Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11

By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager


A debate has raged for more than a decade about what caused the Twin Towers to “collapse” in approximately 10 seconds each — 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North. A large and growing percentage of the public has become skeptical of the conclusion of the government’s official  NCSTAR 1 report, according to which, “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11.”

Skepticism of NIST’s conclusions is well founded. There is eyewitness testimony as well as abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11. There is also seismic data that demonstrates that high powered explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers. The gross observable video evidence — if you are willing to believe your own eyes — shows that the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out.

We believe that only mini-nukes — which were probably neutron bombs — planted in the center columns of the buildings, detonated from top to bottom and configured to explode upward, can explain what is observed.  If they were used to blow apart one ten-floor cube per second, for example, then, since the North Tower stood at 110 floors, that would have taken 11 seconds, while, since the top three cubes of the South Tower tilted over and were blown as one, in that case, it would have taken only 9, which coincides with NIST’s own times.

This is a controversial contention. Judy Wood, Ph.D., has proclaimed that a Tesla-inspired directed energy weapon (DEW) was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings and has vehemently denied nuclear bombs were used. Steve Jones, Ph.D., and his followers promote the theory that an incendiary (nanothermite) was the cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings, while they also deny that nukes were used.  So these seemingly opposed camps agree on one thing: nukes were not used on 9/11!

The nanothermite hypothesis has been discredited on multiple occasions in articles by T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 community?”, “Is ‘9/11 truth’ based upon a false theory?”, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nanothermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!

The DEW hypothesis turns out to be difficult to test, since Judy Wood defines DEWs as sources of energy that are greater than conventional and can be directed, which even encompasses micro and mini nukes within its scope. As earlier articles have explained, including “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II” and “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”, there are multiple grounds for preferring the mini or micro nuke hypothesis over the DEW alternative, which emerge with particular clarity from a study of the dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey. It is ironic that, while the “thermite sniffers” also focus on dust samples, they seem to have missed what we have to learn from them.

Indeed, the nuclear component of the decimation of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 6–where WTC-7 appears to be a separate case–is the darkest and most closely guarded secret of 9/11. With so many folks claiming different theories it is difficult for average people to know what to believe. Fortunately, we have scientific proof of what happened at Ground Zero. The dust and water samples reveal the true story of what happened on 9/11. This article thus provides more of the scientific evidence–especially from the USGS dust samples–that settles the debate in favor of the demolition of the WTC buildings as having been a nuclear event.

Debris Ejected over 600 feet

The explosives that demolished the Twin Towers were so powerful that North Tower debris was ejected up at a 45° angle and out over 600 feet into the Winter Garden. This feat alone puts an end to the notion that the buildings were “dustified” where they stood or that an incendiary such as nanothermite was the responsible for the destruction of two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers or that the buildings collapsed due to fire. Consider these photos and graphs:

Debris was ejected at a 45* angle for over 600 feet and impacted with the Winter Garden

Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the buildings were completely vaporized. And as Judy Wood likes to point out, no toilets were found in the rubble. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction landed outside the building’s footprints. What type of explosives could cause this sort of damage? The only thing known to man that can explain this is nuclear bombs.


Proof of Fusion

The Department of Energy (DOE) collected water samples from the basement of Building 6 eleven days after 9/11 that showed tritium levels 55 times greater than background. How does this prove fusion?

Let’s start by defining “tritium”: Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years. Also Known As: hydrogen-3, 3H (Helmenstine)  The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides us some excellent background information on hydrogen:

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, comprising approximately 90% of the luminous universe by weight. Ordinary hydrogen (1H) accounts for greater than 99.985% of all naturally-occurring hydrogen, whereas deuterium (2H) comprises approximately 0.015%. By comparison, tritium (3H) represents only approximately 10 to the -16 exponent percent of hydrogen naturally occurring. Tritium is a rare but natural isotope of hydrogen (H), and is the only natural hydrogen isotope that is radioactive. The tritium atom is sometimes designated T to distinguish it from the common lighter isotope. Notwithstanding the difference in mass, tritium can be found in the same chemical forms as hydrogen. The most important forms, from the perspective of atmospheric behavior of tritium, are tritiated hydrogen gas (HT) and tritiated water (HTO). These tritiated forms behave chemically like hydrogen gas (H2) and water (H2O).

Natural Sources

Tritium is generated by both natural and artificial processes. Tritium is naturally produced primarily through the interaction of cosmic radiation protons and neutrons with gases (including nitrogen, oxygen and argon) in the upper atmosphere.

Anthropogenic Sources

In addition to its natural sources, tritium also has a number of anthropogenic sources which account for the dominant proportion of the global tritium inventory. Anthropogenic tritium sources include fallout from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, future fusion reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, heavy water production facilities and commercial production for medical diagnostics, radiopharmaceuticals, luminous paints, sign illumination, self-luminous aircraft, airport runway lights, luminous dials, gauges and wrist watches, and others. Commercial uses of tritium account for only a small fraction of the tritium used worldwide. Instead, the primary use of tritium has been to boost the yield of both fission and thermonuclear (or fusion) weapons, increasing the efficiency with which the nuclear explosive materials are used.

Thermonuclear Detonation during Nuclear Weapons Testing

Nuclear tests have been conducted in the atmosphere since 1945, producing tritium in amounts that greatly exceed the global natural activity, particularly during 1954 to 1958 and 1961 to 1962 when a number of large-yield test series were undertaken. The tritium activity arising from atmospheric nuclear tests can be estimated from the fission and fusion yields of the weapons tests or from environmental measurements. For example, the tritium activity produced per unit yield is dependent upon the attributes of the device, as well as on the characteristics of the detonation site, and tritium generation from fusion reactions is much higher than from fission. The tritium that is produced by a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted to tritiated water (HTO), which then mixes with environmental water. (“Investigation of the,” 2009)


What about WTC-6?


Damage to WTC-6 and smoke rising from it BEFORE the North Tower’s “collapse”

We have established that tritium is a rare hydrogen isotope, the vast majority of tritium that is produced is used in nuclear weapons and that the tritium produced by a thermonuclear explosion is converted into tritiated water (HTO). Tritiated water WAS found in the basement of Building 6 at concentrations 55 times background levels. Here is Ed Ward’s breakdown of the DOE’s water sample data:

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3. 53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values.http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022)

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: · <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) · 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water · 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) · 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (“Tritium in precipitation,”) (Jones, 2006) Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure” (Jones, 2006). Interesting isn’t it.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

An important point that Jones glosses over is the dilution of water in the basement of WTC 6. If not for copious amounts of water sprayed on the WTC site undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.


After WTC-6 has been hit and during the South Tower “collapse”

Chuck Boldwyn’s suggestion of where they may have been placed and the effects

To sum this up: we see a plume of smoke rising from Building 6, photos that show the building was blackened and bombed out before ANY debris from the Twin Towers hit it, a massive crater in the middle of the building and the DOE found massive quantities of tritium in the basement eleven days after 9/11. Only a thermonuclear explosion explains all of this, which strongly suggests that WTC-6 was nuked.  And there is more proof.

An infrared image showing the huge crater in WTC-6 (to the left-foreground)r


Proof of Fission

The US Geological Survey collected samples of dusts and airfall debris from more than 35 localities within a 1-km radius of the World Trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. The USGS was primarily looking for asbestos in the dust but they found a host of elements in the dust that when analyzed properly proves that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

A quick glance at the chemistry table and immediately the presence of the elements such as cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc raise suspicions. But deeper analysis shows that these elements correlate with each other according to relationships expected in a nuclear fission event. Jeff Prager has done extensive work with the USGS dust samples and we’ll use some of the slides from his Vancouver Power Point presentation to help us analyze the USGS data:


Barium and Strontium

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities.

The levels never fall below 400 ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700 ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000 ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. Why?

Barium and Strontium are rare Trace elements with limited industrial uses. The enormous peak in Barium and Strontium concentration at WTC01-16 is readily apparent in the chart below. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3130 ppm for Strontium and 3670 ppm for Barium or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location, WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Mean concentration for Barium including the very low girder coating samples is 533 ppm and for Strontium it’s 727 ppm. These are not Trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and extremely toxic amounts. They are also critical components of nuclear fission and the decay process.

Here we’re plotting the concentration of Barium at each location against the Strontium concentration. The correlation between the concentrations of the two elements, Barium and Strontium is extremely high.  The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places).
So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect. The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed.

What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

Thorium and Uranium

Next we come to the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form. The graph below plots the concentration of Thorium and Uranium detected at each sampling location. Again, the last two locations, WTC01-08 and WTC01-09, are for the two girder coating samples. The Uranium concentration follows the same pattern as Thorium, although the graph scale does not show this markedly. Uranium follows the dip at WTC01-03 and WTC01-16 but the highest concentration of Uranium also matches Thorium in the second girder coating, WTC01-09, at 7.57ppm. 7.57 greatly exceeds normal Trace element levels. This equals 93 Becquerels per kilogram.


Normal background radiation is approximately 12Bq/kg to 40Bq/kg with 40Bq/kg the highest level we would expect to see. This girder contains more than twice the expected level of uranium. The second girder contained 30.7 ppm of Thorium, 6 times as high as the lowest level of that element detected. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. As we said earlier, Thorium is formed from Uranium be alpha decay. An alpha particle is the same as a Helium nucleus, so this means we have one of the favored fission pathways: Uranium fissioning into a Noble Gas and the balancing elements, in this case Helium and Thorium.


The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50 ppm to well over 100 ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.

When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400 ppm to over 3000 ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911. This graph (below) shows that (apart from the very high peak in Sodium levels for one of the indoor dust samples) the Sodium and Potassium concentrations both display this now characteristic peak at location WTC01-16, the corner of Broadway and John Street. Sodium has the same peak as Zinc at WTC01-22, the corner of Warren and West, and like Zinc, falls to a minimum in the girder coatings – far below the concentrations found in the dust. Potassium is very similar except its concentration was not a peak at WTC01-02, Water and New York Streets, but somewhat lower than the next location, WTC01-03, State and Pearl Streets.

Zinc, Sodium and Potassium

There are clear correlations and relationships here which show that the Potassium and Sodium concentrations did not arise at random. They are products of radioactive decay. Remember that Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.

We know beyond doubt that the only process that can cause Barium and Strontium to be present in related or correlated quantities and any process that can also cause Barium and Strontium to have such strong relational concentrations across different samples, is nuclear fission. We know that if nuclear fission had occurred that Barium and Strontium would be present and a strong statistical correlation between the quantities of each would be found, and we have that, in spades.

What else do we have? Quite a lot. About 400 ppm of Barium and Strontium were measured in two samples of insulation girder coatings (WTC01-08 and 01-09). The concentration of Strontium actually falls somewhat below that of Barium in the second girder sample, WTC01-09, as at WTC01-16, whereas in every othesample the level of Strontium discovered was higher than Barium. Given the elevated levels of Barium daughter products found in the second girder and even the highest level of Uranium found (7.57ppm just West of and behind Tower One) this shows that active fission was still ongoing in the second girder coating, in the very same way as at WTC01-16 and therefore more Barium was found then Strontium. In other samples where the rate of fission had slowed down to give way to decay, the concentrations of Barium and Strontium reverse, due to the different half-lives. Barium isotopes have a shorter half-life then Strontium isotopes so they decay more quickly and after a period of time when no new Barium or Strontium has been deposited, Strontium will exceed Barium.

The fact that more Barium then Strontium was still found at WTC01-16 and WTC01-09 shows that the overall nuclear processes taking place were somewhat favoring Barium over Strontium and hence Zinc as well. The tighter cluster of Barium (400-500 ppm) and Strontium (700-800 ppm) concentrations across widely separated sampling locations in Lower Manhattan is cast iron proof that Nuclear Fission occurred. We know that Barium and Strontium are the characteristic signature of fission; they are formed by two of the most common Uranium fission pathways. The fact that their concentrations are so tightly coupled means that their source was at the very epicenter of the event which created the dust cloud that enveloped Manhattan. This was not a localized preexisting chemical source which would only have contaminated a few closely spaced samples and left the remaining samples untouched. The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to the other radionuclide daughter products such as sodium, potassium, zinc, lithium, strontium and barium – leaves nothing more to be said. This type of data has probably never been available to the public before and it’s an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. September 11th, 2001, was the first nuclear event within a major United States city that we have incontrovertible proof for and this is without question the most closely held secret surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Anyone seriously interested in 911 truth will naturally be compelled to fully and thoroughly investigate the serious implications raised by this report personally, and I strongly encourage this. The material is complex yet if I can understand it anyone can. No one promised us that the answers to 911 would come easily.

More compelling evidence

There’s more compelling and incontrovertible evidence we would like to cover now; in particular, we will discuss the elements:




In this graph Zinc has been divided by a factor of 10 to avoid losing all the detail in the scaling if the ‘Y’ axis instead went up to 3000 ppm. The variation in Lead is matched by the variation in Zinc almost perfectly across all sampling locations, including the Indoor and Girder Coating samples.


 Copper and Zinc

The concentration of Copper follows that of Zinc with one distinct exception at WTC01-15, Trinity and Cortlandt Streets, just several hundred feet East of Building Four. There seem to be two Copper-Zinc relationships. If some of the Zinc was being formed by beta decay of Copper, then the high Copper at WTC01-15 could reduce Zinc, since formation of Zinc by that decay pathway would be retarded by material being held up at the Copper stage, before decaying on to Zinc. Therefore this graph does confirm that some of the Zinc was indeed being formed by beta decay of Copper. This would at least be a very small mercy for the civilian population exposed in this event since the Zinc isotopes formed from Copper are stable, i.e. they are not radioactive.



The copper found in the Ground Zero dust is indicative of nuclear fission. If we plot the concentration of Copper against Zinc and Nickel, we obtain the graphs pictured here. The concentration of Nickel was almost the same everywhere, except for the peak of 88 ppm matched by the Copper peak of 450 ppm.


The Copper – Zinc relationship is very interesting, showing in fact two distinct relationships again depending on isotopic composition. There are two radioactive isotopes of Copper (Cu 64 and Cu 67) with short half-lives of 12.7 hours and 2.58 days respectively which decay into Zinc isotopes. The other two isotopes (Cu 60 and Cu 61) decay the other way by positron emission into Nickel and in fact Cu 64 goes both ways, into both Nickel and Zinc. This would explain why there strongly appear to be two Copper – Zinc relationships.



The decay of radioactive Copper by beta particle emission into Zinc would have been another source for the extraordinarily high concentrations of Zinc found in the World Trade Center Dust.



Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of Barium, situated between Barium and Cerium. The concentration of Barium versus Lanthanum is plotted in the graph below. This graph is almost identical in form to the relationship between Barium and Cerium. A similar inverse exponential (cubic) relationship is clearly visible. In this case, Lanthanum is approximately equal to 5 times the cube root of Barium.



Lanthanum has a much shorter half-life then Cerium; most of its isotopes have a half-life of only a few hours whereas beta decay by Cerium is measured in half-life periods of a month to 10 months. Cerium’s beta decay going back to Lanthanum occurs more quickly but Lanthanum’s beta decay going back to Barium occurs in a similar time-scale to that – a few hours, so we are left with the net effect of Lanthanum’s beta decay being much quicker than that of Cerium, so the concentration of Cerium remaining was higher than that of Lanthanum.





Yttrium is also a very rare element and should not be present in dust from a collapsed office building. Yttrium is the next decay element after Strontium. If we plot concentration of Strontium against Yttrium, we see what happens in the graph above. Strontium 90 has a much longer half-life (28.78 years) than most Barium isotopes so we would not expect to see as high a concentration of Strontium’s daughter products as those that are produced from Barium. This is in fact what we see – the concentration of Cerium (next daughter product to Barium) is higher than Yttrium, the next daughter product to Strontium.



The presence of Chromium is also a telltale signature of a nuclear detonation. Its concentration is shown plotted against Zinc and Vanadium in the graphs below. There is a strong correlation between the Zinc and the Chromium concentration. The Coefficient of Correlation is high, 0.89.



There is also an indication of strong correlation between Chromium and Vanadium within 6 points of lying on an almost perfect exponential curve, with one outlier, WTC01-03, the corner of State and Pearl Streets, of 42.5ppm where the Vanadium concentration reached its highest level.


Looking at the data for Zinc we see that the Zinc concentration for WTC01-02, Water Street at the intersection of New York, is 2990 ppm and this immediately stands out. In fact, for the outdoor samples, Zinc is the most common Trace element at all sampling locations, with generally between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm except for this spike of nearly 3000 ppm at WTC01- 02.


This equates to an enormous concentration of Zinc. 0.1% to 0.2% of Zinc in the dust overall and at WTC01-02, 0.299% of the dust was Zinc. This exceeds the concentration of the supposed “non-Trace” element Manganese and Phosphorous and almost equals the elevated Titanium concentration of 0.39% at that same location.


What process produced the zinc?


If we include the data for WTC01-16, the Correlation Coefficient between the Zinc and Barium concentration is 0.007 to 3 decimal places, from which we can conclude that there is absolutely no correlation at all. But if we exclude that one sampling location, where Barium and Strontium concentrations peaked, the correlation coefficient between Zinc and Barium is 0.96 to two decimal places and between Zinc and Strontium, 0.66 to two decimal places. So what happened?



This shows that the Zinc and Barium concentrations are closely related and if we exclude what must have been an extraordinary event at WTC01-16 as an outlier, the correlation is very good. The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient is 0.96. The concentration of Zinc is now 3 times the concentration of Barium but the correlation between Zinc and Strontium is not so clear, showing that the relationship must be more indirect. This is to be expected since Barium and Strontium are produced by different nuclear fission pathways.


In spent nuclear fuel, Strontium is found as Strontium Oxide (SrO) – the Strontium produced by the nuclear fission explosion under the Twin Towers will certainly have been oxidized to SrO by the heat. SrO is extremely soluble in water, so some of the Strontium concentration results obtained may have been distorted by the rain water which fell on New York a few days after the towers were destroyed. There is a very strong linear relationship between Barium and Zinc found at the World Trade Center. This may indicate that a closely related nuclear sub-process gave rise to them, which produced three times as much Zinc as Barium by weight. If so, that would be a very unusual nuclear event.


Ternary Fission

There is a lesser known nuclear process that accounts for this, which would be indicative of very high energies indeed. This process is known as Ternary Fission. What is ternary fission? From Wikipedia:

Ternary Fission is a comparatively rare (0.2 to 0.4% of events) type of nuclear fission in which three charged products are produced rather than two. As in other nuclear fission processes, other uncharged particles such as multiple neutrons and gamma rays are produced in ternary fission.

Ternary fission may happen during neutron-induced fission or in spontaneous fission (the type of radioactive decay). About 25% more ternary fission happens in spontaneous fission compared to the same fissioning system formed after thermal neutron capture, illustrating that these processes remain physically slightly different, even after the absorption of the neutron, possibly because of the extra energy present in the nuclear reaction system of thermal neutron-induced fission.

True Ternary Fission: A very rare type of ternary fission process is sometimes called “true ternary fission.” It produces three nearly equal-sized charged fragments (Z ~ 30) but only happens in about 1 in 100 million fission events. In this type of fission, the product nuclei split the fission energy in three nearly equal parts and have kinetic energies of ~ 60 MeV (Wikipedia contributors, 2013)

 Mini-Neutron Bombs

We have evidence of nuclear fission and fusion taking place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs fit the evidence. These bombs had limited but powerful blast effects, a burst of neutron radiation as well as EMP effects. Mini-neutron bombs appear to be what was used.

What is a neutron bomb? A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device. In a neutron bomb, the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape using X-ray mirrors and an atomically inert shell casing, such as chromium or nickel. The energy yield for a neutron bomb may be as little as half that of a conventional device, though radiation output is only slightly less. Although considered to be ‘small’ bombs, a neutron bomb still has a yield in the tens or hundreds of kilotons range. Neutron bombs are expensive to make and maintain because they require considerable amounts of tritium, which has a relatively short half-life (12.32 years). Manufacture of the weapons requires that a constant supply of tritium of be available. Neutron bombs have a relatively short shelf-life. (Helmenstine)

Per Sam Cohen, “In a broad sense, the neutron bomb is an explosive version of the sun; that is, the relevant energy it emits comes from thermonuclear, or fusion, reactions involving the very lightest elements. To be specific, its fuel consists of the two heavier nuclei of hydrogen, named deuterium and tritium. By means of a fission trigger, a mixture of these two nuclei is compressed and heated, as happens in a hydrogen bomb, to cause nuclear reactions whose principle output is in the form of very high energy neutrons. Also produced will be blast and heat, but so predominant are the neutron effects against human beings, who are a hundred to a thousand times more vulnerable to radiation than blast and heat, that by bursting the weapon high enough off the ground the only significant effects at the surface will come from radiation. In so doing, the blast and heat effects will not be strong enough to cause significant damage to most structures. Hence, a bomb which, accurately but misleadingly, has been described as a weapon that kills people but spares buildings.” (Cohen, 2006)

Neutron Radiation and EMP Effects

Neutron radiation and EMP appears to be responsible for the “toasted cars” found near Ground Zero. What is neutron radiation? From the Shots Across the Bow Blog:

To understand neutron radiation, imagine a pool table set for the start of a game. 15 balls are in the middle of the table, with the cue ball set for the break. The cue ball is a free neutron. When the neutron hits the nucleus, one of three things might happen. First, if the cue ball doesn’t have enough energy, or hits at the wrong angle, it caroms off, barely disturbing the pack of balls. Second, if the ball has too much energy, it slams through the pack, breaking it up. This is fission, and results in fission products, more free neutrons, and energy. Third, if the ball has just the right amount of energy, it just makes it to the pack and joins in, becoming another neutron in the nucleus. Here is where our analogy breaks down, because many times, when a nucleus gets another neutron, it becomes unstable, and begins to decay, emitting alphas, betas, or gammas. This is called “activation” and is one of the trickier problems with neutron irradiation and the physical properties of the irradiated matter can be quite different from the original. (“A nuclear power,”)

A large quantity of high energy neutrons bombarding an object will cause the atoms in the material to move i.e. heat up. This is why so few bodies were found at Ground Zero – most of the people that were near the Towers were vaporized either by the blast and heat effects of the bombs or the neutron radiation that was released.

 The “Toasted” Cars

Ted Twietmeyer has a post on Rense’s website that goes a long way towards explaining the toasted cars found near Ground Zero. Twietmeyer attributes the damage to aluminum vehicle parts such as engine blocks and mirrors to strong EMP eddy currents produced by nuclear detonations at Ground Zero:  “and what else do eddy currents create? HEAT if the currents are strong enough. The stronger the eddy currents, the more heat which will be generated.  Although magnetic fields are being created, they are temporary in aluminum because it is not magnetic, but paramagnetic. This means aluminum will be affected by magnetism, but it cannot be magnetized.

A vector is simply a line that shows direction and usually has an arrow. Arrows are not shown above, in an attempt to simplify the image. The direction of force is from upper left to lower right. The notated image above provides a possible explanation for the location of the source of the magnetic pulse, and why some vehicles were damaged and others were not. This parking lot may be the best evidence in support of my theory.


“Sacrificial vehicles” shielding others showing pulse vectors


Yellow lines indicate the pulse(s) blocked by the rear row of vehicles. It appears the entire outside of all rear vehicles were destroyed. Note how several hoods on the rear row of vehicles have white dust or ash, indicating an intense heat originating from under the hood. This is probably caused by the engine block vaporizing, and the white dust may be aluminum oxide. If the vehicles are still around somewhere in a junk yard, some simple lab tests will confirm this.


White lines show the pulses that reached the vehicles in the foreground. Orange shapes around each car show the damage threshold line. The cars are basically undamaged below these lines and some might be repairable. If it wasn’t for “sacrificial” vehicles at the rear, those in the foreground would have been completely burned.

Note that white and yellow lines are not meant to be a literal interpretation to show size of the pulse, how many lines of force hit each vehicle, etc… Each line is intended to show only the direction the pulse(s) came from. Regardless of whether this parking lot is close to the WTC or not, it clearly shows that the nuclear device (or pulse source) was high above the ground. If the pulse source were close to the Earth, then vehicles in the foreground would have been completely shielded from the pulse.” (Twietmeyer, 2007)

Ed Ward’s take: I believe some of what he attributes to EMP was done by neutrons – in particular his linear evaluations (angle computations) would seem more neutron than EMP. EMP should tend to flow around – seems to be a correlation of dust cloud carrying EMP. So the linear blockage of cars protecting other cars would seem to be more appropriate for neutrons. Other than that seems on the money, IMO.

 The Temperature of the Pile

Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F or even higher for 6 months after 9/11. Firemen were fighting fires at Ground Zero for 99 days after 9/11. AVRIS data showed that temperature in one spot was 1,341 °F on 9/16/01. These high temperatures could be attributed to neutron bombs that were detonated underground in order to destroy the foundations of the Twin Towers. Some of the hotspots may have been unexploded nuclear fissile material reacting underground. The workers at Ground Zero experienced hellish working conditions. One Ground Zero worker, Charlie Vitchers, describes the nightmare:

“The fires were very intense on the pile, the heat was very intense. In some places you couldn’t even get onto it. In some areas where you could walk, you’d travel another five feet and then you could just feel the heat coming up and you would have to just back off. You’d say to yourself, “I can’t see a fire, but I can feel the heat, so something’s wrong here,” and you’d back off.

That was one of the concerns we had about putting equipment on the pile, because the operators were sitting eight or ten feet up above the debris pile in their cabs and couldn’t feel the heat. But they’re carrying a hundred gallons of diesel fuel, hydraulic hoses, and other flammables, and there was nothing to stop the heat from wrecking the machine. If they got stuck in a place where the heat was so intense that it set his machine on fire, that operator wasn’t going to make it out.

We were so lucky. We didn’t lose anyone. We lost a lot of equipment, mostly due to collapses, but didn’t have any piece of equipment catch on fire or anything like that. But hoses melted, and there was a lot of damage to tires- some of them melted just from being too close. I mean, the bottom of your shoes would melt on some of the steel. Some of that was so hot you could feel the hair on the back of your neck start to burn when you walked by. There were cherry-red pieces of steel sticking out of the ground. It was almost like being in a steel-manufacturing plant. You just couldn’t physically go near that stuff.

Every time a grappler grabbed a piece of steel and shook it out, it would just fan the fire, like a fan in the fireplace. All of a sudden there’d be smoke billowing out. The Army Corps of Engineers eventually supplied us with infrared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at the blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be here, it would be 1,400 degrees, the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, then five days later it wouldn’t register over 600 degrees.” (Stout, Vitchers & Gray, 2006)

We are not so naive as to suppose that Steve Jones or that Judy Wood would be converted by the evidence we have presented, where Judy and her followers, in particular, have proven to be completely hostile to even very modest criticism of her work. But we believe that the evidence derived from the dust samples collected by the USGS–which, after all, is a government agency–provides overwhelming proof that contradicts the government’s own “official account” and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of the WTC was a nuclear event.

 Conclusions of this Study

Evidence for fission and fusion abounds at Ground Zero. Tritiated water in any significant quantity is a telltale sign of a thermonuclear explosion. A 170 meter high plume of smoke was observed rising from Building 6, and massive amounts of tritiated water were found in the basement. It appears to be beyond reasonable doubt that this building was nuked, because no alternative explanation is reasonable.

The Twin Towers were 500,000 tons each and destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively with debris ejected hundreds of feet out. There can be no doubt that the Twins Towers were nuked as well.

The USGS dust samples prove beyond all doubt that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs such as mini or micro neutron bombs explain the dust and water sample evidence perfectly.

The destruction of the Twin Towers was an unprecedented use of nuclear bomb technology. The public had never before witnessed anything like it. While Steve Jones and Judy Wood, among others, have added to uncertainty over what happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11, the mystery has finally been solved. The World Trade Center was nuked on 9/11.

Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the 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. See his blog at http://donaldfox.wordpress.com.

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 9/11 AMERICA NUKED, Part 1, Part 2.

Ed Ward, M.D., among the leading experts on the use of nukes on 9/11, maintains an extensive archive about them at his “Weblog of Tyranny”, http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/, and has also appeared as a guest on “The Real Deal”, which you can hear at radiofetzer.blogspot.com,

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.


A Nuclear Power Primer: Part 3: How Does Radiation Hurt Us and How Much Does it Take? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_nuclear_power_primer_art_3_how_does_radiation_hurt_us_and_how_much_does_/

Clark, R., Green, R., Swayze, G., Meeker, G., Sutley, S., Hoefen, T., Livo, K., Plumlee, G., Pavri, B., Sarture, C., Wilson, S., Hageman, P., Lamothe, P., Vance, J., Boardman, J., Brownfield, I., Gent, C., Morath, L., Taggart, J., Theodorakos, P., & Adams, M. USGS Spectroscopy Lab, (2001). Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

Cohen, S. (2006). F*** you! Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb. (3rd ed., pp. 123-124). Retrieved from http://www.AthenaLab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf (Cohen, 2006)

Helmenstine, A. M. What is a Neutron Bomb? Retrieved from http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm (Helmenstine)

Jones, S. (2006, September 28). Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis That Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. Retrieved from http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the- Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, (2009). Investigation of the Environmental Fate of Tritium in the Atmosphere (INFO-0792). Ottawa: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/Investigation_of_Environmental_Fate_of_Tritium_in_the_Atmosphere_INFO-0792_e.pdf (“Investigation of the,” 2009)

Semkow, T., Hafner, R., Parekh, P., Wozniak, G., Haines, D., Husain, L., Rabun, R., & Williams, P. U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002). Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Retrieved from llnl.gov website: https://e reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

Stout, G., Vitchers, C., & Gray, R. (2006). Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other. (Google eBook ed., pp. 64-65). Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4VD–5- T5IcC&lpg=PA62&ots=I8PEz77ZPT&dq=ground zero grappler&pg=PA64 (Stout, Vitchers & Gray, 2006)

Ternary fission. (2013, March 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ternary_fission&oldid=546177060

Tritium in Precipitation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.science.uottawa.ca/eih/ch7/7tritium.htm

Twietmeyer, T. (2007, March 24). What May Have Melted the WTC Vehicles. Retrieved from http://rense.com/general75/melt2.htm (Twietmeyer, 2007)

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 1:58 pm, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

246 Responses to "Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11"

  1. LC  May 25, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Flimsy Empire State Building damage when hit by a bomber which was a much tougher plane than jetliners:

    Bomber Crashes into Empire State Building, July 1945 [Full Resolution]


    @ Minute 3:



  2. septemberrain  May 21, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Hello again, onebornfree…I have been looking at the links you and Jim suggested and, I know both of you dont believe planes hit the towers but, I have to disagree! There were many people in the area who witnessed the planes hitting the buildings, also, all the cameras that were focused on the area right after the first plane struck. I respect what you guys believe but, the evidence is in plane site…

    • Jim Fetzer  May 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

      Egad! Do you think either of us is unaware of the obvious! OF COURSE everyone thought that a real plane had hit the building. But it was performing feats that no real plane could perform. Get a grip! We may make mistakes, but we are not complete idiots. Check out some of my articles about this, such as “Planes/no planes and ‘video fakery'”, “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″ and “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”. Here’s a video of a presentation I made shortly before The Vancouver Hearings:

      “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

  3. septemberrain  May 14, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks OBF I will check out that link…

  4. Jim Fetzer  May 14, 2013 at 8:37 am

    I have spent too much time on this. Others are welcome to pursue it. I cannot imagine how a complicated destruction sequence like the demolition of the Twin Towers could possibly have been created in advance, but no doubt Mr. OBF will have more to say about that. The fact of the matter is that, in both cases, the video sequences we have CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT: in the case of the Twin Towers, we have indication after indication that they were not brought down by any kind of collapse; in the case of WTC-7, we have a classic case of a controlled demolition. I am sorry, but I don’t find enough here to be overly concerned about OBF and Simon Shack, whom I invited to speak in Vancouver. When he declined, I inferred that he was simply not up for a public presentation and discussion and debate. He and OBF may be onto something, but there are innumerably ways in which videos CAN LOOK ALTERED EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT. So it is a tricky business to compare videos to show that there is fakery as SS does.

    But of course even in the case of the Z-film, the back-and-to-the-left motion that so many have taken as proof-positive that JFK was hit from in front was not witnesses in Dealey Plaza and appears to have been an artifact of how the film was redone–one that has become an emotional barrier for many to understand the massive proof we have that the film is a fabrication using original footage, removing key elements (such as the limo stop and Clint Hill’s actions) and introducing others (such as painting over the blow out in the back of his head). I do agree, by the way, that the cut out on the North Tower was expanded in some of the footage, which is a point that I have made many times in my public presentations). So it’s not that I think THERE IS NOTHING THERE. It’s just that I have yet to be convinced of its overwhelming importance, given everything else we know about the case, including the use of sophisticated hologram technology to fake the hits of the planes on the North and South Towers.

  5. septemberrain  May 14, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Hello onebornfree! I asked Mr. Fetzer recently, if there were nuclear devices and/or a combination of different types of explosives placed in those towers at anytime…wouldint the towers have come down right after Impact? He sends me a link about video fakery…it seems to me like he believes that no planes hit the towers! Please tell me what you Believe!

    • Jim Fetzer  May 14, 2013 at 6:26 am

      We have what many bystanders took to be a real plane performing feats that no real plane could perform. Unless Newton’s laws were suspended on 9/11, we have a puzzling situation that requires some explanation. The alternatives include the use of CGIs, video compositing or a sophisticated hologram. I have address this question in many places, where the weight of the evidence favors the latter. See, for example,

      “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

      Had CGIs or video compositing been used, the image of the plane (Flight 175) would only have been visible on the broadcast footage, not in the air before the plane effortlessly enters the building (with zero loss of velocity), which is a physical impossibility. However, the use of a hologram (which appears to have been projected from a plane flying 1,400′ to its right) fits the data and appears to explain it.

  6. Jim Fetzer  May 13, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    In the case of the Zapruder film, we had (a) around 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow dramatically or come to a complete stop (where it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete stop); (b) we have wounds at the back of the head, which have been painted over in black (where the actual wound can be seen in later frames, such as 374, which they overlooked); (c) we also have multiple witnesses to Motorcycle Officer James Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief of Police Jesse Curry that JFK had been shot; (d) we have Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who rushed forward to protect Jackie, explain how he had climbed onto the back of the limo, pushed Jackie down, laid across their bodies and peered into a fist-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head, then gave his colleagues a “thumbs down”, all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass, where (a), (c) and (d) do not appear in the extant film; and (e) we have a half-dozen witnesses who have seen “the other film”–some several times–and have confirmed the discrepancies between what they saw and what we have now. (f) We also know where the film was taken and how and by whom it was revised and the substitution made.

    I don’t know why, but no matter how much I have done in exposing atrocities of one kind or another, there are those who attack me for not going far enough. I have explained that, unless we have good reasons to question the authenticity of the footage of the demolition sequence for the Twin Towers or for WTC-7, there IS no good reason to question them. Good reasons would include data such as (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in relation to the Zapruder film. We also understand why it was done, since the limo stop was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit. They also used the occasion to alter the appearance of the wounds to conceal how he was shot. I have published a book about it and many articles, including:

    “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

    “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”

    “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”

    “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (with Douglas P. Horne)

    “The Two NPCI Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (with Douglas P. Horne)

    “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

    “The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction” by John P. Costella

    A 66-part series of the Duluth conference: “Zapruder Fakery”

    Now do us all the favor of explaining how you overcome the prima facie assumption that the footage that was broadcast around the world in near real time–unlike the Zapruder film, which would not become public until 1975, a dozen years after the shooting–is a matter where we should take seriously your and Simon’s assertion that it is fake. Why do you believe that? What do you have that is analogous to (a) yo (f)? And please tell us, why in the world would it have been faked and how could it have been done?

    • Jim Fetzer  May 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm

      Simon Shack is bowing out of the discussion (with nothing kind to say about me),
      but recommends that anyone who wants to appreciate his research should review:

      “TOUR GUIDE” to the September Clues research:

  7. Jim Fetzer  May 13, 2013 at 9:34 am

    OK. My point has been that, if the only difference you maintain is that the Twin Towers were destroyed in 16 and 18 seconds rather than 9 and 11, I don’t think that contributes much. But I am willing to be proven wrong. Why don’t you and Simon draft an article for me to consider for publication here on Veterans Today? Make your key points and let’s get it out there in the public domain. OK?

    • simonshack  May 13, 2013 at 5:05 pm


      Your baiting game is over. To use your own words, I do not suffer fools gladly either, Fetzer boy. I won’t humor you with special articles for you to “get out there in the public domain” – nor will I waste any more time spoon-feeding you with information that you just seem to promptly discharge out of your bottom sphincter. Also, you evidently suffer from some acute delusion of grandeur. Does one have to humor you with special articles in order to get access to this magic “public domain” of yours?

      Good grief.

      Now let this be clear, Mr Fetzer: I will NOT be lured into this obvious spiderweb of Phony 9/11 Truthers which was established to gatekeep the 9/11 hoax ever since day one – and of which you now appear to be one of the foremost agitators and operatives – along with a long list of clowns which spans from Dave Von Kleist to Judy Wood and now, your foxy nuclear trio of ‘experts’. I will presently take leave from this imbecilic “Mystery Solved / Nukes-Did-It” thread of yours – but not without posting a link for all honest and intelligent readers here to peruse. It leads to my recently updated “TOUR GUIDE” of our half-decade worth of collective efforts to expose the methods used to pull off the wretched 9/11 psyop. Yes, it is a VERY long read (what with our 44 links to various topics and videos), but I trust that no one can say that we “haven’t done our homework”…

      “TOUR GUIDE” to the September Clues research :

      Of course, Mr Fetzer will keep saying that the September Clues research all amounts to “NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!” – because that’s the extent of his natural attention span given by his longstanding governement job: to protect the proactive role of the mainstream media in the 9/11 psyop (and to muddy the waters of the JFK affair).

      A bon entendeur – et au revoir / good bye / arrivederci !

      Thanks for your kind attention

      Simon Shack

  8. Terry McKibbin  May 11, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Yes, the truth is important. However, the truth must come forth into a court of law in which expert witnesses can testify to the authenticity of evidence, the most likely and probable cause of the authentic evidence, and the ruling out of other impossible causes which the evidence summarily disproves.

    Have you such expert witnesses? Are there not other provable things that one could begin with and allow further investigation to bear upon the more highly technical issues?

    • Don Fox  May 12, 2013 at 5:07 am

      9/11 was a National Security Event sanctioned by the highest levels of the government and military. They control the courts, media, government at ALL levels and the scientific community. There are plenty of experts who know what happened – Steve Jones is one of them. They are unwilling for whatever reason to go public and say it. Most likely they are paid off and/or intimidated.

      This is an uphill battle to say the least. We have no budget and a minute media presence. If you were looking for a fair fight you’ve come to the wrong place my friend!

      Is it possible that we could find an honest judge somewhere? Who knows. I know the Judy Wood crew is deathly afraid of us ever setting foot in a court room in regards to 9/11.

      All I can control is what I do. I research this stuff several hours a day and get the info out to the public in the avenues that are open to me. I’ve been on Fetzer’s show in the past several times and I’ll be on with Stan Monteith and Jeff Rense in the coming weeks.

      I’ve still got some fight in me and I’m going to give it a go here and see if I can put some heat on them. Duty is ours; consequences are God’s.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 12, 2013 at 5:22 am

      Terry, You cannot be so naive as to not acknowledge that there are plenty of “experts” at NIST and elsewhere, including MIT, who have placed their authority on the side of the “official account” of 9/11. So why don’t you simply accept what those experts are telling us? The answer, of course, is that they are supporting a version of events that cannot possibly be true. So you can side with logic and the available evidence or you can side with “the experts”.

      And how could you possibly know that “the experts” are speaking the truth unless you were to make an appraisal of your own to confirm or disconfirm them? Those I have cited in this instances–Don Fox, Ed Ward, and Jeff Prager–have studied the case extensively, know their stuff, and are not beholden to any institution or governmental organization. I am sorry to say, but your appeal to “expert witness” is a preposterous position to adopt, all things considered.

    • Don Fox  May 12, 2013 at 10:32 am

      I think that it’s finally starting to sink for Terry that yes indeed they NUKED the WTC on 9/11. I don’t want to put words in Terry’s mouth but my impression is that he finds it disturbing that if indeed the WTC was nuked that no big name scientist is out there championing the cause. He feels let down that his peers have been such a total failure on 9/11 research.

      I got involved in this because 1. Steve Jones is a total fraud and 2. Jim Fetzer convinced me to get off my ass and DO SOMETHING.

      There is no cavalry coming to save the day here folks. So far the best you have is me, Jeff and Ed – in no particular order. Really Jeff and Ed are probably smarter than I am but I’m doing what I can!

      Power concedes nothing without a demand. If you want justice for the crimes of 9/11 folks YOU have to demand it. The power structure isn’t going to just hand it to you. There isn’t going to be a press conference at the White House next week where they admit that 9/11 was an inside job and they nuked the Twin Towers. Public pressure is the ONLY thing that will work.

    • Terry McKibbin  May 14, 2013 at 1:32 pm

      If nothing else, Don, you are helping to define the arguments that have substance and identify those that do not. I applaud your efforts from that perspective.

    • Terry McKibbin  May 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      You are correct, Jim, that there must be independence of affiliation with organizations that are influenced for a particular outcome, rather than the utmost truth. That need, however, does not negate the need for expertise. Therefore, I am claiming that the only reliable means for proving any hypothesis is the combination of related-science expertise and independence from coercion or any other form of influence away from the material evidence. Both are essential and neither are preposterous in principal or reality.

      “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
      – Carl Sagan

      Suppose, for sake of discussion, that you had both (expertise and independence) and your nuke hypothesis was a slam-dunk, based on evidence. What then, is the next move that your “team” here could make that cannot be made otherwise with the vast amount of evidence for “controlled-demolition” caused by “something” other than commercial planes and hijackers?

    • Jim Fetzer  May 14, 2013 at 3:32 pm

      It hasn’t sunk in that experts can be wrong (and even lie) while non-experts (by your definition) can be right (and speak the truth). We have plenty of “experts” (in your sense) who have been massively lying to the American people. We also have Don, Ed and Jeff who are not. You persist in committing the genetic fallacy of assuming that the source determines the truth, when we know that the “experts” are wrong. You are mistaking authority for truth and not appreciating that truth should be the authority.

    • Terry McKibbin  May 15, 2013 at 5:53 am

      Here, Jim, you conflate the issues. Don, Ed and Jeff do not have to be lying to be wrong. They can be wrong because they do not know enough to make sense of the data they present. They take for granted the vast amount of time required in study to understand the principles of physics that explain nuclear phenomena. Of all things they have accused of others, that is arrogance in the third degree. Yes, even experts can be wrong and experts can lie. That does not mean that all experts are wrong or that all experts lie. Let’s be clear – We need experts that are correct and thorough in their assessments. And, we need experts that don’t lie.

      I seek no authority to reveal truth. I seek expertise to understand and communicate truth such that truth can be revealed to others whom honestly seek it. That is why I am capable of declaring Don, Ed, Jeff and you to be wrong on this matter of the article. Is there any more authoritarian phrase than “Mystery Solved”, as if Don, Ed and Jeff have arrived on the white horse of Truth to reveal to us plebeian, frightened or otherwise brain-paralyzed citizens that is they who will take the helm due to their self-declared, self-taught knowledge? Come on Jim, you are better than that.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 15, 2013 at 6:09 am

      Who suggested that Don, Ed or Jeff was lying? And do you have any doubt that the NIST “experts” were? Surely you jest. You continue to appeal to authority (“experts”) and insist that Don, Ed and Jeff are “non-experts”. But they have done their homework–and they appear to be right! You continue to mistake authority for truth, when the truth, in my opinion, is that their mini-nuke hypothesis appears to provide a far better explanation for the evidence than does any alternative. In that sense, given the available evidence–especially the contents of the USGS dust samples–it is perfectly appropriate to suggest that the mystery (of how the Twin Towers were destroyed) has been solved! So if you want to persist with this, don’t expect me to spend more time on your arguments, which are fallacious, as I have already shown. You can come to grips with the evidence and demonstrate that they are mistaken, but the nonsense you have been peddling here–on and on and on–is not worth any more time. The fallacy is elementary.

  9. Jim Fetzer  May 11, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Neither of these guys have given us any good reason to take them seriously. They have offered no reason at all as to why there would have been fake footage of the destruction of the Twin Towers or of WTC-7. I am known not to suffer fools gladly–and it pains me to allow this post. But it illustrates well that neither OBF nor Simon Shack appears to have anything of value to contribute to 9/11 research: NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA! If they can prove me wrong, then for God’s sake do it! I am losing my sense of humor in dealing with coy frauds who pretend to know things the rest of us don’t. I’m calling their bluff!

  10. Terry McKibbin  May 11, 2013 at 7:10 am


    You have yet to convince me of the nuclear theory of the article. However, you seem to be convinced that this theory is superior to any that have been proposed for massive building destruction.

    So, if your theory were to be shown to be indisputable and highly probable by the evidence, what then would be the advantage toward a longer term goal for the movement of which you are a part? Just what is that goal of yours and the authors that your theory will accomplish, not currently being accomplished by other theories and the groups that support them? How will your goals be accomplished with information if you manage to convince a large number of people?

    • Jim Fetzer  May 11, 2013 at 8:02 am

      Well, you are a tough sell, Terry. How could we possibly solve a crime if we don’t know how the crime was committed? The use of mini or micro nukes points in the direction of the US government and its Department of Defense, since these weapons are accessible only to them (and possibly to Israel). I don’t get why someone as smart as you would question why we need to know how it was done. And how can Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization I founded in late 2005, settle for anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

    • Don Fox  May 11, 2013 at 11:01 am

      The whole purpose of research is to find the answer to a perplexing question. In this case it was how do these giant buildings disappear so quickly? Answer: a clever arrangement of mini-nukes timed to explode in sequence from top to bottom and configured to explode upward. If nothing else we will have provided the correct answer for posterity. I would like to get some regular people off of their posteriors and get after the folks who did this but we’ll see if people really have the appetite for that.

      Again Terry if you want to deny nukes explain how the tritiated water ends up in the basement of building 6, a huge plume of smoke rises from the building, a huge crater is left in the middle and cement is flowing like lava.

  11. Shallel  May 11, 2013 at 7:04 am

    When you stop questioning and think you know the answer, SCIENCE STOPS.
    When your pet theory becomes “Mystery Solved” Science is dead in the gutter.

    There was NO incandescence; your proposal of nukes (8 million degrees) is therefore WRONG.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 11, 2013 at 8:32 am

      Well, Shallel, I think you have missed some of the finer points about the use of these kinds of nukes, which I will invite Don, Ed or Jeff to explain. There is nothing “unscientific” about accepting conclusions in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. The four states of scientific inquiries are PUZZLEMENT (something does not fit into your background knowledge and appears anomalous), SPECULATION (the full range of alternative possible explanations must be given consideration), ADAPTATION (where each alternative is assessed in relation to the available relevant evidence using likelihood measures), and EXPLANATION (where the alternative with the highest likelihood is acceptable when the evidence has “settled down” and points in the same direction).

      We consider the alternatives that the Twin Towers and WTC-6 collapsed; that they were destroyed by means of nanothermite; that they were demolished using DEWs; and that they were blown-apart using nukes, where we distinguish between small nukes and large ones. We have now published three articles about this,”9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”, “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”, and “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked!” I presume you are OK in ruling out collapse theories, since if the building had collapsed, the probability that it would have blown apart in every direction from the top down, been converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and left no substantial stack of pancakes would have been equal to zero.

      Similarly for nanothermite, which does not have the explosive capacity to pulverize concrete, much less decimate steel. It is a law of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if its detonation velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and, in steel, 6,100 m/s. So you can’t get there from there. It is physically impossible that nanothermite was the cause of the destruction of the WTC, even though there are many who still want to ascribe to it a secondary or complementary role. I think that’s fine, where I am inclined to believe it was used to create those “cookie cutter” cutouts resembling the silhouettes of planes on the facades of the North and South Towers.
      The use of large nukes, such as Dimitri Khalezov has proposed, like the collapse theory, cannot even accommodate the gross observable evidence. The use of 150kt bombs in the subbasements of all three buildings would have meant they were all destroyed the same way, which is not the case. This theory would have required that all three buildings be destroyed the same way from the bottom up and, in the case of the Twin Towers, would have decimated the bathtub, the preservation of which appears to have been the most important reason for using a novel method of destruction. I infer that you will not contest that they were not destroyed the same way and that Khalezov is wrong, where there is no good reason to continue to entertain his alternative seriously, either.

      That leaves DEWs and mini nukes. I presume that is your concern–that you are holding out for DEWs. I have explained many times that the definition that Judy Wood proposes for them–as devices that can deliver far more energy than conventional explosives and can be directed–includes mini and micro nukes, so if we are right, then it was DEWs after all, just no the kind of Tesla or scalar weapons she has in mind. I would like to think the blowing of a 300-ton steel assembly at least 600′ into the Winter Garden counts strongly in favor of mini nukes and that DEWs cannot account for the contents of the USGS dust samples, including Barium and Strontium, Uranium and Thorium, Lanthanum and all that down to Tritium, though it is consistent with all that dirt.

      The dust samples are the key. The probability that they would be produced by nuclear events is extremely high, approaching one. That they would be produced by non-nulclear events, including nanothermite or DEWs, is extremely low, approaching zero. So those who want to defend the DEW alternative have the obligation, given the proof we have adduced, of overcoming it. In advancing this conclusion, we are not denying that we might be wrong and that new evidence or new alternatives, such as the use of a proton anti-matter technology, might show us to be mistaken–which display the fallible and tentative character of conclusions in science–but that requires evidence and argument. So if you want to contend it was DEWs after all, please produce your proof.

    • Shallel  May 12, 2013 at 7:14 am

      I very much appreciate your patience and time. Please tell me where I am going wrong. As I understand this theory from Don’s explanation, these devices act though blast (shock wave) and heat, as well as neutron flux and EMP. The temperature required for fusion is 100 million K. Steel vaporizes over 3000 K.

      How would this not be visible?

      You give me a multiple choice of Nanothermite, DEWS, Large Nukes, and Small Nukes. Nanothermite is not capable of the result I agree, Large Nukes underground do not fit either, as the damage seems greatest farther up the towers, while people survived in Stairwell B on the fifth floor.

      Small nukes, placed at intervals, would explain the beams and sections being ejected. The main problem would be high temperature as stated above. Also, EMP effects are generated by gamma ray flux producing high energy free electrons by Compton Scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These high energy electrons interact with the Earth’s Magnetic Field to form a very large coherently radiated field (The EMP).

      DEWs, aren’t well understood. I have no intention to hold out for, or contend that it was DEWs since I have severely limited ability to gather any data on classified weapons.
      So Jim, I will have to opt for none of the above.

      I don’t see how you can say that the “mystery is solved”, or why you would want to make a statement like that.
      Your explanation of the Stages of Scientific Inquiry are appreciated, I certainly mean no disrespect. I will keep an open mind, and continue to follow the work of Don, Ed and Jeff.

      You are all doing important work!

    • Don Fox  May 12, 2013 at 11:59 am


      Susan Lindauer has stated that the CIA KNEW in Feb 2001 that the WTC Towers were going to be destroyed by nukes. And like the article says the dust and water samples tell us what really happened: fission and fusion. These were small bombs inside the core columns of giant skyscrapers – there wasn’t going to be a huge flash visible outside of the buildings.

      We can certainly see the effects of the bombs: 1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized, the rest of the buildings turned into a fine dust powder (which only extremely high temps can produce) and pyroclastic dust clouds covering Lower Manhattan. EMP and neutrons toast the cars in the vicinity of the WTC and temps ranging from 600 to 1,500 °F for 6 months after 9/11. Then they hauled hundreds of dump trucks of dirt in and out of Ground Zero – SOP when cleaning up a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl. All of this is textbook evidence for nukes. The only mystery is why the so called 9/11 Truth Community has been so slow to catch on….

    • Shallel  May 13, 2013 at 10:18 am

      Thanks for the reply. You are suggesting vaporized steel. “1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized” Vaporized steel is hotter that liquid steel. This is liquid steel:


      I cannot fathom how 60,000 tons of steel was vaporized and there was nothing like the above seen.

    • Don Fox  May 11, 2013 at 10:53 am

      My blog post from last July has a YouTube clip on it that shows the demolition of buildings 1,2 and 7. Debris is ejected violently outward and massive pyroclastic dust clouds are produced in each of these thermonuclear explosions. And at 2:32 of the clip you can see bright flames shooting up out of the top of the North Tower as the mushroom cloud rises: http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/jim-fetzer-real-deal-appearance-7912/

      Only volcanos and nukes have the energy to produce these pyroclastic clouds. Your Judy Wood propaganda fails again.

  12. Jim Fetzer  May 9, 2013 at 5:49 am

    Well, I have looked at the WTC-7 sequence before. I was not convinced that SS had shown anything was wrong. The idea of a “prima facie” proof is that there is a presumption that what we are being shown–especially under the circumstance of an enormous number of witnesses watching–is authentic ABSENT DEMONSTRATION THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. There is room for debate about the time question, because different criteria could be employed. If you waited until the dust cleared, then the destruction sequence would take overwhelmingly longer. Here is an illustration from http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm:

    In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

    Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

    Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

    Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

    The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

    The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

    Below are calculations from a physics blogger…

    When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let’s see,
    d = 1/2at^2
    t = (2d/a)^1/2
    a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth’s surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
    d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
    t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
    OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
    v = at
    v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
    So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That’s almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven’t even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

    Let’s see:
    KE = 1/2mv^2
    The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that’s pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we’ll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they’re comparable, then we’re good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We’ll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
    208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
    50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
    additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
    450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
    so the total mass would be
    4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
    Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
    so our
    KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
    So, divide by 2 and we get
    OK, now let’s try a floor halfway up:
    t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
    v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
    KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
    Hey, look at that! They’re almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let’s see now, that’s
    110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I’m being conservative, took the lower value)
    = 1,139,879,868,600J
    OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let’s see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
    1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

    Now, that’s 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That’s over a quarter kiloton. We’re talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we’ve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven’t added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that’s another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we’ve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

    Remember, we haven’t added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let’s be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I’m betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. – Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

    Let me make this clear, I don’t assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn’t say that’s the fall time. That was not its purpose. It’s only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It’s absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc… Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn’t matter to the point I’m making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn’t at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

    For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
    Please refer to Dr Frank Greening’s paper for detailed calculations.
    Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That’s almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.

    My favorite part of this analysis is, “We’re talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon-and we’ve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven’t added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that’s another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we’ve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.”

    It appears to be the case that, even if the demolition sequences took somewhat longer–let’s add seven (7) seconds to each estimate, to make them 9 + 7 = 16 seconds (South Tower) and 11 + 7 = 18 seconds (North Tower)–it makes scant difference to the arguments that we have presented. Instead of blowing a cube every second, say, it would mean blowing a cube every 1.5 seconds. The analysis even supports the energy requirements as being those of small nuclear devices! And it does not change the major points we’ve made:

    (1) a 300-ton steel assembly was still blown over 600 feet into the Winter Garden;
    (2) the USGS dust samples still contain Barium, Strontium, and the other elements;
    (3) hundreds if not thousands of tons of dirt were still trucked onto Ground Zero.

    So it seems to me you are making much ado about nothing–or, to be more precise, about virtually nothing.

    • simonshack  May 9, 2013 at 9:15 pm

      Professor Fetzer,

      Please – oh please – stop this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo right now. Since when did you become a physicist, Jim? Are you trying to impress anyone with this cascade of figures and calculations clearly made up out of thin air – and based on virtually nothing ?

      It has now become all too evident that your role is to restore some credibility to the fake 9/11 imagery – and to protect the media’s direct involvement in the 9/11 hoax.

      Your recent embracing of the inane hologram theory is obviously meant to convey the following notion: “The TV imagery was REAL and those TV cameras truthfully filmed holographic-plane-silhouettes which, to us viewers, conveyed the illusion of real airliners penetrating the towers.” Surely, you must be aware by now that this notion is totally discrepant with over half-a-decade of empirical observations and methodical analyses and comparisons of the 9/11 imagery?

      Your latest “nukes-did-it” theory about the tower collapses is also meant to “explain” WHAT WE ALL SAW ON TV (a bunch of Hollywood-style animations showing the towers “dustifying” top-down) and why “so few bodies” were found in the rubble. As the official story goes, “the 9/11 victims were mostly vaporized” – as claimed by NY Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2099540#p2099540

      Jim, what if the WTC complex was quite simply and safely brought down with conventional demolition explosives – behind a smokescreen which impeded anyone to capture it on film? Has this thought NEVER crossed your mind? And why would you dismiss this possibility offhand? Are you not a self-professed professor of logical thought?

      Last but not least : when – oh when – are you going to consider the ever more likely possibility that NO one died on 9/11 – and that those approx “3000” where most probably created out of thin air by digital means? Do you know that the WTC towers were emptied of all their office workers/and original tenants in 1993, in the aftermath (and under the pretext) of the 1993 “Al-Qaeda” garage bombing? As long as you’ll pretend to ignore these core issues of 9/11, I fear that your credibilty as the “sincere truthseeker” that you claim to be will soon vaporize into fine dust. So please fess up or shut up now – and don’t hide behind a lame game of wordplay and cheap sentences such as this, thrown at yours truly :

      “You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say.”

      Have I really? And how so? Seriously now, Dr Fetzer : please have the decency to respond to my contributions in thoughtful, fair and consummate manner before blurting out such dismissive and unsubstantiated statements. Ok? At this ponit I really do demand a point by point response from you, Jim – and without dodging ANY of my points submitted in this post. I believe that my longstanding efforts in helping you, America and the world wake up to the media fakery deserve as much.

      Thanks for your kind attention

      Simon Shack

    • Shallel  May 13, 2013 at 11:44 am

      “what if the WTC complex was quite simply and safely brought down with conventional demolition explosives – behind a smokescreen which impeded anyone to capture it on film?”

      This theory is untenable. I actually observed the site, about two weeks after the event and there was certainly no rubble pile to be associated with a conventional(?) demolition of two 110 story buildings.
      Controlled Demolition of 110 story buildings is hardly conventional, it has never been done.
      End of story.

    • abirato  May 13, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      A media hoax as big as 9/11 as never been done either. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. Two weeks is a long time to clear a significant amount of the rubble, especially if the buildings were systematically disassembled since 1993 or built with missing floors in the first place.

    • Don Fox  May 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

      The point here is that it took a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO DESTROY THE WTC BUILDINGS IN THE MANNER OBSERVED! Jet fuel and nanothermite ARE NON-STARTERS! The ONLY theory that is tenable is MINI-NUKES! Where else could all of the energy required come from? Sure in the hell not from Hutchison’s lab…

  13. LC  May 8, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    a No-Plane piece courtesy of Mommyplayer:

    Original No-Plane Witness On 9/11


    @ Min: 2:06: the fake plane had just one wing & before touching WTC half of its intact front is already seen outside the opposite side of building with flames in between!!! (Before the plane hit)!!!

  14. Jim Fetzer  May 8, 2013 at 6:12 am

    Here is another silly post from OBF. I have asked him several times whether he has any proof that the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers were faked. He has offered no evidence at all–not a single witness, not a single photo, not a single item of any other kind.

    There is nothing “unscientific” about relying upon the available evidence to form hypotheses. How else could it be done? This bizarre challenge suggesting that EVERY PHOTO OR VIDEO FORM 9/11 was fabricated or faked strikes me as a case of conspiracy research gone paranoid.

    I have extensive research on the faking of photos and films in the case of JFK. See “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” with Jim Marrs, “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, and “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film'”?, for examples.

    But that research had a basis in witness reports, medical evidence, and the discovery of internal inconsistencies in the film itself. If OBF, Simon Shack or others wants to make a case, then let them make it. The burden of proof is upon them, for reasons I that I’ve explained.

    The core of science is the willingness to change your conclusions with new evidence or new alternatives. We would be glad to change our minds if that were proven to be true. But we have seen nothing yet that substantiates the hypothesis that the videos of 9/11 were fabrications.

  15. LC  May 7, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Second bogus plane as a cheap video-fakery with only one engine which is hanging from left wing:

  16. LC  May 7, 2013 at 10:20 pm

    We’ve dealt with this a zillion times already:

    If any real planes had hit any of the buildings they would have vaporized like below because WTC & Pentagon were like this solid concrete wall:

    F4 Phantom vaporized upon hitting a Wall.

    WTC: Can 767 Aluminum Wing Cut 14′Steel? Crash Test Shows:

    Second bogus plane as a cheap video-fakery with only one engine which is hanging from left wing:

  17. septemberrain  May 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Hello Mr. Fetzer, I was wondering if you could help me understand something? If there were nukes of somekind placed in those towers at some point, would the planes Impact not cause the nukes to go off right after Impact?

  18. Niall Bradley  May 6, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    “What type of explosives could cause this sort of damage? The only thing known to man that can explain this is nuclear bombs.”

    No, the only thing known to MOST people is nuclear bombs. What about unknown technologies? Quite how mini-nukes or whatever can explain partially toasted cars a mile away on FDR Drive, EMT personnel reporting their overalls bursting into flames, and apparent accounts of ‘missing time’ escapes me. Remember, we need to account for ALL the phenomena that observed that day.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 7, 2013 at 6:44 am

      Sure, Niall. We have made that point several times: new evidence or new alternatives may require that e reject hypotheses previously accepted, accept hypotheses previously rejected, and leave others in suspense. It has been suggested to me that it was done using positron anti-matter technology. If we can gain access to information about it and if that alternative can provide a better explanation of the evidence, than we will revise our conclusions accordingly. That is the nature of science. Here are are advancing the best supported explanation based upon the available relevant evidence in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. We have, however, explained why nanothermite cannot have done this and why DEWs does not appear to be viable, either–and we discuss those “toasted” cars in the article,

    • Matt Stone  May 7, 2013 at 7:08 pm

      Jim and Don… Nice that I’ve got you here, both….

      I support your DEW theories, BUT as a creative part of the obvious Reality I have to tell you a story, a Truth far beyond…

      You, Don&Jim both support a mini-nuke theory, a theory sounding nice&compatible; so I may have to help you with my unleashed Creativity.

      I always (since ’11) supported a different Theory what I call “The Ball drop Theory” as I call your Theory (mini-nuke) “The sex-toy Theory”.

      Question is: IF I have that Ultra mini nuke DEW, The NEU NOOKIEDOO, WHY just use more of them in a chain?

      When this Device is triggered, I just have to watch it as a Child, preparing for the Moment of (How does it look like? (Ed Teller)?

      That’s why I prefer (with a lot of fantasy) the Ball Drop Theory.

      You just need one of that ultra-devices.

      If the Neutron Generating is starter, that “Ball” drops down by itself, pulverizing all Material.

      Of course this Ball is a DEW… looking like a Palm or Pumpkin…

      Explains, by any means, everything I …

      Schöne Grüße aus AT

    • Don Fox  May 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Toasted cars a mile away on FDR Drive, EMT personnel reporting their overalls bursting into flames – neutrons and EMP explain these things just fine. As far as accounts of missing time – beyond my scope.

      Almost ALL US citizens have NO experience with neutron bombs getting detonated in urban settings. Most Americans don’t think it’s possible that something like would be allowed to happen and the power structure desperately wants to keep a lid on nuking civilians. So this is how we get BS like the DEWs and nanothermite “theories.”

      Judy Wood has NO theory for what happened on 9/11. She can’t tell you what type of weapon was used, where it was deployed or who was using it etc. ALL she does is deny nukes and conventional explosives. How convenient. She’s a gatekeeper.

  19. Garibaldi  May 6, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Since this never-ending pissing match doesn’t seem so much to be about whether it was really piss or vinegar that brought down the towers, but more about who can piss on and on the longest instead of the farthest, let’s see how big of a splash all you piss-pots can get out of this-

    • Jim Fetzer  May 6, 2013 at 5:56 am

      But you are the one who is “pissing” here:

      (1) The article is chock full of EVIDENCE.

      (2) Our conclusions are based on REASONING.
      (a) a 300-ton assembly blown over 600 feet;

      (b) the contents of the USGS dust samples;

      (c) the importation of tons and tons of dirt.

      (3) So what makes this a “PISSING CONTEST”?
      (a) some comments are not based on evidence.

      (b) some comments are not based on reasoning.

      (c) rejecting them is not “pissing” but arguing.

      (4) You link to a massive ad hominem from Bollyn:
      (a) it has nothing to do with our arguments;

      (b) it is classic “character assassination”;

      (c) he is taking cheap and unwarranted shots.

      (6) Bollyn maintains nanothermite explains it.

      (7) Jeff has emphatically denied that claim.
      (a) Jeff has (mistakenly) called him a “liar”;

      (b) as long as he believes it, he is not lying;

      (c) that was a trivial abuse of language by Jeff.

      (8) But nanothermite cannot have made it happen.
      (a) it’s detonation velocity is only 895 m/s;

      (b) the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s;

      (c) the speed of sound in steel is 6,100 m/s;

      (d) Nanothermite cannot have blown the towers.

      (9) Others persist on behalf of Dimitri Khalezov.
      (a) if he were right, it would have been bottom-up;

      (b) all three would have been done the same way;

      (c) the bathtub would have been completely shattered.

      (d) it cannot have been done as Khalezov contends.

      (10) The use of DEWs, moreover, does not explain:
      (a) a 300-ton assembly blown over 600 feet;

      (b) the contents of the USGS dust samples;

      (c) but it is consistent with tons of dirt.

      (11) Others maintain that the videos are fake.
      (a) but they were widely broadcast at the time;

      (b) no witnesses have appeared to contradict them;

      (c) if proof is forthcoming, then we will consider it.

      (12) Some claim that we are not “qualified experts”:
      (a) we have done our homework and presented our proof;

      (b) the strength of argument is independent of its source;

      (c) the scientific community has been derelict about 9/11;

      (d) this objection simply confounds authority and truth.

      (13) Some have posted the same points again and again:
      (a) false claims do not become true by repetition;

      (b) how many times do they have to be shown wrong?

      (c) rejecting them does not make this “a pissing contest”.

      The same, however, cannot be said for your appearance here.

    • Garibaldi  May 6, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      As always, a great analysis and summation, Doc. Eminently logical. Pretty big splash too.

      As far as my own pissing around goes, if you were on 150 mgs. of furosemide a day, you might have a similar predicament, and as far as my own opinion of all this techno-hudibras goes, Michael Rose has summed that up (above) more concisely than I ever could, although I’ve maintained the very same stance in this forum ever since I’ve been here. My remark refers largely to the length of this comment thread, not the article itself, and as far as I’m concerned, any thread of 200 comments or more is a “pissing contest” by sheer default.

      I was promoting Ed Ward’s work on a well-read alt-site over a half dozen years ago, when it didn’t have anywhere near the exposure it has now, and you can take issue with Christopher Bollyn all you want from your own techno-perspective, but again, it’s largely his concentration on the WHO, and not the how, that has earned his rightful preeminence as a 9/11 researcher, toward which he’s made THE most massive overall contribution to date.

      Right jolly of Simon Shack to finally show up, BTW. Gotta go, nature’s calling…

    • Eduard  May 7, 2013 at 9:04 am

      Reading all the analysis made whether it was nano-thermite, thermate, mini-nukes, or even an energy weapon using the Hutchison Effect, we all agree the government’s story is FALSE.

      We agree airplanes or office fires did not cause the WTC buildings to collapse.

      We cannot allow ourselves to be buried in the details. Yes, the details are important, but not nearly as important as finding out the perpetrators of this terrorist act. Maybe, just maybe, all of the above methods were used. There is incontrovertible proof that nano-thermite was found in the dust samples. There is incontrovertible proof that abnormal levels of tritium were also found.

      It is the aftermath of this tragedy and how it was used for passing the Patriot Act; a 342 page document already written and conveniently waiting for such an event, along with other subsequent freedom-violating Acts that has changed our government into a police state.

      The much bigger issue is – Who is responsible?

      I believe 9-11 should be viewed as a malignant cancer causing the worsening ills of this nation. The metastasis (those responsible) need to be found and removed.

      This cancer is extinguishing the Constitution of the United States.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 7, 2013 at 11:45 am

      Of course, the government’s story is not only false but provably false! So whom do you indict on that basis?

      There is no more direct route to whodunnit than to identify how it was done and who could have arranged that.

      You are missing the big picture. It’s sorting out how these things were done that is leading us to the perps.

    • Eduard  May 7, 2013 at 9:16 pm

      “Of course, the government’s story is not only false but provably false! So whom do you indict on that basis?”

      Indeed, it is the proverbial elephant in the living room. We know former VP Cheney was involved. There is evidence he stood down NORAD. So, start with the indictment there (good luck with that though). Prosecutors are good at cutting deals for getting the big name perps. Also, the sources for the government pancake story should be people of interest.

      Notwithstanding, let’s run with the provable “How the towers fell” evidence. Nano-thermite was definitely found in the WTC dust samples. From this fact, who do you indict?

      There’s definitely evidence of significant levels of tritium found in the ground water and it proves a nuclear detonation occurred. Again, who do you indict?

      As you stated, we know the government’s story is provably false (I think I also said this). And you asked, “Whom do you indict on that basis?”

      We’re still not any closer. We need names.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 8, 2013 at 6:04 am

      Here are some contributions toward the identification and prosecution of perps:

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

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

      “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien” by Jim Fetzer

    • Garibaldi  May 7, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      As Simon Shack is most well aware, the 9/11 media circus was largely conducted by perpetrators in mass media. Need names, Eduard? Here’s a good one to start with-
      http://www.bollyn.com/the-mass-media-the-9-11-cover-up (scroll down)

    • simonshack  May 6, 2013 at 5:49 pm


      Since your contention is that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds – would you not expect to see it collapse in 11 seconds on the TV broadcasts? Now, please know that only CNN showed the full collapse (from top to toe) of what appears to be, on our video screens, the real WTC1 building in Manhattan (it is NOT: it is only a graphic animation of it). Well, as you can see, this collapse shown on LIVE TV on 9/11 lasts for NO LESS than 18 or 19 seconds (approximately that is, but certainly far longer than 11 seconds) :
      (You can verify the official source of this gif of mine at the official CNN TV archives)

      Let me know what you think of this empirical observation, Jim.

      Thanks for your kind attention.

      Simon Shack

    • Don Fox  May 7, 2013 at 2:18 pm

      We don’t contend the North Tower was destroyed in 11 seconds – that’s NISTs number and we don’t challenge it. 11 or 18 seconds really doesn’t matter. A collapse due to fire would take DAYS. For our purposes either number works.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      I offered as an illustration that the destruction sequence could have involved blowing one 10-floor cube per second, which would correspond with NIST’s estimates of 9 and 11 seconds, as I explain. But Simon ought to explain what difference he believes it would make. There are various ways to time them, where, given the debris and dust, it can be rather tricky. Simon, please tell us why you think this matters.

    • simonshack  May 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      Jim – and Don,

      Your above article states:

      “If they were used to blow apart one ten-floor cube per second, for example, then, since the North Tower stood at 110 floors, that would have taken 11 seconds, while, since the top three cubes of the South Tower tilted over and were blown as one, in that case, it would have taken only 9, which coincides with NIST’s own times.”

      So please do not deny your own claims, Jim and Don. Now, I ask you: is it completely irrelevant whether WTC1 collapsed in 11 or 18+ seconds? No, because for over a decade now, NIST has been going with that “11sec” figure, which completely contradicts the so-called “LIVE” 9/11 broadcasts. Are we to believe that NIST never timed the collapse by looking at the TV imagery? What about you guys – have YOU never timed the collapses as seen in the 9/11 TV imagery? Apparently not, since you state that your calculations “COINCIDE with NIST’s own times”.

      Quite frankly speaking, for you to deny your own statements is a rather lame way of going about any sort of intellectual discussion / debate entertained by adult individuals.

      Moreover, let me alert you once again to the fact that the TV frame that you claim shows “a smokeplume emerging from WTC6″ is an age-old mistake (or disinfo / red herring) diffused by Jack White, Dave Von Kleist and Christopher Bollyn. Your article states:

      “To sum this up: we see a plume of smoke rising from Building 6, photos that show the building was blackened and bombed out before ANY debris from the Twin Towers hit it”

      Jim, I have already shown you – in a previous post here – that this plume of smoke was NOT aired at 9:04 (as claimed by the three aforementioned 9/11 researchers) – but at 9:59, as the WTC2 collapse-animation was aired on “LIVE TV” (and it is clearly meant to be smoke originating from the WTC2 collapse). It just cannot be used as some kind of evidence that “we all saw WTC6 being bombed on live TV.”

      For you to believe that the 9/11 perps would run the risk to show on worldwide live TV any REAL imagery of any phase of the WTC complex demolition is just incredibly naive. Why you cannot consider for a minute that all the 9/11 imagery was prefabricated is quite beyond me.

      Now, will you now at least remove from your above article the inane claim that “WTC6 was shown exploding on live TV” – or am I just wasting my time here, helping you to point out those easily debunkable flaws of your exposé?

      As for the images credited to “Bill Biggart” (the 9/11 photographer-martyr who was allegedly buried under the WTC rubble), please spend a little time looking up the research we have made regarding this particular issue at Cluesforum.info : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2361066#p2361066

      Thanks for your kind attention.

      Simon Shack

    • Jim Fetzer  May 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm

      A man who would convert an illustration–identified by the use of the phrase, “for example”–as the basis for refutation of careful, scientific research does not deserve to be taken seriously. Apparently, you cannot explain WHY IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE if the destruction sequence had taken longer than 9 and 11 seconds.. Moreover, that Jack White, Dave Von Kleist and Christopher Bollyn made a trivial mistake about the time at which WTC-6 endured an explosion–which Bollyn, as I have previously noted, already explained, tells me that you are not someone who is honest and sincere about exposing the truth of 9/11. All of them have made better and more serious contributions than have you, as this mini-sequence of posts reveals. You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say. At least we have learned that much about you from this exchange.

    • simonshack  May 7, 2013 at 8:07 pm


      You wrote:

      “You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say. At least we have learned that much about you from this exchange.”

      There never was an ‘exchange’ here, Dr Fetzer. You have not bothered responding to one single question that I have submitted to you, in any serious / rational manner – as should be expected from someone as invested in this 9/11 research as yourself. Not that I myself was expecting any sort of fair and intelligent dialogue with you – but I did give it a try.

      Jim, please know that ever since you organized the Madison conference back in 2007 (only weeks after I released September Clues v.1.0), I have kept a close eye on you. Your guests at that conference included Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Rosalee Grable (“the Webfairy”), Dave Von Kleist, and a completely new character on your gatekeeper team by the name of Ace Baker – who presented my September Clues documentary in rather positive fashion to all of the attendees. Not long thereafter, however, Ace Baker went on making his own website and declaring on Pilots for 9/11 Truth that “September Clues was 90-95% false!”.


      We then all remember the pathetic ‘suicide’ (live-on-Fetzer-radio) of Ace Baker when he feigned to shoot himself while talking with you on air, Jim. We also remember your feigned feuds with Judy Wood and that silly episode of her alleged assistant “Michael Zebuhr” purportedly getting shot for no reason at all. We all know that other similarly ‘whacked’ entities like “Dan Wallace”, “Barry Jennings”, “Kenny Johannemann”, “Philip Marshall”, etc – are all purely fictional characters cast as 9/11 whistleblowers. We also know that your beloved 9/11 hero Willie Rodriguez is a con man and a former magician trained by 9/11 gatekeeper extraordinaire James Randi.

      I could go on and on, Jim. Come to think of it, Jim, for you to call me “completely discredited” is quite a honor to me – as I wish to be as much as possible disassociated with you and your likes. I have already let your colleague-in-arms Kevin Barrett know what utter disregard I have of him – and it is high time for me to share this same sentiment with you. As for this website, Veterans Today, there is only one veteran worth of my respect – and that is Stewart Ogilby. I’m confident that the VT readers will, in due time, recognize Stewart as the sharpest and best-informed contributor to this place. Stewart Ogilby stands head and shoulders above you, Dr Fetzer – so please start learning logic and common sense from this brilliant 80-year-old man.

      Thanks for your kind attention

      Simon Shack

  20. The Rahnameh  May 5, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Please spread this video like wildfire: ****https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwJnCblsbY0

    It doesn’t bother going into Jim’s great work, but it does perfectly summarize the indisputable points.

  21. LC  May 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    CORRECTION to ongoing misrepresented facts of WTC-1 & WTC-2:

    WTC-1 & WTC-2 did NOT “Collapse”. Both of those buildings disintegrated & pulverized from top to bottom or from multiple directions. The falling debris seen during the destruction of both towers was “FALLING DEBRIS” ejected due to explosion forces coming from inside buildings & NOT the “Collapse” of the buildings themselves.

    “COLLAPSE” is the fraud-word which the Rothschild-captive USG & the spy-media spread like wildfire as the main brainwash tool to create the illusion of collapses.

    Folks please make this correction in the future. thanks . -LC

    • Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm

      LC, of course! I would have thought that was already abundantly clear. But I appreciate your stating the point so concisely.

  22. Don Fox  May 5, 2013 at 9:25 am

    I also claim that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. If I take photos of the sun rise and sun set are going to proclaim those fake as well?

  23. Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 9:05 am

    This is just silly. You cite an article because you don’t know what you are talking about. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic. Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it. So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us.

  24. Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 7:48 am

    OBF, I have already viewed that video and commented on in before. I don’t find it persuasive. And I find it difficult to believe that the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers were faked. We had multiple witnesses to the limo stop in Dallas, which was one of the principal reasons for questioning the authenticity of the Zapruder film. We eventually found that it was also inconsistent with the blow-out at the back of the head, which had been patched over in the X-rays and blacked out in the film. And there was much more.

    Do you have witnesses who report that the footage of WTC-7 is not what they witnessed at the time? Do you have still photos of any of their demolition sequences that is inconsistent with the extant footage? What is the basis for your belief that either the videos of WTC-7 or of the Twin Towers might have been faked? You keep wanting to shift the burden of proof. Unless there is some good reason to believe that you are onto something, I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously. What proof of fakery can you advance?

  25. Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 6:43 am

    There is a “bottoming out” to any research project, which is necessarily based upon some set of evidence (physical, photographic, medical, . . . ). The authenticity of the evidence is always open to challenge, when there is a good reason to challenge it. What I find frustrating about your approach is that you are so indirect and elusive. If you have something, then just come out and say it!

    You are getting closer to doing that, but it is like pulling teeth. Why you think you have to be so coy is beyond me. Life is too short to fart around the way you have done here. I still don’t see any links to what you think is the authentic video record rather than what was widely broadcast. But how could you possibly doubt that we are all open to the POSSIBILITY that some of the evidence is faked?

    I have done a huge amount of work on the fabrication of the Zapruder film. I have also spent a lot of time on the faking of all four of the crash sites. So for you to come on as though you were some kind of saint and the rest of us sinners is ridiculous beyond belief. I ask you again: if you have reason to believe all the videos we have of the destruction of the Twin Towers are fake, kindly produce it!

  26. Justin Kennedy  May 4, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    I believe the collapse of WTC 7 “looks different” because it’s a steel-reinforced concrete building, unlike WTC 1 & 2, and 7 had a unusual design, with a 40-storey tower perched on top of a 7-storey sub-structure. The bottom floors gave way concurrent to the top floors because the sub-structure was blown out in advance (at about 10:00 a.m.). They could have also used fewer or smaller yield bombs in WTC 7, which did not cause external explosions like WTC 1 & 2…or perhaps they used “shaped-charged” underground neutron devices (which could have their explosive force directed upwards, causing only moderate damage on the bathtub, as occurred on 9/11?

    If as stated, underground neutron bombs caused the molten cavities under WTC 1 & 2, what caused the intense hotspot under WTC 7 which burned molten hot for weeks after 9/11, if it was a “conventional” demolition? And what about the similar seismic signatures (indicating underground nuclear or neutron explosions) which preceded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7?

    WTC 7 collapsed at near free-fall speed (similar to WTC 1 & 2), much faster than the probable 30-second collapse using conventional explosives ( it was projected that it would take 60 seconds for WTC 1 & 2 to pancake collapse floor-by-floor). A conventional demolition had never been attempted on a steel-reinforced concrete building the size of WTC 7.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      What shall I say that I haven’t already said? They didn’t just “LOOK different”, they WERE different! I guess if we can’t believe our lying eyes, we can deny that the Twin Towers were blown apart in every direction from the top down, while WTC-7 was not blown apart in every direction but came down under the control of gravity. Do you seriously contend that they are not different in this respect?

      All the floors of the Twin Towers are remaining stationary until their turn to be blown to Kingdom Come. But all the floors of WTC-7 were falling at the same time. When it was over, there was no stack of pancakes at the Twin Towers, but there was a stack of pancake at WTC-7 equal to 12% of the original height of the building. Do you likewise contend that they are no different in these respects, too?

      I don’t believe we have maintained that neutron bombs were used in the subbasements of the buildings. They appear to have been very powerful, but may have been of a different kind. And no doubt a lot was going on in preping WTC-7 for its demolition, which appears to have been a classic controlled demolition–albeit one that may have had a few of its own distinctive kinks! That much sounds right.

      You are mistaken about the time calculations. I published Judy Wood’s study of Galileo’s law of free fall in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), where she explained that, had a bowling ball been released from the top of the North Tower, it would have hit the ground in 9.2 sec and that a floor-by-floor, simultaneous sequence would have taken 96 sec, not 60. Sorry, but I don’t think you’ve made your case.

    • Justin Kennedy  May 5, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      Thanks for responding, Jim. There is still the question of what caused the molten hotspots under WTC 1,2, 7 & 6, if not underground nuclear explosions, then what?

      According to Don Fox in a comment in this thread:

      Don Fox: “The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.) We’ll have an article out on Building 7 in the next few months but suffice it to say we have strong evidence for nukes in the basement of Building 7.”

      According to the main story above:

      “Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F or even higher for 6 months after 9/11. Firemen were fighting fires at Ground Zero for 99 days after 9/11. AVRIS data showed that temperature in one spot was 1,341 °F on 9/16/01. These high temperatures could be attributed to neutron bombs that were detonated underground in order to destroy the foundations of the Twin Towers”

      So the hotspots could be attributed to underground neutron bombs…with WTC 7 also having an underground hotspot…is why I questioned it’s conventional demolition.

      I look forward to the upcoming article on Building 7 in VT!

    • Jim Fetzer  May 6, 2013 at 6:13 am

      We are not denying the occurrence of massive explosions in the subbasements of the Twin Towers, which Willie Rodriguez witnessed. Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, have shown that they occurred 14 and 17 seconds before any “plane impacts”.

      Moreover, we know from Barry Jennings, who was in WTC-7 and witnessed them himself, that extensive demolitions were taking place that morning, which at some point must have included massive explosions in its subbasements, which I infer were the source of that enduring “hot spot”, too.

    • Don Fox  May 7, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      Sorry for the misunderstanding. This is Steve Jones quote: “The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)” and I’m merely responding to it. Read Steve’s paper then my post will make more sense: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

  27. LC  May 4, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Response to Dr. Fetzer’s comment of 1:16 p.m. today:

    My short answer was in a comment previous to this one.
    That comment which has been blocked so far Briefly said:
    Presuming that nukes & other fancy WMD were used on 9/11/01 there is nothing we can do about it. zilch.

    Also, I extensively discussed my points in your recent 9/11 pages like the ones on 9/11 illusions & special effects and the one previous one about nukes.

    Despite not having professional backgrounds directly related to 9/11 WMDs you folks have proven over & over that nukes were utilized on 9/11/01. One type or another or a mixture of types you folks proved that already long ago. As Jesse Ventura said in his 9/11 related video (which was linked here on VT) the only people who know exactly what types of WMD were used are the USG who planted & pulled them.

    Regarding 9/11 all the involved people made tons of money & potential whistleblowers have been having their assess blown away just before blowing their whistles.

    THE LAW:

    When you are conducting a civil or criminal case in a court once you prove a fact to a judge or a jury then before jury goes into deliberation (to make a decision of liability or guilt) the judge orders the jury to presume that fact as a true occurrence. No one can tell the jury to ignore that fact for any reason.

    I find some odd attacks from you against Dimitri Khalezov’s hypothesis. If Khalezov goes before an American Grand Jury he will testify that Americans showed him in the USSR the plans for the nuclear demolition installations. With Khalezov’s background a U.S. federal court will accept his testimony as a qualified expert witness. But more than that in this particular case the court will accept his testimony as an actual witness which will have even more weight that his expert witness testimony.

    In comparison : The same court will not accept the testimonies of any of you esteemed authors as expert witness reports and you will never get your word into that court no matter how much you have worked on it & no matter how correct you may be. Dr. Ed Ward knows exactly what I am talking about since his testimony as a medical expert will probably be allowed but the other authors’ testimonies won’t be.
    So you esteemed gentlemen can’t refute Khalezov’s basic premise with hypothecations & judgmental accusations & self-proclaimed conclusions because nobody but the operators know what WMDs were utilized that day.

    The problem with the U.S. legal system is that its corrupted inside out: all roads to justice are closed off by the insider culprits. So even civil cases have been quickly dumped. Didn’t Judy wood have one which got dumped?

    Re: Judy Wood: as I documented in your other pages Judy wood had (may be) deliberately omitted an N before DEW: what should have read Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW).

    Why? I think the nuclear physics professionals (like Judy Wood) who know about the 9/11 nukes & have been identified & threatened for their lives by the captive USG mercenaries which is why you don’t find a single nuclear physicists or any physicist pitching in any assistance to you folks or to the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 which is why they always use the key brain-wash word “COLLAPSE” when they talk about WTCs which totally pulverized into atomic dust & got blown away so nothing was left to collapse.

    Judy Wood told Jesse Ventura that her assistant was murdered. Isn’t that enough to tell her she is next if she didn’t shut up??

    I hope I managed to explain my concerns somewhat.

    Thanks folks –LC

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm

      No comments have been “blocked” of which I am aware. Judy Wood, unlike Steve Jones, is not a nuclear physicist. Judy is a mechanical engineer. When her student was killed in Minneapolis/St. Paul, I contacted the detective who was investigating it. He told me there was no apparent relationship between his death and his research for Judy Wood. I have never believed there was, but I think the idea has appealed to Judy and she has maintained that to have been the case. His death was odd–during a mugging–but I do not believe it was related to 9/11 research. I would welcome new evidence that sheds light on this unfortunate event.

      I have repeatedly demonstrated that Dimitri’s theory is indefensible. I have explained already that, if he were right, then (1) all three buildings would have been destroyed the same way, when they were not; (2) the destruction sequence would have been from the bottom up, when it was actually (for the Twin Towers) from the top down; and (3) the bathtub would have been obliterated and Hudson River water have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, which did not happen. You can believe whatever you want, but given these considerations, if you believe in Dimitri’s theory, you are not being rational. But that is obviously your choice.

  28. Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    This is testing my patience. Are you going to challenge very photograph every taken by anyone because you want to be “certain” that it is authentic? I am not being coy, but you are being absurd. We need to have good reasons to question images, photos and films, not for the sake of some abstract desideratum of “certainty” but because otherwise THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO CHALLENGE THEM. I am finding your posts to be increasingly irrelevant. I have long since asked you to produce some evidence if you think some photos or films of 9/11 are fake. I have gone to the link provided by Simon Shack, which faults three good men–Jack White, Dave Von Kleist, and Christopher Bollyn–for an error in the time at which the dust cloud arose from WTC-8. That was ridiculous. If you can’t do better than that, enough of you!

    Not to make the obvious point, but I was the first student of JFK to organize a symposium on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which occurred in Dallas in 1996. I published many articles on this subject in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I have done extensive work on the backyard photographs, including an article co-authred with Jim Marrs, “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”, and many more recent articles on the alteration of the Altgens6. I can’t believe you are making some of these remarks about me in relation to JFK when you appear to have no knowledge or understanding of the history of this research. Just who do you think spearheaded research on the Zapruder and now the Altgens6?

    I have also looked at the footage about WTC-7. So far as I can tell, the alleged anomalies could have arise from different procession of different films with different properties. But suppose you were right: the videos of WTC-7 were fabricated. WHY WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE PERPS? I know why the Zapruder film was faked: they had to remove the limo stop, because it was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit. The also wanted to conceal a blow out to the back of his head, which had obviously resulted from a shot from the right/front, when they wanted to maintain that all the shots were fired from the rear. But what in the world was the benefit from faking the collapse of WTC-7 and leaving us with a mass of footage of a classic controlled demolition?

    • simonshack  May 4, 2013 at 7:01 pm


      No one is testing your patience – only your intellect. I’m sure your intellect will be able to process these following issues, Jim: since your contention is that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds – would you not expect to see it collapse in 11 seconds on the TV broadcasts? Now, please know that only CNN showed the full collapse (from top to toe) of what appears to be, on our video screens, the WTC1 building in Manhattan. Well, here’s the problem: this collapse shown on LIVE TV on 9/11 lasts for NO LESS than 18 seconds:

      You can verify the official source of this on the 9/11 TV archives – at about 16:30 of this official CNN clip: http://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053

      Moreover, in 2010, NIST released a whole bunch of higher-resolution imagery, reportedly due to a FOIA request filed by ABC News (no kidding!). Well, here’s a clip from that NIST material featuring a very similar view of the WTC1 collapse – supposedly aired by local TV station WB11:


      Watch it, JIm – and let me know if you can see that tower collapse in 11 seconds. Ok?

      Lastly, and if your patience is still in good order, please do take the time to upload this admittedly quite ‘heavy’ page of my website, in which I illustrate the various problems with the collapse imagery:

      Thanks for your kind attention

      Simon Shack

  29. Terry McKibbin  May 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Hey Jim,

    I have used your work on the JFK and the Tillman assassinations to attempt to educate many people on the topics. I joined the 9/11 truth movement only about 2.5 years ago when I finally figured out for myself that the destructions were demolitions, thanks to the work of many honest and brave individuals, including many at VT. I have placed you, Jim Fetzer, among my top “go-to” folks alongside Alan Sabrosky, Gilad Atzmon, William Cook, Christopher Bollyn and others. Though I have trusted this site for the most part, there are some strange goings-on that limit my ability to recommend it without qualification.

    For example, Gordon Duff is all over the map. Sometimes I see lucid and highly informed, insightful revelations and explanations. Then, off into alien land where it appears he has either lost it or is under severe coercion to discredit himself. Shrimpton and Mattson are surely paid shills. My critiques of this article are borne of my concern that you are being led into an ill-informed/educated cadre of disinformation or well-meaning, but not so credible researchers. Is someone trying to use your credibility for nefarious purposes? I have to ask these questions when I see, what are for me, obvious mistakes in the science of “known” nuclear phenomena.

    My assertion that we need qualified professionals without a political agenda was not a reference to you, or necessarily to the other writers, but directed at the qualified professionals that have already shown their political agenda in the NIST study. However, I strongly assert that the writers of this article are not qualified professionals in the field of nuclear sciences, period. Whether they have a devious political agenda, one in which they are attempting to use your honor and respect from the “truther” community, I do not know. Chris Bollyn may think so.

    Despite what you think of Steven Jones, I am in support of the letter that is a cited in a footnote to this article. It directly challenges the assertion of “known” nuclear technology evidence, some of which I asserted as well. If there was “unkown” technology utilized, then someone must enlighten us on how this technology relates to the fundamentals of the science. That has not been done. Steven Jones has issued the challenge to respond to his letter and to address each of the objections to nukes, mini or otherwise. If these authors can do that, it would be well worth their time for convincing the larger scientific community.

    One possible “political purpose” for this divisive argument could be to “divide and conquer” and/or to occupy time and space and/or to discredit major professionals, such as you. The most important issue is not whether nuclear or non-nuclear explosives were used. We do not have to answer that question in order to move forward with indictments and well-orchestrated investigations. We are not in this to just win arguments that are of unnecessary overall concern at this time. The title of this article reminds me of the Gerald Posner book title regarding the JFK assassination – Case Closed. It wasn’t by his work and it’s not in this work either.

    I am among the many that have put careers and opportunities at risk, particularly as I am a government contractor. I am a signatory on the scientistsfor911truth site and a petitioner on the ae911truth site. I have shown publicly and distribute regularly the film “Explosive Evidence …”. I have left behind many friends and family members who are afraid to see these truths. I have sent a massive number of emails to persons of influence and every walk of life in our society. Let me know how I can be of further help.

    Part of the commitment to truth is to withstand the forces on both sides. We cannot allow the truth to be hijacked by those who would discredit the professionals whom have risked so much, just as you resist the DEW explanation without further evidence. It is better to remain in the “open for discussion” camp than to commit to a claim of great emotional magnitude that does not have the same magnitude of scientific evidence to support it.

    There is frustration in the ranks of committed people because we don’t know how to move forward beyond where we are with the explanations. We have enough evidence and more will surely come with all of the work being done. However, in the analytical sciences, as you well know, false-positives are a sure means to losing credibility. There is no need to go there. The data simply do not fit a known nuclear event of the magnitude required.

    Have you explored the massive ordinance air-blast (MOAB) technology? I haven’t heard it mentioned, but thought it could be worth a look for those who know more about non-nuclear explosives than I do.

    • Don Fox  May 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm


      Jeff Pager has contacted Steve Jones MANY times about the USGS dust samples and Steve never responded. Ed Ward has contacted him MANY times about his tritium lies and again no response. Let’s go over the main points in Jones’ paper:

      1. Tritium in Building 6 – Jones just says that “these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…” (See Ed Ward’s full breakdown in the article.) HOW did all of the tritium get in the basement of Six World Trade if not for a thermonuclear detonation? Don’t give us the EXIT sign BS either! Here is what happened to the building: a 170 meter plume of smoke rises from Building 6, the building is blackened and bombed out as is clearly indicated in the photos above, “temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in it’s path” and a massive crater is observed in the center of the building. Explain how these things happen absent a thermonuclear detonation. http://www.tranquilitylane.com/images/WTC6_lava_nuke_evidence.jpg

      2. Radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers. Iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days. Unless measurements were taken within a week of 9/11 this is a meaningless point.

      3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis. As Jones says himself this doesn’t rule out mini-nukes. As Sam Cohen states that neutron bombs have little residual radiation. Another mute point.

      4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust. This is a LIE. The USGS dust samples show uranium levels well in excess of background as Prager points out in the article.

      5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis. Again neutron bombs don’t have a lot of fallout. The toasted cars in the vicinity of the WTC show distinct signs of neutron activation and that refutes this point completely.

      6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. Rodriguez also reported seeing people with “hanging skin” which is a telltale sign of nuclear bomb detonations. Jones fails again.

      7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers. The buildings were vaporized. There were no desks, chairs, computers or toilets found in the rubble either. Can nanothermite explain this. No. Nukes explain this perfectly. Only temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun which are present in a thermonuclear explosion explain the vaporized contents of the Twin Towers.

      8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.) We’ll have an article out on Building 7 in the next few months but suffice it to say we have strong evidence for nukes in the basement of Building 7.

      Steve Jones is welcome to post here and explain the tritium in the basement of Building 6 and the contents of the USGS dust samples.

      The only agenda here Terry is TRUTH. We’re sick and tired of the half truths and flat out lies of Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood and the rest of the government gatekeepers. If you’re worried about your career and sucking up to the government then shut up and go home. Get out of public 9/11 research. Your pissing and moaning and whining are tiresome. You guys with credentials and degrees have accomplished NOTHING in 11+ years since 9/11. Get out of the way and let those of us with the balls to tell it like it is take the lead.

    • Terry McKibbin  May 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm

      And what have you accomplished? I have a wonderful film from Richard Gage and an excellent scientific paper from Steven Jones to share with legitimate scientists.

      From you, garbage that will not be winning any awards for research validity unless it’s in the same category of authenticity as the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama!!

      Flop around in your data cesspool all you want. Knock yourself out. Just don’t anticipate garnering any support from scientists in the field in which you are flopping around!

    • Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      This is unreal. We have an irresponsible film about “explosive nanothermite” and a study of nanothermite chips in the dust. But we have exposed the myth long ago and the chips are a puzzle, not a solution. I can’t understand what has set you off on this lunatic rant. The “scientific community” has led us down a blind alley. Many of them even support the “official account” that the Twin Towers collapsed and it was done by fires that burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. One of us has lost his credibility, but that would not be me, Don, Ed or Jeff. I am just dumbfounded!

      How dumb are we supposed to be? It is a law of materials science that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s, in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has ever been attributed to nanothermite is 895 m/s. What is wrong with you that you would berate us for not endorsing a theory of the destruction of the WTC that cannot possibly be correct? Why are you even posting when you can’t understand a refutation that is as simple as this? Have you completely lost your mind?

    • Don Fox  May 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      We have written an article that 23,143 people have read in the last 4 days that actually explains to the public what happened to two giant 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers on 9/11. We have given more people the truth this week than you have the whole time you’ve been at it. That’s what we have done.

      You’ve been spinning your wheels “because we don’t know how to move forward beyond where we are with the explanations..” It’s not because the evidence for nukes isn’t there or you don’t understand it. It’s because either you’re a gatekeeper like your heroes Jones and Gage or you’re gutless weasel afraid to tell the public the truth that their government nuked innocent people on 9/11 to justify wars of aggression.

      If you reply to this please respond to the points we have made about Jones’ letter. First and foremost explain how all that tritiated water got in the basement of building 6. Tritiated water is a telltale sign of a thermonuclear detonation Terry: “The tritium that is produced by a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted to tritiated water (HTO), which then mixes with environmental water”
      http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/Investigation_of_Environmental_Fate_of_Tritium_in_the_Atmosphere_INFO-0792_e.pdf (p.8)

      The reason we becamse involved in public 9/11 research is because all those scientists who should have cried foul over nukes didn’t utter a peep. They’re all either all paid off or intimidated. Either way the scientific community has been complete failure. Just like the media and legal system.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      None of what you write impinges upon the three main arguments for the use of mini or micro nukes:

      (1) the ejection of a 300-ton steel assembly over 600′, which nanothermite or DEWs could not do;

      (2) the contents of the USGS dust samples, which neither nanothermite nor DEWs can explain; and,

      (3) the hauling of 1,000s of tons of dirt onto the site, which mimics what happened at Chernobyl.

      Until you can cope with these points, you don’t have a case (closed or not). Give it another try.

    • Terry McKibbin  May 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm


      With all due respect, I have not argued that the nanothermite was responsible for all destruction. Even if Steven Jones has in previous arguments, that is not the message of the cited letter. I simply do not know what else could have. But, I do know it was not conventional fission or fusion bombs.

      I understand your assertions above. However, they simply beg the question of what, then, did cause the massive explosive force. Whatever it was, the data must tell the story. These data and conclusions from these “self-taught” researchers are not scientifically sound.

      Has anyone looked into MOAB?

    • Jim Fetzer  May 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm

      You are not showing any respect. It has been independent scholars like ourselves who have exposed the charade of the “official account” of 9/11. You have not shown anything we have argued to be “scientifically unsound”, which is incredible coming from someone who endorses a theory that cannot possibly be true. You have a lot of nerve. And of course we are not claiming that “conventional fission or fusion bombs” were responsible. We are proposing an explanation that can account for (1) the explosive ejection of a 300-ton steel assembly 600′ (which neither nanothermite nor DEWs can explain), (2) the contents of the USGS dust samples (which again cannot be accounted for by invoking nanothermite or DEWs), and (3) the importation of hundreds of thousands of tons of dirt (which parallels measures taken after the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl). If you have a better explanation, lay it out; but to suggest we should defer to nameless scientists who have done nothing to clarify the case and everything to obfuscate it is not merely incredibly ignorant but insulting in the extreme.

  30. LC  May 4, 2013 at 11:43 am

    Is any one of the authors of this article a physicist or a mechanical engineer or any kind of engineer or a mathematician or a demolition guy of a legal scholar (including lawyers)? -lc

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 1:16 pm

      This sounds like a question from the Judy Wood cult. We include a Ph.D. and an M.D. and others who have done their homework. There are plenty of physicists and mechanical engineers who work for NIST who have lied their heads off about this, including claiming that the Twin Towers “collapsed”. Do you think we pulled those dust samples out of our arse? This is a pitiful comment on a major contribution. If we have something wrong, then show what we have said, why we have said it, and then explain why we are wrong and how you know.

  31. Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 9:54 am

    This is ridiculous beyond words. There is a presumption that a photo or film is authentic unless that presumption is challeged–not by words, but by evidence! If you have evidence, then produced it. And this has nothing to do with “certainty”. No empirical knowledge is certain, but that does not mean that we cannot possess it.

    In the case of the Zapruder film, we discovered it was inconsistent with more than 60 witness reports, the medical evidence (including the X-rays, once their alteration had been exposed), the motoring forward of Officer James Chaney and the actions of Clint Hill, not to mention those who have seen “the other film”. Where is your proof?

    • Don Fox  May 4, 2013 at 10:44 am

      I designed this article to obliterate Steve Jones and Judy Wood. That seems to have worked as there is hardly a peep from either one of those camps. Where is the Cosmic Penguin Mark Bilk? Andrew Johnson has left ONE comment on my blog?!?! C’mon guys expected you to put up more of a fight than this!

      The new tactic appears to be “it’s all fake so we can never know what happened” touted by OBF and Simon Shack. I’m open to challenges to the evidence. If they can present legitimate challenges to the Biggert photos and the USGS and DOE reports I’m all ears. Otherwise it appears that the September Clues guys are completely clueless.

    • simonshack  May 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm


      Just one question for you: which one of these two images looks more photo-realistic?


      If you are to call “the September Clues guys completely clueless”, I think you should set aside some time to look into our research – which certainly includes analyses of the images credited to this “Bill Biggart” and many, many more. For you to demean our longstanding and continuing research with such a sweeping statement does not say much about your scientific and intellectual honesty.

    • Don Fox  May 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm


      If you have proof Biggert’s photos are fake please post the link and I’ll take a look at it. I’m no photo expert and haven’t claimed to be. I know North Tower debris hit the Winter Garden because they had to totally rebuild the Winter Garden after 9/11. Are all of the Winter Garden photos fake? The Bankers Trust Building was heavily damaged by debris from the South Tower demo. There are plenty of news articles stating that building was torn down as well. Are all of those photos fake? The photos I’ve seen of that building do not contradict the news reports from 9/11.

      I just want to get this straight: are you guys claiming ALL of the evidence from 9/11 including USGS and DOE reports has been faked?

      It would seem to me that evaluating dust sample evidence for nuclear fission products is a bit out of your league.

  32. LC  May 4, 2013 at 9:10 am

    On target Chuck Feney & Great poem.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 10:11 am

      Great–except, of course, that he is wrong!

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      I have already made that point, namely: that new evidence or new alternatives may require rejecting conclusions previously accepted, accepting conclusions previously rejected, and leaving others in suspense. We are basing our reasoning on the available relevant evidence, which is all anyone can ever do.

    • tesla182  May 13, 2013 at 3:56 am

      Howard T.Lewis III nice try going by (chuck feney) your posts make no sense as always, you have no evidence to support your crazy claims, before you go on accusing the Rockefeller Family or any other group for 911. I would suggest that you keep you garbage to yourself and, not name drop! I happen to be friends with one of the Family members, if you want? I can arrange a meeting, then you can tell them face to face what you be writing on this site?

  33. Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Well, you are half-right. WTC-7 was indeed destroyed by a classic controlled demolition. Since I have explained — multiple times — why Dimitri cannot be correct, I really don’t understand why you are insisting that he was right, after all. Please go though my comments about this and rebut the arguments I have made, because otherwise this post comes across as simply having missed the boat. Just check out the points that I’ve presented and address them.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      I have explained already that, if he were right, then (1) all three buildings would have been destroyed the same way, when they were not; (2) the destruction sequence would have bee from the bottom up, when it was actually (for the Twin Towers) from the top down; and (3) the bathtub would have been obliterated and Hudson River water have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, which did not happen. You can believe whatever you want, but given these considerations, if you believe in Dimitri’s theory, you are not being rational. But that is your choice.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 6:36 pm

      Believe what you want. Dimitri’s theory is indefensible. You, however, are welcome to embrace it.

  34. Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 8:42 am

    Come on, OBF. The time calculations are relatively conspicuous, while the claim that the buildings “collapsed” is easily impeached. I believe you have something to contribute to the discussion, but trivial contentions like this one are not what I expect from you. I have explained that, at the rate of blowing one 10-floor cube at a time per second, the 110 story North Tower would have been demolished in 11 seconds, but the South Tower — where the top 30 floors tilted over and were blown as one — would only have taken 9. I guess you are on the “faking of the footage of the destruction of the towers” trip. Well, if you have proof that the footage of the destruction of the towers was faked, kindly present it. No more being coy!

  35. LC  May 4, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Dear authors:

    Have you ever talked to William Tahill who has detailed how nuclear reactors were used in WTCs??:

    Incontrovertible Proof that the WTC was destroyed by Underground Nuclear Explosions


  36. LC  May 4, 2013 at 7:48 am


    Hollywood revealed 9/11 plans 5 years in advance: “we can’t fake killing 4000 people so we’re just goanna have to do it”:

    World Trade Center Attack Confirmation in 1996


    John Lear (Learjet maker) talks about the WTC ghost planes:

    2013 WTC Drone/Military Plane Attack Proof (MUST SEE) New Witnesses


    all “We the Asleeple”‘ need to do is to do away with are addiction with ball games & we’ll wake up!!!

  37. Terry McKibbin  May 4, 2013 at 7:29 am

    Hi Jim,

    I submitted a long reply to your May 3, 7:31 am response. My reply must have been disallowed by someone at VT or monitoring VT. I had glowing things to say about my general respect for you, but said many other “sensitive?” things that apparently someone did not like.

    Please reread Steven Jones letter cited as a footnote to this article.

    I would be pleased to correspond directly to you with some evidence that it is the authentic Jim Fetzer for whom I have great respect.

    • Jim Fetzer  May 4, 2013 at 8:26 am

      Terry, Are you sure that a submission of yours was “disallowed”? I have gone back through the archives and cannot find anything that would satisfy that description that was not published. I replied to your five points in an earlier response (dated May 3, 2012, below), but you are talking about a reply to that response. Please resubmit it, if you can. I assure you that I am the real “Jim Fetzer” — warts and all! — but I believe that whatever you want to add is important enough that we ought to it share here. So by all means let us continue this exchange. Thanks.

  38. johnanderson  May 3, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    Dr Fetzer, good work and this is all true, but what to do?

    Ignorance and apathy is the damnation of this country, and the main reason we find ourselves where we are.

    By the time enough people study the facts and accept the horrific truth, the principle perpetrators will be dead.

    I wish that this was not so, but after years of seeing the official government fairytale/lie, be proven not only inaccurate, but reveals that only a powerful element within our government, could be responsible.

    How do we overcome this element?

  39. DaveE  May 3, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Jim, I really appreciate all you’ve done and are doing. I don’t always weigh the evidence the same as you, but the amount of time and energy you expend presenting the evidence is amazing. Not even including all the time you spend fighting off some fairly obvious hecklers. I don’t know how you do it.

    My question is, what do we know about mini-nukes and micro nukes? We have been living in an information blackout on nuclear technology since the ’50s, for obvious reasons, this is highly classified stuff. I imagine Ed Teller and his ilk didn’t just sit on their laurels all those years doing nothing……. although I’m sure they didn’t tell their wives much, either!

    Is there a source you are aware of that describes the operation / physics of small nuclear devices? Do we have any idea of the frequency / energy spectral distribution of these things? If we do, it might explain a LOT in terms of the erratic and unpredictable fires, the burnt cars, unburnt paper and possibly why nanothermite may have been used in conjunction with nukes, to destroy stuff the nukes would not or give the appearance of a jet fuel inferno, among other possible reasons.

    Anyway, thanks again for the great work.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login