is… You seem to be quite loquacious on the structural issues, and yet reticent on this single question. I really hope you don’t think that every video pointed at the WTC was manipulated. That would be absurd beyond comprehension. Did the plotters think to themselves that they would get a hold of all the hundreds of home videos made by residents throughout southern Manhattan to insert the sounds, compensating for Doppler effects? I just want a quick one-paragraph answer here, but am fully expecting another dodge.
This is why I regard you as a goof-ball or an op. You don’t even know my position, which means you have not even reviewed my Powerpoint from Vancouver, “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″ or the presentation I gave in Seattle, WA, links to which I have posted here. Which means, as I have asserted, that you have no idea what you are talking about. Yet you continue with this smug arrogance, which is rooted, it turns out, in your own massive ignorance. When you have actually reviewed my Powerpoint or watched my Seattle presentation, I will allow you to post again. The situation is absurd!
“Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):
Part 1
http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Part 2
http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Watch these and take notes. Do you agree with NPT (“No Plane Theory”) or not? How is NPT properly defined? Do you believe that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville? Do you believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Do you believe that Flight 11 hit the North Tower? Do you believe that Flight 175 hit the South? What is your take on Pilots’ research on Flight 93? What is your take on Pilots’ research on Flight 175? If Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower, then what are we to make of the Naudet Brothers’ video? If Flight 175 did not hit the South, what are we to make of the video record? What is my position? What is yours?
Jim, I just finished reading your article from February 20th. I’m amazed that you posted the videos that you did to support the no plane theory. I just finished watching many other videos, both news footage and amateur, and don’t understand how you can believe all of that. In countless videos, the plane is obviously there and moving into the building. The impact and exit zones are entirely indicative of a 767 hitting the building at high speed and disintegrating. The picture you posted above and the physics arguments are completely empty. How do you substantiate these things??
“Do you appreciate that Flights 11 and 77 were not even in the air on 9/11 and that Flights 93 and 175 were far removed from their alleged crash sites AFTER they had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and effortlessly entered the South Tower? Do you understand that, whatever we saw in those videos, it cannot have been Flights 11 and 175? Do you understand that?”
Do you honestly proceed from said document to the conclusion that it could not have been any kind of plane that flew into and impacted the buildings? That’s quite a leap of logic.
It could not have been any kind of REAL PLANE. I thought you had not understood the argument; now you have confirmed it. Do you understand that it was traveling too fast to be a standard Boeing 767? Do you understand that 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? How much resistance do you suppose was posed by those eight floors? We know what happens when a commercial carrier encounters a tiny bird in flight. What do you think would happen if it encountered just one of those floors, filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represent an acre of concrete apiece?
No real plane could have penetrated those buildings. It would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. It would have exploded in the process. Do you appreciate that it does not decelerate at all? Its velocity should have dropped to zero, but when we do a frame by frame advance, we find that it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes though its own length in air–which is physical absurdity, unless a massive, 500,000-ton steel and concrete building poses no more resistance to the path of an aircraft than air. Is that your position, Rollo? Inquiring minds want to know.
Jim, I’m not going to watch 2 hours of you lecture on a beautiful Sunday if you can’t even answer a single pointed question. You can call me a goof, operative, or disinfo, but in the end all I’m doing is asking you a pretty darn simple question. I didn’t know that asking a question of you is grounds for being an operative. lol. Below is just an example of the hundreds of videos that amateurs took around New York City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXgJ40iWAc
I did in fact look at your Vancouver PowerPoint and it didn’t tell me anything. (And the videos in the file didn’t work.) You’ve dodged this direct question thrice now. Am I to believe that all of the numerous private videos that people took around southern Manhattan were doctored after the fact to include a plane and Doppler sound effects? Just a quick answer is desired to this simple question. But again, I just expect you to dodge a quick answer for the fourth time.
Well, it was obvious to me from your remarks that you do not understand that “the plane” witnesses identified was performing feats that no real plane could perform. It was flying faster than a standard Boeing 767 could fly, it was making an impossible entry into the building, it was passing through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, it was patiently waiting to explode until it was all the way into the building, then it came to screeching halt within .056 of a second–PROPOSITIONS THAT YOU ENDORSE!
It cannot have been a real plane, where there are only three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, or the use of sophisticated holograms. I have explained this in at least a half-dozen articles, even including the one you claim to have read, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery’”. I find indication after indication that you do not even understand my arguments for real videos of a fake plane, which was done using another plane to project it. You are not willing to watch my presentation. The key points are made in my Powerpoint, where the gifs don’t matter. There is no purpose served by continuing this charade.
Yes, there were hundreds of videos taken in New York, most of which I believe were authentic videos, but they were taken of the image of a plane, not a real plane. I have explained this so many times that I am dumbfounded that an apparently intelligent man would come onto this very public site and offer one absurd argument after another and impugn my research WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTANDING IT. You are either a child or a smart man who does dumb things, because your unwarranted posts and physically absurd arguments have proven my case, namely: that you are a fake and a fraud. Q.E.D.
So there’s a derogatory term for those who believe that physical planes actually impacted the buildings? As well as for those who believe thermite was involved in some way to some extent?
Mild compared to the attacks that have been launched against those of us who have doubted that nanothermite could perform the feats attributed to it–see, for example, “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”–not to mention what those of us who have concluded that NPT–”No Plane Theory”, understood as denying that any of the four alleged “crash sites” are authentic–is true have been called. “Thermite sniffers” and “plane huggers” are modest compared with “nutty”, “lunatic”, “disinfo” and “op”, to cite a few examples. Go to 911blogger.com and read the nasty attacks on me when “On the manipulation of the 9/11 research community” was published there, in which I explained why Steve Jones’ conception of scientific method is indefensible and that I doubted that nanothermite could have pulverized concrete or decimated steel, where my concerns have in fact been vindicated on all scores.
Yes, name-calling is never productive.
Do you totally preclude the use of any thermite at all within the building on that day?
This is coming across as a distraction from the major issues. The uses of these phrases is simply a way to capture those positions without being nasty about it. I am tempted to ask, “Where have you been?” Take a look at the attacks on me for my review of Judy’s book on amazon.com. You really ought to pick your targets with greater care. Where have you been when these others have been assailing me, again and again and again, in extremely harsh and inappropriate language? I am actually taken aback that you would display such massive ignorance over others’ past practices. You are displaying remarkable selectivity.
No, I am open to the possibility that it might have been used in one or more capacities, but it cannot have been the principal cause of the demolition of the Twin Towers. It may have been used to weaken some of the support structures in both the towers and also in WTC-7. I am of the opinion that it was used to create the cookie-cutter silhouettes of the “planes” on the facades of both buildings, which I suspect were primed by “the Gelatin Group” of Israeli “art students” who were doing “performance art” external to the towers. The Jones’ group conveyed the impression of having studied the dust, but look at everything they left out!
Thermite is incredibly useful for a stealth demolition like this, and with a building as sturdy as the WTC towers. I wouldn’t think explosive thermite would be that useful. When not concentrated and focused on a certain area, its “melting power” is greatly diminished–and if one is using it as an explosive, it’s certainly not tailored for that. The massive explosions on collapse were definitely something else. Nevertheless, thermite played a crucial role in destabilizing the whole structure, and the presence of it in the powder residue is a critical piece of evidence.
If the “thermite sniffers” had not made such exaggerated claims on its behalf, Mark and I would not have had to debunk them. Have you read “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth Community?” and “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” Not only have they NEVER acknowledged that they were wrong about its capacity to bring about the pulverization of concrete and the decimation of steel, but Kevin Ryan responded by publishing a very sloppy and scientifically unwarranted rebuttal “The explosive nature of nanothermite”, which you can find at http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite For a man who strikes me as highly intelligent, you are doing a very poor job of selecting your targets of criticism. The serious offenses in these categories have been committed by the other side, not by me. You need to do more research on all of this, because you are far behind the information curve.
I definitely have one foot in the PR camp which you described well in your article above. I really like what A&E has done with their very basic approach. The goal in my mind is to carefully draw more people over to our side. The very basic truth already has people running for the hills and ridiculing us Truthers, so in my opinion it’s not terribly constructive to advertise theories which are even more unconventional and unbelievable (which is not to say that they are not true). So that would explain why I’m not familiar with Judy Wood’s work. I know that 9/11 was an inside job and much of the information surrounding it, and that’s really all I need to know. If people have done detailed study of the no planes theory but know nothing of the black Mossad side, that’s a travesty of focus. I’m just rambling, so please don’t take offense to anything I’ve written.
Forgive me for asking, but where does TRUTH figure into your equation? I would have had no problems with the “Intro to 9/11″ approach of A&E had it not, like the “hard science” Jones/Ryan/Harrit gang, grossly exaggerated the “explosive capacity” of their pet causal mechanism, nanothermite. So do you ALSO support exaggerated claims about nanothermite? Is something that is vaguely right-headed enough for you? How can you settle for half-truths, rumors and speculations?
I have to confess I have a passion for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true. If we are committed to 9/11 Truth, then we have no choice but to work our way to the bottom of how these things were actually done, by whom and for what reasons. Some 3,000 of our fellow Americans were murdered on 9/11 to promote a political agenda. This may be a case where truth Is stranger than fiction, but we are entitled to know our own history. We are doing what we can to properly define it.
The truth I try to promote is that 9/11 was a horrific massacre and psyop. I know nanothermite was used according to the evidence. I find that it very elegantly convinces people that the building could be destabilized through stealth with its use. No doubt cutter-charges may have been used as well. And then modulated explosions of some type on the way down. I don’t need any more detail than that to fully sell the case.
Thermite IS a cutter-charge! Half-truths can be convincing. The truth can be difficult to follow and extremely disturbing. You may be willing to settle for half-baked accounts of what happened that appeal to impossible causes, but I and others are not. You find that nanothermite was used based upon the evidence. But what the evidence shows is that those buildings were actually destroyed by mini and micro nukes! Where does that figure in your presentations about 9/11? Do you think that information ought to be suppressed? I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere. But you have not thought this through! You are trading in misinformation.
Don’t you think the American people are entitled to know that those buildings were destroyed using devices that were not available to 19 Islamic hijackers? Not to mention that all four of the “crash sites” were fabricated or faked? What do you think would capture the attention of the American people MORE? Do what you can to interest people in 9/11. The “Explosive Evidence” documentary is a good start. But when they start asking questions about WHAT REALLY HAPPENED–when they want THE WHOLE TRUTH, not just half-truths–you can send them here to Veterans Today for their graduate-level education. We are entitled to the truth about our nation’s history.
Presumably, Daniel Noel has in mind the Middle East and Islamic press, politicians, educators and others that are hostile to Israel. He has a point. Surprisingly few public figures even in those places have taken a stand for truth over 9/11. But you can say the same about the holo. I take it as evidence that Jewish control of discourse extends almost as deeply there as here, with the same Jew-serving taboos.
Jim,
Ditto to FactversusHype comment ;
Some of my thoughts and links below to aid, in any way, your supreme efforts.
9/11 “A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYONE, IS NOT THE TRUTH”
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/455115
Thanks so much for your tireless work JF.
Yea, no-one’s better than Fetzer at rigorously examining all the evidence and competing theories and claims about 9/11 or presenting the results of his and others’ studies to general TV and radio audiences.
Thanks, Nick. 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning helps–plus a first-rate education, including majoring in philosophy at Princeton, which was #1 in the world at the time in math, physics and philosophy. Nice post.