By Kevin Barrett, with Vince Giesbrecht, republished from the VT Archives Sept. 1, 2014
9/11 investigative journalists Gordon Duff and James Fetzer say “yes.” The political implications of proving this thesis would be hard to overestimate. It would mean America has not only been fighting the wrong enemy but has actually been laying waste to the enemies of the real enemy. If these guys are right, we have been fighting against our own best allies – the very people who would help us strike back at the folks who nuked us Or nanothermited us or whatever they did to pulverize three skyscrapers and murder almost 3,000 Americans in a single morning.
“Israel did it” and “how they did it.”
Regarding issue #1: Israel and its US agents have been fingered as the main 9/11 perps by reliable researchers including Christopher Bollyn, Alan Sabrosky, and Laurent Guyénot. (The cui bono issue by itself frames the Zionists as leading suspects – a suspicion I entertained, based on my Middle East Studies background, within minutes of hearing that the World Trade Center had been struck.) Bottom line: Once you learn who privatized and over-insured the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center right before 9/11, and who signed off on the September 2000 document calling for a “New Pearl Harbor,” the rest is just details.
So let us move on to the less important question of “how they did it” – specifically, how they demolished the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. Gordon Duff has a background in high-level covert non-proliferation work, while Jim Fetzer – a Philosophy of Science professor – bases his views on an analysis of various experts and researchers including Don Fox and Ed Ward. Both of my esteemed VT colleagues argue that mini-nukes were used to destroy the WTC Towers.
Here are some of Jim’s articles laying out that case:
- “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”
- “2 + 2 = Israel Nuked the WTC on 9/11”
- “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward, and Dennis Cimino
- “Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs” with Don Fox
For his part, Gordon Duff is conducting “Nuclear Education” sessions and citing a once-secret DOE/IOIA report, recently released by the Russians, in articles like “Nuclear 9/11 Revealed.” (Note: While Gordon claims that Wayne Madsen was given a copy of this report by unnamed Russians, Wayne insists he has received no such report. Maybe he hit the delete key because he doesn’t read Russian?)
On the opposing side: Software engineer Jim Hoffman – considered by many to be an infamous deception-peddler and provocateur in the debate about what happened to the Pentagon on 9/11 – argues against the nuclear demolition hypothesis and smears Gordon Duff here. More pertinently, back in 2007, physics professor Steven Jones, a major figure in the 9/11 truth movement, published a letter entitled “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers.”
Since 2007 I have been challenging proponents of the nuclear demolition hypothesis, especially Jim Fetzer, to lay out their counter-case against Jones, and for nuclear demolition, in a careful, understated, thoroughly-sourced, non-polemical scholarly fashion and submit it to the pro-Steven-Jones Journal of 9/11 Studies.
If such an article were rejected for bogus reasons, the case for nuclear demolition would get an enormous boost. The gaping void where such an article should be may be the strongest argument against the nuclear demolition hypothesis.
But does it really matter whether we got nuked or nanothermited on 9/11?
The issue is potentially important in three ways:
1) Resolving the nukes vs. nanothermite dispute could have a bearing on how well the case for controlled demolition – both the who and the how – could stand up in court…whether the World Court, other international courts, the UN, US federal or state court, or the de facto courtroom of a congressional or other legally-mandated investigation.
2) It could also affect public opinion; the headline “Israel nuked US on 9/11” packs more of a visceral punch than “Israel nanothermited US on 9/11.” Also, elite public opinion is largely created by scientists, scholars, and other experts, whose views on the merits of the respective hypotheses will set the terms of the public debate; directing attention to a weak hypothesis will not help the 9/11 truth movement succeed in this arena.
3) If Gordon Duff is correct, and Israel has been terrorizing the US and the world with mini-nukes, proving the WTC was nuked on 9/11 could play a key role in neutralizing this much larger threat.
Then there are those who argue that some kind of Tesla-style technology was used on 9/11 and that revealing this fact might shred the free energy coverup and usher in a new era of abundance. For details on that, read Judy Wood’s book. And if you haven’t yet heard of the evidence that free energy/antigravity exists and is being covered up, read the free pdf of Nick Cook’s The Hunt for Zero Point.
So there you have it: Everything you need to get up to speed in the nanothermite-vs.-nukes-vs.-space-beams debate.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s move on to today’s guest article. (Hey, if Steve Jones can publish a letter as an article, so can I.)
Some arguments against the mini-nuke hypothesis
from W. Giesbrecht, avid Truth Jihad Radio listener
Great radio show on Aug. 23!
I really agreed with the boys on this show. No nukes involved; just conventional explosives. If some nuclear device was utilized, it would likely have been under building 6 -between the N. tower and building 7- where they FOUND the strange isotopes and for which there is no immediate rational explanation. That building seemed to be “holed” for no particular reason. And if you look carefully at videos of the N. tower coming down, you’ll see that the dust/debris envelope has shifted way off base and the standing spire -which would be in the center of the building because it was part of the core structure- is amazingly quite off to the right from the settling dust plume. It’s very peculiar. So possibly another (simultaneous) explosion occurred inside of building 6 -during the “collapse” of the north tower- which pushed the dust/debris envelope of the N. tower over to the south and east.
Nope, I think Fetzer is totally off-base with his mini-nuke theory. He’s thinking of brute force, strong enough to have pulverized everything but what he’s overlooking is that such a device(s) would also generate enormous heat, shockwaves, and light plasma … which wasn’t present in the tower demolitions.
The Paper wasn’t even burned. I think Wayne Coste’s take is entirely correct: mini-nukes would have created the overwhelming crashes of 30 lightning strike thunders … about 10 times in a row.
But if you think about explosives being right inside of the concrete floor slabs … well then, the initial heat and light would be absorbed by shattering the concrete … and it would sound much like a conventional demolition where the explosive charges are embedded into concrete inside of drilled holes: more like ramset guns going off.
Now, I’ve mentioned this theory a number of times before to you and Fetzer and others … but I never seem to get any acknowledgment, be it positive or negative … so I’m not sure whether my emails even got through!~
The floor slabs were matrixed with rectangular duct work … to carry electrical cables and communication wires etc. This made it possible for tenants to renovate their space and relocate the electrical plugs and telephone jacks on the floor … to pretty well wherever they wanted them, give or take a few feet one way or the other. Only Christopher Bollyn has ever acknowledged my theory (by email) and he agreed immediately with me. In fact, he even supplied me with a drawing of the ductwork from WTC blueprints which he got from somewhere, (I know not where!). Here’s what he sent me…
The tan-coloured sections are the ducting. The lower runs rested right inside of pan channels the the other was laid on top, running at right angles to the lower ones. The rest is the floor concrete slab sitting in the corrugated floor pan.
So when technicians or electricians came into a renovation, they’d just get the plans, look at the location coordinates of the matrix intersections, measure carefully from the walls … drill down through some shallow concrete covering, and bingo! … they’d be right into these intersections, from where they could push fish tape to the utility room (inside of the building core) … and then pull in new lines from the utility room and then … go “sideways” with their fish tape on the top duct … to the location on the floor where they’d want to locate a cubicle or desk .. and bring it up out of the floor from a hole they’d drilled there.
Now, of course, MOST of this ductwork would be empty because it was only there to allow utility location almost anywhere on the floors, and tenants don’t change or renovate all that often over a span of thirty years.
So THIS DUCTWORK would provide a PERFECT opportunity for placing explosive material that would not only shatter concrete completely but also provide the driving expansion force to blow out the external walls. What the explosive was exactly, I don’t know but I suspect it was a mix of thermite and a nitrogen-based explosive like smokeless powder or fertilizer. With fertilizer, for example, you only need to have a very strong compression wave go through it to make it hot enough to decompose everywhere simultaneously … and then you get an incredible blast from it that would easily be faster than the speed of sound in concrete. (Fertilizer, however, is hygroscopic -moisture absorbing- and so … some sort of modified version would have needed to be utilized which would stay dry).
The external walls, if you may recall, were made up of pseudo-columns that were H sections bolted together. (What Judy Wood called “wheat checks.”)
Then you’ll notice that on each floor, there was a “band” of steel welded to the “wheat checks” which went all around the perimeter of the buildings. These bands provided the tight securing of the external walls so that they couldn’t bow outward.
The floors then ALSO provided a bit of rigidity to the bands, by being lightly bolted to the bands and to the core columns at the other end.
In order to blow out the external walls, these bands, welded to the external “wheat check” structure … would have needed to be cut on the corners and possibly in the middle as well. (You can see flashes of light in the videos, preceding the collapse, going down inside on both sides of the structure. These would have been corner-cutting charges.)
So, a proper exploding powder injected into the floor ductwork and a blasting cap at the end of each duct … would have worked very much like an exploding gun barrel.
In fact, (I can’t find it now), some tenants HAD complained, prior to Sept. 11 2001 that renovations going on above or below them seemed to be covering all the furniture with fine dust. Even though cleaning crews had been in during the night … the next morning, their desks and furniture were all covered in this fine dust! Sure … that would probably happen if they were blowing fine dust into these electrical ducts. It would come out of the floor plugs etc. Otherwise, each floor was sealed from the floor above or below and NO DUST should ever get through from floor to floor, regardless of how much dust was generated above or below.
Now, you’ve probably noticed that after the alleged plane strikes (or at least the explosions, attributed to plane strikes) … the “fire” spread upward at a dramatic speed. It’s like, only a minute or two, after the “strikes” … the entire tops of the towers were already smoking heavily. This would be utterly impossible with real plane crashes and fires since every floor was sealed from floors above … and automatic fire doors would close in order to contain the fire to the floor(s) of origin.
What they needed though, was TIME for disposing of iron, through melting.
The hat trusses were the first major “problem” because they had to be completely cut apart in order to assure complete demolition.
These hat trusses were HUGE … occupying about 30 feet of height and being concealed in the top 3 floors of each building. Thus, the top 3 stories were unused by any tenants and unoccupied and very handy to get into without being noticed by anyone … especially if all the doors were kept locked.
Below is a picture of the hat truss on the north tower. It also supported the very tall and heavy vertical antenna.
The hat trusses were encased by the building’s square walls and roof, like this …
The “curved” members is what constituted the hat truss itself. The rectangular part is the core columns. (Left, at the top of right).
The hat trusses served to secure the core to the external walls in a very rigid manner, just like the foundation at the bottom of the towers. In summer, the external walls would expand from heat and lift up and the truss would “stretch” the core columns … and in winter, the core columns would expand more than the external walls and the hat truss would stretch the external walls upward. This is what rigidified the structure and assured that the floors would stay perfectly level at all times. (Otherwise, the top floors would have gone off-level by several inches both ways, summer, and winter).
So, EITHER the core columns nor the external wall columns could support the building’s weight, all on their own … but with the hat truss missing, the structure would get pretty swayish.
Thus, if they severed ALL of the core columns at the alleged plane strike locations, the upper sections -including floors- would stay intact as long as the hat truss was still connected to the core columns. All the upper floors would then just HANG on the top core columns .. from the hat truss.
Once the hat truss was cut apart though, the top floors would all fall down, along with the dropping core columns.
The initial “fire” … was likely the hat trusses being cut apart by thermite cutting charges.
If you look at the Naudet bros. the film, you’ll notice that almost instantaneously, there is an explosion coming out of the east wall at the hat truss area, some 20 floors ABOVE the supposed impact zone! This would be utterly impossible if a real plane had crashed into the structure.
They had to coordinate their explosions as best possible … with the alleged events … in order to keep people from getting too suspicious. So they had strategic explosions go off in the hat truss area at the same time as the supposed plane strike explosions.
Then we get to the problematic CORE COLUMNS. The cores were built like brick $hithouses and wouldn’t demolish easily.
These columns were BOXES and not I beams.
Unlike the external columns (which were plated and bolted at the bottom/tops of each “wheat check” section) … the internal core columns were WELDED together so that they constituted approximately 1000 ft. long tubes … from the hat truss to the foundation.
So once again … a perfect opportunity for the scumbags to conceal their work INSIDE of the structure. They could go up into the hat truss area any old time, pretty well -without being disturbed … and FILL the core columns with thermite. Now I don’t know if they would have done it that roughly or if they would have put wads of thermite down inside at strategic heights to burn at the strategic time but … the bottom line is that they COULD have done it that way.
Once again then, they would need a certain amount of TIME for the thermite to melt out the core columns … before they could safely explode the floors: 45 minutes for the south tower … an hour and a half for the north tower? Probably something went wrong with the north tower; maybe their fire went out and they had to send someone inside to light it again?!~
Now, here’s an interesting thing about the core columns …
They were encased with 2 layers of 3/4″ drywall … for fire protection. This was APART from the drywall of the core walls which separated the leased floor space from the central core area.
So each of these core columns had -essentially- a 1.5-inch thick “box” around them, made of drywall.
Once again, this would have been rather beneficial to the scumbags because these pseudo boxes would CONTAIN the molten metal of the core columns long enough to let them melt completely and then run out at the very bottom, 6 floors underground level.
Some of the metal would spill out of course, where beams were attached to columns, and -along with melted hat truss material- most of the top section molten metal would end up on the first juncture of the building -the utility/repair floor, also called “technical services,” which was just below the top Skylobby- somewhere around the 78th floor I believe, if I remember correctly. This is also the floor where helicopters were reported to be entirely on fire, warning everyone to get out IMMEDIATELY. This was where the elevators for the top section STOPPED and there was nowhere for spilling molten iron to go, except onto that floor.
There’s no plausible explanation for a floor to be totally engulfed in “fire” -one floor BELOW the bottom of the plane strike- when there was no fire showing anywhere in the plane strike region itself … unless it was molten iron that was pooled at the technical services floor.
So … when we witnessed the “spire” still standing after the north tower had come down, it’s possible that all we saw was the drywall shell/casings of the core columns with just enough iron left inside of them to give them enough support to last for another 10 seconds or so … and then they collapsed into a cloud of dust and a hearty hi-ho silver, away. Just too weird how they just seemed to sink away.
Now, Dennis Comino was absolutely right when he commented on the HOLE in the north tower being utterly incongruent with the initial pictures of the plane strike showing the “cutout” of the wings, the angles and all of that. Those pictures were fabricated, I’m sure. The ongoing video footage showed a ROUND hole in the wall and not the outline of a plane having entered through the wall.
And as for the south tower “cutout” which Jim Fetzer talks about from time to time … I’m convinced that THAT ALSO was fabricated video footage.
Think about it …
All of the official videos of both towers burning and collapsing was shot from somewhere in upper Manhattan… quite far north of the towers. That’s where there were tall building from which to capture an almost “parallel” view of the tops of the towers.
On the south side, there are no high buildings and very little land space.
So it’s highly probable that ANY video showing a plane striking the south tower -from the south side- is faked video.
WERE there planes involved? Probably, yes but only as decoys. They had the capability at that time already, to mask cars with a camera and LED lights … to make it look as if a car had disappeared on the street and so … they could have used the same technology to have large planes disappear from the sky at the last moment, before triggering explosives inside of the towers. I don’t think they even used missiles because they would have wanted absolute, TIGHT control over everything, time-wise.
They may have EJECTED something from the south tower to coincide with an apparent plane strike, to make it look like plane parts flying out of the north wall … but it’s highly unlikely that a missile would have created a huge orange fireball while passing through the entire building, including going through part of the core structure.
ALL of the plane strike video -I’m now convinced- was artificially created and planted on youtube. Not the actual tower burning and collapsing footage, mind you … just the plane strikes.
As Dennis mentioned too … the official footage shows the plane coming in from 2 entirely different angles! The most familiar one has the plane coming in almost level from the west side and then in behind. Another video though … has the plane coming DOWN at a steep angle, coming almost directly due north!! There is just NO WAY I can reconcile both of those videos, no matter how hard I try.
There’s also a SHADOW problem which I haven’t quite been able to figure out yet …
By September 11, the sun should already be shining on the SOUTH side of the towers, fully illuminating the south faces of both towers. Yet, in most of the footage, the south side of the towers appears to be as much in shade as the north side. Was the official footage possibly shot in the middle of June?
Now, ya’all were talking about the top sections of the buildings just sort of tipping and/but then sort of “straightening out” as they proceeded to fall and even … disappearing into a kind of “dust” in mid-air.
I agree … the LOOK of it is rather deceptive.
I think what happened is that, as soon as the core section of the top structure let go from the hat trusses and dropped … the floors in the upper section were “lightly” exploded. The upper sections on both towers were thus … essentially disintegrate internally before they fell.
Even though the top (of the south tower) seemed to tip over toward the east … another video (from Bill Biggart and Rick Siegal) shows a huge section of the south tower top dropping down to the west side … and landing on top of the Marriot hotel (WTC 3). The top, therefore, didn’t actually tip over; it SPLIT and dropped in at least two directions. (The top of the N. tower may also have split and dropped largely on building 6 to cause the big hole in it?)
So the top sections of both towers were apparently being blown apart in mid-air, as they were falling.
Possibly, substantial explosive charges were placed into the core area at each technical service level -where the structures were most heavily reinforced for rigidity- to make SURE the core would come apart … but not in the top section of either building. We DID see the explosive area grow substantially, the lower down it went.
NOTE FROM KEVIN BARRETT: Check out my radio debates on these topics, including the August 23rd show with AE911Truth board member Wayne Coste and aeronautics expert Dennis Cimino, and my April 28th slugfest with Jim Fetzer.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.