Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, 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 US 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).

View Latest Posts >>>

20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong

DISCLOSURE: The views expressed herein are views of the author exclusively and not the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. The views belong exclusively to author Jim Fetzer.

20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong


by Jim Fetzer


As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members, building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, have established more than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the 
government’s account–in one or another of its guises–cannot possibly be correct.

1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

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

YouTube - Veterans Today -

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

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

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

6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the 
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, ”Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these 
explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab construction” and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no “pancakes”.

12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot have been any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

14. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

15. The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on ”The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.

16. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory “flying at high speed barely above ground level” physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible, as Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer, explained to me.

17. Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if this data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

18. If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.

19. There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked.

20. President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” to tie Osama to 9/11. If Saddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible for the death of 3,000 citizens that day?

We believe that it is the highest form of respect to those who died on 9/11 and their survivors to establish how and why they died, which our own government manifestly has not done. With the American media under the thumb of a corrupt administration, we cannot count on the press to perform its investigative function. But we can do our best to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.

James H. Fetzer, Founder

Scholars for 9/11 Truth




Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 1, 2015, With 9087 Reads Filed under 9/11, Of Interest, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

0 Responses to "20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong"

  1. Joshua  October 4, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Thats very helpful, Dr. Fetzer. This is the kind of material that the Loose Change guys would have done well to have a hold of when dealing with those tendentious PM editors!

    I appreciate your time to respond to me. You’re one of my heroes in the 911 Truth movement and you’re also a tremendous example to those (like me) who are learning/aspiring to present arguments cogently and concisely. As a student of critical thinking and scientific reasoning, I appreciate how you’ve not only done the formidable academic work, but you’ve gotten your feet (very) wet in practical debate with real world adversaries. That’s rare for most scholars. Blessings, my friend.

  2. Joshua  October 4, 2011 at 11:46 am

    It “appears” that Ryan was right about UL certifiying the steel? UL themselves deny it. This point of arose in the video debates between Loose Change and Popular Mechanics (which are on YouTube), and once PM countered that “UL doesn’t not and did not certify structural steel,” the Loose Change guy said, “Okay” as if to say, “Sure, whatever.” I agree that there is no way those buildings came down by fire, but I wouldn’t want to get caught like the Loose Change guys did without substantiation for the point.

    I think a powerful point is the near free fall speed at which the mammoth towers fell (or crumbled). Even if the colums were made of rubber for crying out loud, the floors themselves were still concrete and thus “pancaking” would have taken well over a minute!

    Thanks for the response.

    • Jim Fetzer  October 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm

      Well, it appears that UL has been playing games, that the CEO had publicly announced that UL had tested the steel used in the Twin Towers, where he made that statement “just a few weeks after 9/11” and the equivocations since appear to have been because the question was a “hot potato”. Notice, in particular, that no building codes have been revised, which would have been essential to public safety if events like this–the complete, total and abrupt destruction of a massive, 500,000-ton building–could be brought about by modest fires, which even NIST confirmed–based upon its own testing of 236 samples from the Twin Towers, where 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. Here is a discussion about all of this from Kevin Ryan (28 March 2006):

      from http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html:

      “In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”15

      “At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company’s South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.”

      As I use the term “appears”, it means that the weight of the evidence supports it but that it has sometimes been disputed, as you are reporting. The evidence, on balance, provides strong confirmation for conclusion that UL tested the steel, even though it has disputed it by playing word games, which Kevin Ryan likes to saying a crash company had tested the whole car but not the doors specifically. I think there is not really a lot of room for doubt. If you can think of a better term, I would be glad to consider it. The word “probably” also fits or “makes more likely than not”. Either way, it appears to be the case that UL did indeed test the steel used in the Twin Towers but currently refuses to admit it.

  3. Joshua  October 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Dr. Fetzer,

    The certification of the steel by UL is a powerful piece of evidence if true. I’ve read that UL claimed that it does *not* certify structural steel, and the Ryan’s claims are false with no evidence. Unless we can confirm whether UL tested the steel, shouldn’t we pull back on this argument?

    • Jim Fetzer  October 3, 2011 at 1:52 pm

      No, on this point, Kevin Ryan appears to have been right–and courageous for speaking out about it. No matter how much I may fault him on other grounds, on this count, he appears to have been peerless. Moreover, there was an intense fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower in 1975, which burned for three or four hours at 2,000*F, which can be viewed as an experiment that tested the UL certification. It passed and none of the steel had to be replaced.

      It was after this event that the decision was made to install sprinkler systems in the buildings, which were deliberately compromised on 9/11 by the explosions in the subbasements the drained the water from them; otherwise, the modest fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. See “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who did exceptional research on this.

  4. Ken Rechtstein  September 13, 2011 at 3:12 am

    The Govt-NIST-FEMA-Congress-Senate want us to believe that the Boeing 757 that they say hit the Pentagon, was a “Catamaran sailing at 500 mph on its leeward hydrofoil, without contact with the lawn”.

    Even so, it changed shape, prior to contact, converted itself in a torpedo shaped weapon-concrete buster on impact and left a single-unique gaping hole: Gone the twin hulls, gone the mast. gone the rudders, the crew, the passengers and all the gear. EVAPORATED-abducted by a very secret defensive weapon, only the Govt-NIST-FEMA-Congress-Senate and their employer the Zion Talmudic Mafia know about, but because of National security concern, they are not free to reveal…

    It defies and mystifies the laws of physics, plain reason and common sense, and, we the people are supposed to accept it as told it happened, can’t investigate it, can’t doubt it. It’s like the case of the “Holocaust”: Who ever question it or demand that it being investigated using modern forensics methodology and means, is bound to be jailed for “heresy”…

  5. Rob  September 12, 2011 at 5:26 am

    Gentlemen, I would be very interested in your take on this evidence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA = Testing & Fabrication

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49624448/Jeff-Prager-Nuclear-911-2011-Detailed-Exposure-of-the-Thermonuclear-Demolition = Theory/Hypothesis

    http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report0.pdf = Evidence/Proof

  6. Dick Fojut  September 11, 2011 at 3:57 am

    Jim didn’t have space, but I’d like to add WHITE’S 911 PHOTOSTUDIES (especally about the Pentagon). Have listed below the URLS to open. White presents the photos taken by a local fire department that saw the explosion and got to the Pentagon first. Their photos show NO aircraft debris, the Pentagon lawn is immaculate except for their two fire trucks’ tire tracks. And NO people! (Rumsfeld and rescue crews, later fire trucks, had yet shown up. Just the local firemen.)

    The firemen PUT OUT the two fires in the small hole in the Pentagon wall and a nearby truck in 7 minutes, then left the scene. Their testimony was ignored and photos refused by our government! Thanks God for Jaclk White who put them online!

    Pentagon Photostudy begins here…
    World Trade Center Photostudy begins at 109…
    Additional Jack White Photostudies….
    Apollo Investigation

    Jack White’s 911 Photo Studies is a work in progress. Initially it concentrates on the events of Flight 77 at the Pentagon. As White continues his studies, other analyses are being added, including the WTC and material and the other alleged hijackings.
    © 2005 Jack White

    • Jim Fetzer  September 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      Excellent, Dick! Thank you for adding this. I have admired Jack White as long as I have known him and my third collection of expert studies on the death of JFK, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), is dedicated to him “for showing the way”!

  7. Gordon Duff  September 10, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Nila’s height estimate was 84 feet, well above the roof of the Pentagon. Further tests showed only a heavily reinforced plane much stronger than a standard B52 could do 300 mph, not 560 mph at an altitude of 300 feet, not 84 feet much less 60 feet or the 15 feet underground, as specified by the NIST.
    I think we have discovered the first underground supersonic submarine.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 16, 2011 at 9:55 am

      That’s really astonishing, isn’t it? This means that every aeronautical engineer in the country–and most of our pilots!–know that the Pentagon story is a fairy tale! Why aren’t more of them speaking out? Rob and Pilots are doing a great job–but the rest are disgracing themselves and our nation!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network