The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jim Fetzer Archive
What’s Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The public has been fed an endless stream of attacks upon conspiracy theories, which, we are told, are supposed to be very bad for human beings and other living things. But precisely why is almost never explained. And when you consider that our political parties and the mainstream media indulge themselves in conspiracy theories, such as the claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election (otherwise Donald Trump could never have been elected) or, alternatively, that Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election of 2020 (and otherwise could not have been defeated) are, in the first instance, promoted by the media (in spite of virtually no evidence at all) and, in the second, denied thereby (in spite of massive supporting proof). Both are conspiracy theories, where one appears to be true and the other appears to be false.

Since at least some conspiracy theories thus appear to be true, we need to be able to tell the difference. Even university professors have shown a decided aversion to conspiracy theories, buying into the stereotypical conception that the key characteristic of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable. A “tip sheet” for one college, for example, makes the declaration that “The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it’s wrong, but that it’s inarguable; not that it’s false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.” If that were true, it would certainly count against them, making them akin to theoretical affirmations about the existence of God (as a classic case) or the existence of a universal “Force” a la Star Wars (more contemporary). But is it actually true?

A study published in Frontiers of Psychology, “’What about Building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories” (8 July 2013), for example, suggests that those often characterized as “conspiracy theorists” are more skeptical of what they are told by the government (“official accounts”) than they are enamored of specific alternatives and are more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence. They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and more inclined to look at the evidence, which even hints that the study of alternative theories of events like 9/11 might be an effective method to teach critical thinking.

Since conspiracies only require two or more persons acting in concert to bring about an illegal end (and turns out to be the most widely prosecuted criminal offense in America), why should conspiracy theories be all-but-banned from public discourse? We know the criteria to employ in the evaluation of scientific theories, why should they not be evaluated by the same standards (or criteria of adequacy), which classically include:

  • (CA-1) the clarity and precision of the language in which they are expressed;
  • (CA-2) their scope of application for the purpose of explanation and prediction;
  • (CA-3) their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence; or,
  • (CA-4) the economy, elegance or simplicity with which they satisfy (CA-1) – (CA-3)?

Since conspiracy theories are theories, why should they not be evaluated by the same criteria, where the testability of a theory depends (right off the bat) on the specificity of its language?

When Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made the observation, “Some people did something” (in relation to 9/11), for example, her remark qualifies as true but trivial. It cannot satisfy (CA-1) or (CA-2), much less (CA-3) or (CA-4). When The 9/11 Commission, by contrast, concludes that 19 Islamic terrorists commandeered four commercial carriers and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, however, the content and thereby the testability of what has been asserted increases substantially. The government, however, has not been disposed to revise its “official narrative”, even though a half-dozen or more of the 19 “suicide hijackers” turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with media in the UK, as David Ray Griffin observes by making his first argument in his magisterial study, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004). Even though we know the theory advanced by the commission therefore cannot be true, the government has remained unmoved.

And when consideration is given to Building 7 (WTC-7), for example–a 47-story building in the World Trade Center complex), which was not hit by any plane but came down in what has been characterized as a classic “controlled demolition”—it raises the specter of a “conspiracy theory”, even though its collapse has the characteristics of having been a controlled demolition—abrupt, complete, symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, leaving a debris pile equal to about 12% of the height of the original—where even the owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, confirmed to PBS that WTC-7 had been “pulled”. Nothing about this account violates any of (CA-1) – (CA-4).

There are many videos and expert studies of the collapse of WTC-7 available on-line, which means that the recorded sequence of events can be reviewed again and again. It leaves no doubt that, contrary to the NIST Final Report on WTC-7 (2008), which attributes its collapse to the modest fires in the building and the loss of a major support column, this was a controlled demolition that fits the pattern of controlled demolitions around the world. Indeed, on 9/11, as it took place, Dan Rather was (perfectly accurately) reporting it as reminiscent of pictures we’ve seen “where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down”

But if WTC-7, which was not hit by any airplane, was brought down by a controlled demolition, then what about WTC-1 and WTC-2, the North and South Twin Towers? According to The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), which is the official government account of 9/11, the World Trade Center was destroyed as part of an elaborate plot by 19 Islamic terrorists who commandeered 4 commercial carriers, which were used to attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. But, since a conspiracy only requires two or more participants collaborating in the attempt to commit a crime, the “official account” of 9/11 itself obviously qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”. Once we look at the evidence, we find that we are confronted with alternative theories that differ in the causal mechanisms they posit, but where both alternatives qualify as “conspiracy theories”.

Comparing Conspiracy Theories

Once we acknowledge the obvious—that the “official account” of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory we are no long able to avoid dealing with conspiracy theories, unless we avoid 9/11 altogether. That, indeed, appears to be the attitude of most philosophers of my acquaintance, who have no interest in evaluating alternatives or in assessing the adequacy of The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) itself. This stunning lack of intellectual curiosity might be rooted in the desire not to “fall down the rabbit hole”, since there are disconcerting revelations upon revelations, once you take the bait and begin to scrutinize what we have been told. One fascinating tidbit, for example, is that Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, had as his area of academic specialization, before entering government, the creation and maintenance of “public myths”.

Another reason the study of 9/11 turns out to be philosophically interesting is that so much of the official account entails violations of laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics. At Shankesville, PA, for example, where Flight 93 is alleged to have crashed, there is a hole about 10’x20’ but no signs of any crash having taken place by a Boeing 757 weighing over 100 tons with a 125’ wingspan and tail standing 44’ above the ground. As both the reporters first on the scene observed, the eerie aspect of the crash site was that, unlike other crash sites, there were no signs that any plane had crashed there, which invites an inference to the best explanation: Which hypothesis is better supported: that a Boeing 757 really crashed there or that it did not?

The situation at the Pentagon is even more intriguing, since not only is there no massive pile of aluminum debris—no bodies, no luggage, no wings, no tail, not even the engines (which are practically indestructible) were recovered at the time—but the official trajectory (of a Boeing 757 traveling over 400 mph skimming the ground and taking out a series of lampposts) turns out to be aerodynamically impossible. Because of the phenomenon known as “downdraft” (or “ground effect”), such a plane at that speed could not have come closer than 60’ or even 80’ of the ground, which is higher than the Pentagon at 71’ is tall. Since violations of laws of nature are physically impossible, something must be wrong. How could the official account possibly be true?

Various accounts of scientific reasoning posit a series of stages of inquiry, beginning with one of Puzzlement (where something doesn’t fit into our background knowledge and invites attention), Speculation (during which alternative possible explanations are articulated for consideration), Adaptation (where the strength of the relationship between those hypotheses and the available evidence is evaluated) and Explanation (where, when the evidence has “settled down”, the best supported of the alternatives may be accepted, in the tentative and fallible fashion of science). It ought to be apparent already that the “official account” cannot be reconciled with available evidence, where serious thinkers, I surmise, can excuse themselves only by ignoring 9/11 entirely.

And here we have the key to why some prominent “conspiracy theorists” are relatively easy targets of public attack. Alex Jones, the paradigm of the category, often does excellent work in drawing attention to puzzling cases where what we are learning does not fit into our background knowledge and understanding. And he’s equally good at speculating about possible alternative explanations. But he does not have the aptitude or the ability to carry their investigation further, where sorting out the difference between authentic and fabricated evidence can play a crucial role. At the Pentagon, for example, a key piece of fuselage from a Boeing 757 (which the media has frequently cited) did not come from Fight 77 but from an earlier crash near Cali, Columbia, in 1995, where the salvage was done by an Israeli firm and then planted on the lawn that day as “proof” a plane had crashed there.

Are JFK conspiracy theories unfalsifiable?

Lest it be thought that 9/11 may be the exception, let’s consider another familiar case, that of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, as a second. If it turns out that conspiracy theories here are unfalsifiable, then perhaps the admonition against taking them seriously has some foundation, in fact. But that does not appear to be true here, either. In criminal investigations, homicide detectives apply multiple criteria of motive, means and opportunity to identify and narrow the list of suspects. Among the most familiar theories about the assassination of JFK, for example, are alternative hypotheses positing (h1) that it was done by Fidel Castro, (h2) that it was done by the Mafia, (h3) that it was done by the KGB; and (h4), alas, that it was done by the CIA. Are these theories testable? Are they unfalsifiable?

On the “official account”, Lee Oswald fired three “lucky shots” and killed JFK while wounding John Connally, the Governor of Texas. Suppose the alleged assassin had been an expert shot; the Mannlicher-Carcano he is said to have used was an appropriate choice for the purpose; the backyard photos showing Oswald holding a rifle wearing a belt and holster with the revolver with which he is said to have shot Officer J.D. Tippit (and holding two communist newspapers) was authentic—and the “lone assassin” theory just might have merit. In a single package, the version published on the cover of Life magazine subtly conveys that this guy had the motive (as a communist), the means (rifle and handgun) and (presumably) opportunity (by working in the Texas School Book Depository–and encountering Officer Tippit, while he made his escape).

But what if it turns out that Oswald was a mediocre shot; that the weapon he is alleged to have used was a World War II carbine known as “the humanitarian rifle” for never harming anyone on purpose; that there were four versions of the backyard photographs, where his face and expression remain exactly the same across different poses taken at different times; that the chin on the subject in the photos is a block chin, not Oswald’s tapered chin; that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip; that the fingers of his right hand are cut off and that the shell casings found at the site of the Tippit shooting by the first officer on the scene had been ejected from (one or more) automatics, not from a revolver, such as he possessed?

Although most philosophers might not know, Oswald was a mediocre shot; the weapon was a ridiculous choice for an assassination; the shell casings found at the scene by the first officer to arrive had been ejected by (one or more) automatics; and the backyard photos were staged, where experts even appear to have identified the stand-in for Oswald, who was Roscoe White, a Dallas Police Officer with ties to the CIA. One student, Jack White, used the newspapers in the photo, the dimensions of which are known, as an internal measure of the height of the man in the photos, who, it turns out, is either too short at 5’6” to be the 5’10” Oswald or, which is more likely, the photos were introduced a bit too large when the photos were manufactured.

The JFK Assassination Literature

From a philosophical point of view, the facts matter less than that the hypothesis that Oswald was framed as the “lone gunman” appears to be empirically testable. Indeed, recent research has confirmed the opinion of Harold Weisberg and of Jim Garrison that a figure in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository was not his co-worker, Billy Lovelady, as the government proclaims, but Lee Oswald himself, just as he had explained to Will Fritz, the homicide detective who interrogated him, when asked where he had been during the shooting, namely: “out with Bill Shelley in front”, where Bill Shelley was one of his supervisors in the book depository. And this has been confirmed not only by studies of the height, weight, build and clothing of the two alternatives but by recent superposition of their images in the famous “Altgens6” photograph.

You do not have to be familiar with the extensive conspiracy literature by authors including (to cite only some of the most famous) Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment (1966); Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), David S. Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), Jim Marrs, Crossfire (1989), Robert J. Groden, The Killing of a President (1994) and The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald (1995), Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), and Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (5 volumes, 2009), on the conspiracy side of the ledger, and others, such as Vince Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (2007), which runs around 1500 pages in defending The Warren Commission Report (1964), which was said to have been supported by 26 volumes of evidence—until you take a closer look, as Sylvia Meager, Accessories after the Fact (1992), did, demonstrating that the contents of those 26 volumes contradicts the 888-page summary.

It turns out that conspiracy (to commit burglary, to commit fraud, to commit murder and so on) is the most widely prosecuted crime in the United States. Conspiracies only require two or more individuals to act in concert to commit a crime. Once you know that JFK was hit at least four times—once in the back from behind; once in the throat from in front; and at least twice in the head (from behind and from the right/front), after the driver, William Greer, had brought the limousine to a halt to make sure he would be killed—the case for conspiracy is beyond doubt. See, for example, the studies of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board qualified in radiation oncology and discovered the autopsy X-rays were altered to patch a fist-sized blow out at the back of the head, which had been widely reported by the physicians at Parkland Hospital, where the body was taken, and the leading JFK medical expert in the world.

See David W. Mantik, John F. Kennedy’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis—and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment (2015). Most philosophers are not even aware that, on the day of the assassination, two wounds were repeatedly reported over the national networks: a shot to the throat, which Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained to the press during a conference following the announcement of death, was a wound of entrance (where the bullet was coming at him), and a shot to the right temple, which blow out the back of his head, a report attributed to Admiral George G. Burkley, the president’s personal physician, and reported by Malcolm Kilduff, Acting Press Secretary, who said it was a simple matter of a bullet through the head while pointing to his right temple, while announcing the death. Indeed, Frank McGee, who was a keen analyst, that day on NBC, when reports that the shooter has been above and behind began to surface, astutely remarked, “This is incongruous. How can the man have been shot from in front from behind?”

Ramifications for Public Policy

That, of course, was the conundrum that the Warren Commission had to resolve: how to make the case for a lone assassin, when there was evidence in the public domain that JFK had been shot from several directions in a brief span of time. It was a gargantuan challenge, where they were not entirely successful, since wide swaths of the public to this day doubt that Lee Oswald acted alone. Many, myself among them, believe that distrust in the American government dates from the deception perpetrated on the American public about the assassination of JFK, where so many were listening to their radios and glued to their television and learned with their own ears and eyes that he had been shot in the throat from in front and that he had been shot in the right temple from the right/front. Frank McGee had it right: How can the man have been shot from in front from behind? Yet the government insists on “the lone gunman” to this day.

During the past two decades, the scientific studies of the assassination have been undertaken by experts in different fields, including a world authority on the human brain (who was also an expert on wound ballistics), several Ph.D.’s (one of whom is also an M.D.) and a physician who was present in Trauma Room #1 when JFK’s moribund body was brought to Parkland Hospital and who, two days later, was responsible for the care and treatment of his alleged assassin. Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), for example, have been described by Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (2007), as the only “exclusively scientific” volumes ever published on the assassination, where Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2005), extends that tradition with five more.

The discovery of more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit; that the body was altered and the autopsy X-rays were changed; and that the home movies of the assassination were massively edited to conceal the true causes of death provide evidence that falsifies (h1) that was done by Fidel Castro, (h2) that it was done by the Mafia and (h3) that it was done by the KGB. None of them could have exerted control over the Secret Service, the autopsy at Bethesda, or the home movies, including the Zapruder film, which was in the custody of the Secret Service. Which means not only are JFK conspiracy theories empirically testable but multiple among them have already been falsified. (h4), of course, remains under consideration in all of its manifestations, including the indispensable collusion of LBJ and the FBI.

What matters here, however, is not the specifics of “who dunnit” but that the situation with regard to conspiracy theories is not at all as popular belief would have it. Not only are they not unfalsifiable, but the application of scientific reasoning has produced significant results, which have led to the identification of the probable perps. Philosophy–though teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning–has much to contribute to the public good. There is nothing wrong with “conspiracy theories” that warrants their neglect by philosophers. On the contrary because most students have a keen interest in knowing the truth about JFK, 9/11 and a host of other politically significant but controversial events, there is a wealth of material to work with if faculty, philosophers, especially, would come down from their ivory tower and engage with real world events.

A striking illustration of the difference it makes for public affairs may be found in the attacks upon Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), whom the Democrats (as the majority party) removed from her committee assignments because she was raising too many issues that they did not want to address (about Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas, CA wildfires and more). Having done research on all of these, I composed an assessment, where it turns out that, on every one of the issues about which she was being attacked, Marjorie Taylor Greene was either clearly in the right or supported by the weight of the evidence. Most of her assertions, of course, qualified (in the mind of her critics) as conspiracy theories; but if they paused to consider the evidence with regard to each of them, they would have been impressed provided only they had an open mind.

And there’s the rub. As James Files, who may or may not have been behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll informed me, “When the government commits a lie, it’s stuck with it!”, which of course resonates with the failure of the government to change its position (about the 19 Islamic hijackers on 9/11 or Lee Oswald as the lone, demented gunman on 22 November 1963). Which means, in turn, that the government is not operating on the basis of principles of science or of rationality, where the discovery of new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require that we reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected and leave others in suspense. The government operates as an authoritarian source of (politically infallible) knowledge, where to admit mistakes would weaken its grip on the body politic that it governs.

And, reflecting upon the treatment of Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), it struck me like a silver bullet: Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes: No wonder they want to silence us! The government was involved in the assassination of JFK; the government was involved in 9/11; the government was involved in Sandy Hook, Parkland and Las Vegas, too! Think of the genius of it all: the perps themselves are in the position of dictating to the public who is credible and who is not when it comes to investigating crimes in which the government itself is complicit! It turns out, therefore, the answer to the question we ask, What’s wrong with conspiracy theories? , could not be more obvious once they are properly understood. We should all be conspiracy theorists! The nation can only benefit from sorting out true conspiracy theories from false.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota, has published 24+ academic books and 12+ in conspiracy research.

 
Hide 949 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. jsinton says:

    Someone said the other day when the lemmings are jumping off the cliff, the one running the other way is the one that looks crazy.

    • Thanks: JimDandy, the grand wazoo
    • Replies: @Alfred Muscaria
  2. MarkU says:

    A fairly reasonable piece, ironic that it should come from a man who helped to undermine the 9/11 truth movement. It was Fetzer who did as much as anyone to discredit the 9/11 truth movement by promoting utter garbage such as Judy Wood’s ‘Dustification beams from space’ hypothesis. Lets have a little look at Judy Wood’s ‘dustification theory’ in an interview with a physicist….

    Starting with the hunch that there isn’t enough debris, when questioned she reveals that she has done nothing to back up that hunch with any calculations, not even a ‘back of a envelope’ calculation.
    Next she infers that if the debris didn’t come down it must have gone up, she has nothing to back that up but a photo and that is later revealed to be a line of sight effect anyway.
    If it went up she surmises, then it must have been in the form of dust.
    If it was in the form of dust then something must have turned it to dust.
    The next and most ridiculous leap is to suppose a dustification beam presumed to be in orbit.
    Asked if the dustification process had ever been demonstrated even in a lab, she answers in the negative. She had absolutely no suggestion as to specifically what sort of beam might produce that effect.
    Asked if she had calculated the energy requirement for turning steel into dust she answers no. (Breaking the bonds between atoms requires energy btw and that energy is calculable according to known physical laws)

    Twenty years later there are no signs of any ‘dustification beams’, nor any new physical principles that might lead in that direction.

    Fetzer conveniently forgot to mention the other type of conspiracy theory, the deliberately fostered false-flag garbage theories promoted by the establishment to cause confusion and ultimately undermine the search for the truth.

    Thank you James Fetzer for absolutely nothing you damned traitor.

    • Agree: utu, Pheasant
    • Disagree: Iris
    • Thanks: Unpersoned by fb
  3. Dumbo says:

    “Conspiracy theories” is just a way for people in power to say “don’t think this way, it’s crazy” about things that they don’t want people to discuss. That’s all.

    There are always conspiracies, some true, some not.

    Many conspiracy theories are even supported by the status quo.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  4. GRB says:

    What is more disturbing than so called Conspiracy Theorists are very large number people who accept the MS legacy media as being absolute gospel. The amount of people who believe the story of the virgin birth of Jesus is absolutely astounding. I would say the Heaven’s Gate Cult should be characterized as dangerous to themselves. A larger group of people who are much more dangerous to others are Democrat loyalists who believe Creepy Joe was honestly elected and is doing a good job.

    • Agree: WhiteWinger
    • LOL: the grand wazoo
    • Replies: @sally
  5. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @MarkU

    Nice exhibition of ignorance from someone who (obviously) does not know the score. Not only did I found Scholars for 9/11 Truth in December 2015, but I have done my best to expose those who have actually run it into the ground, which includes both Judy Wood and her DEW group and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as I have explained many times in many places. Here’s a nice example: https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/09/on-c-span-richard-gage-leaves-9-11-truth-in-a-time-warp-2/ My faith in Steven Jones and his nano-thermite hypothesis had run past its expiration date by June 2006, when Alex Jones invited me to be the keynote speaker at his American Scholars Conference. When I learned of Judy’s research about directed energy weapons as an alternative explanation, I featured her on the air beginning on 11 November 2006 (as I recall), pioneering the interactive use of computers with radio by taking the audience to her website where we reviewed her exceptionally good collection of photographs and studies. She and Morgan Reynolds would eventually badger me into taking a good look at the alleged use of planes on 9/11, but it took a year-and-a-half to get me there.

    When Mark Hightower and I published three articles on the impossibility of nano-thermite to blow apart the Twin Towers, I hoped that Architects and Engineers would respond by taking our proofs into account. But instead they have only doubled-down. Exceptional research being published on Veterans Today and from other sources convinced me that Judy had it wrong and that (even) the US Geological Survey studies (of dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan) confirmed that it had been a nuclear event. As I explain above, we have to consider alternative explanations and, when new evidence or additional alternatives emerge, we may have to reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected and leave others in suspense. For me, the turning point came in 2012 when I published a 5-star review of Judy’s book but with certain qualifications about her having defeated arguments for the use of large nukes but not for the use of mini or micro nukes. That was published prior to the Vancouver Hearings in June of that year.

    When I returned from the conference, where considerable additional proof had been presented of the use of nuclear devices, I was astonished to find my review had garnered over 2,000 comments, the vast majority of which were attacks upon me for questioning any aspect of Judy’s stance, which confirmed my inference that she was no longer engaging in scientific research but instead appears to be promoting a political agenda. As I explained in the piece from 6 September 2020, I regard both Judy and her DEW group (which has the aspects of a cult) and Richard Gage and A&E911 as limited hangouts. Neither will address who was responsible and why, which makes their technical discussions meaningless to most Americans because it has not been embedded within a narrative framework. Similarly, this attack on me ignores my critiques of them both and, of course, other presentations, including videos and books, that I have published about 9/11, including America Nuked on 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2017). If you were serious, you would take my body of research into account and qualify your claims, which are flimsy and insubstantial in view of my subsequent investigations. Since what you are declaring here is so divergent from the truth (and many more recent publications of mine), it reeks of factual inaccuracies and unwarranted ad hominems, which reflects its rhetorical role as a hit piece. Nice try but no cigar! No one who had followed my research on 9/11 should be taken in by claptrap like this.

  6. Durham the deep state stooge drags his feet. He won’t mess with the Made Men.


    • Replies: @The Real World
    , @Marckus
  7. Vinnie O says:

    Bobbie Kennedy was killed by a single shot to the BACK of his head fired at a range close enough to singe the hair on his neck. Sirhan Sirhan was of course standing IN FRONT of RFK when the shot(s) were fired.

    The Public will believe ANYTHING they’re told and accept VICIOUS attacks on any naysayers. I read a LOT of history, always looking for more details, and in most cases I can’t find ANYONE to even discuss the issue.

    But I was in Washington, DC, on the morning of the Pentagon crash. We came out of our meeting and one of the guys pointed to a TINY wisp of black smoke in the general direction of National Airport saying “That must be from the plane crash we heard about”.

    But one of our soccer moms was driving to a meeting at the Pentagon and WATCHED the airliner smack into the parking lot and bounce into the building. And a friend told me about a neighbor whose daughter was a friend of his daughter. Mom, dad, daughter, all on a flight to California, died when the airliner hit the Pentagon. How do you make “nobody” people simply disappear? They all had funerals…

    But, yes, The Government lies as its FIRST CHOICE. And for IMPORTANT fakery (my favorite is Pearl Harbor), the number of people involved in the coverup is HUGE.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Wally
    , @Jim Fetzer
  8. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    The problem?

    Jews.

    Once the (((Masters of Sophistry and Outright Lies))) took over this country, Truth became the enemy of their puppets in DC and the (((Media))).

    It’s the core. It’s the foundation of all our troubles.

    Jews.

    Wake up People.

  9. Vinnie O says:

    Oh, I keep forgetting about this. Probably more than 20 years ago now, the English government announced that they were finally declassifying the LAST of the Ultra Secret files from WW2. But then it turned out that some tiny number of telegrams would NOT be released, and these documents (exchanges between Churchill and FDR) were being RE-classified for another 500??!! years.

    Even making a GUESS about the content of the messages was strictly forbidden. But what could the topic possibly be?

    My guess was/is Pearl Harbor. EVERYBODY in the various Intel communities around the world in 1941 KNEW that the Japanese fleet was heading to Hawaii. The only people who did NOT know were people like Admiral Kimmel, Commander of the Pacific Fleet. But EVERY intelligence community in the world (including the Chilean navy) had intel about the planned attack. And the ONLY guy in Hawaii who DID know about the coming attack was Kimmel’s chief Intel guy, the guy who became a big hero for cracking the Japanese messages about the attack on Midway. But of course the Japanese were using the SAME coding system in the Fall of 1941 that they were using in 1942. How do you sit within ARM’S LENGTH of your commanding officer for WEEKLY staff meetings for 6 MONTHS and NEVER mention the coming attack on Pearl? It must take an EXTREMELY nasty man.

    • Thanks: Pheasant, WhiteWinger
    • Replies: @Hiya Doody
    , @anon
  10. Vinnie O says:

    Oh, if anybody wants References, I can BURY you in books. But NOBODY ever wants to read the books…

    • Replies: @Sick 'n Tired
  11. MarkU says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    So where are those ‘dustification beams’ Mr Fetzer? Any news on those totally new physical principles you were telling us about? I remember you showed a short video of falling beams and you said “this is steel turning to dust”, any news on that stuff? Are you going to deny that, do I really have to search the net for it?

    You have had 20 years to make good on those claims, some fresh twaddle on nukes doesn’t count. I want to know what happened to the completely new physical principles and the ‘dustification beams’.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Iris
  12. @MarkU

    I replied to you 4.4 hours ago: Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    April 18, 2021 at 8:21 pm GMT • 4.4 hours ago • 600 Words ↑
    @MarkU

    No one who has followed my work would be taken in by this.
    Perhaps UNZ REVIEW will approve my comments and you
    can see how I have dispatched your seriously mistaken views.

    • Thanks: ChuckOrloski
    • LOL: frontier
  13. Mulegino1 says:

    “…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.” (Yet another “big lie” that we have been told is that he was proposing this as a strategy when in fact he was condemning it.)

    Conspiracies are a quotidian occurrence. A surprise birthday party is a conspiracy just as much as the Manhattan Project- only the motive, magnitude and consequences differ.

    The permanent government/deep state makes regular use of all kinds of conspiracy theories of its own. The CIA’s demonization of conspiracy theories which has become the default modus operandi for its Mockingbird media extends only to those conspiracies which do not enjoy its imprimatur., i.e., Pearl Harbor, JFK and RFK assassinations, 9/11, etc. The official theory of 9/11 is, of course, a vast Islamist conspiracy. Ironically, those who doubt this absurd “Big Lie” conspiracy theory are themselves called “conspiracy theorists.”

    The object of the controlled Mockingbird media is to lie to the people to cover up and achieve the means and ends of its patrons’ criminality. And there are the inevitable corollary benefits of total stultification of the populace and the gradual reduction of the people’s critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity to zero.

    Didn’t the late CIA director William Casey say somewhere that the CIA would know its campaign of mendacity and disinformation had achieved success when everything that the American public believed to be true was false?

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Daniel Rich
  14. Mulegino1 says:
    @Vinnie O

    But one of our soccer moms was driving to a meeting at the Pentagon and WATCHED the airliner smack into the parking lot and bounce into the building. And a friend told me about a neighbor whose daughter was a friend of his daughter. Mom, dad, daughter, all on a flight to California, died when the airliner hit the Pentagon. How do you make “nobody” people simply disappear? They all had funerals…

    As Conan Doyle wrote: “Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    With all due to respect to the soccer mom, commercial airliners don’t “smack into the parking lot and bounce into buildings.”

    And hearsay evidence is of little probative value.

    • Agree: Sulu
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  15. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    A colleague asked me to post this anonymously:

    As you so well know Jim, truth is a rare commodity for the masses. Because we now know (for certain) that all the major media have been hijacked and consolidated and completely controlled by US Intel on behalf of the COL Banksters (aka satanic Moneychangers), it has been almost impossible for anyone to know any truth except for those who work professionally in the world of lies and deception (politics, govt or Intel). The vast majority of these folks are far too compromised by various means including money, retirement packages, private sins, and implicit threats of death that they do not leak the truth.

    There have been two game changers in this lockout of the truth from the public:

    1. First, he emergence of the private covert Crime investigators:

    There have been some relentless, heroic and fearless private covert crime investigators that have delved deeply into various serious covert crimes such as the JFK and RFK assassinations, false-flag attacks (real like 911 and fake like Sandy Hoax). The first to do this and a crafty investigator that was able to gain instant validation was Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. He cut his his investigative teeth on the JFK Assassination. But what differentiated him and brought him instant credibility was the fact that he realized that this crime of the century involved several issues he was not an expert in (Logic, scientific reasoning, and writing were his specialties).
    Professor Fetzer assembled a team of experts in medicine (radiology) and other specialties which was well qualified to deal with all aspects of the JFK assassination. Professor Fetzer used this incredible team of experts to solve this crime and easily demonstrate that the CIA did it without Oswald even firing a shot. He authored a trilogy series of three important books on his detailed investigation and has written many articles further proving his discoveries. Professor Fetzer spoke at every opportunity he could but his work had no serious penetration until the advent of the worldwide Internet.

    2. Second, the advent of the cell phone system:

    This was developed by academic researchers associated with the US Dept of Defense. It was developed as a “dual use” covert spy tool. Its primary purpose was to track, monitor associations and travels, and to eavesdrop on all users. The convenience it provided the public c was the motivation for use and allowed the Intel Agencies an incredible assembling of serious Intel on every user. Note that despite the extreme cost of this system (trillion of USD) there was never any mention of funding issues in the major mass media. Why? Because the funding was top secret and was based on Black Operations such as illegal drug trafficking, illegal weapon sales, organ trafficking, sex trafficking/sales of babies and children.

    3. Third, the advent of the World Wide Internet:

    This was also developed by academic researchers associated with the US Dept of Defense. It was developed as a “dual use” covert spy tool. Its primary purpose was to track, monitor communications, and political leanings, interest patterns, and to eavesdrop on all users. This public convenience was the motivation for use and allowed the Intel Agencies an incredible assembling of serious Intel on every user. Note that despite the extreme cost of this system (trillion of USD) there was never any mention of funding issues in the major mass media. Why? Because the funding was top secret and was based on Black Operations such as illegal drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, major “Ron Rewald type” financial scams, organ trafficking, sex trafficking/sales of babies and children.

    The deployment of the worldwide Internet was a major breakthrough for exposure of serious truths previously hidden from the public was the quick and incredible popularity of the Internet which provided an immediate worldwide platform on which covert crime investigators, researchers and journalists could publish their findings for millions to read. Many were able to sell books on their work and also receive some modest income from website publishers like Youtube-type based on number of reads.

    As a certain portion of the public which had been disgruntled previously by the irrational foreign wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and the unending Middle East wars (which seemed to obviously conducted to enhance the wealth of certain major corporations and wealthy families and upon closer scrutiny involved major USG false claims and lies), many Internet users began to connect too many dots.

    In the meantime there were quite a few Intel ops that were dissatisfied and leaked deep USG secrets to these covert crime researchers who published them. At first these accounts were considered too incredulous to be believed but after a great deal of supporting information that could easily be corroborated appeared, a significant portion of the public began to start believing. In the past many Intel operatives and agents were murdered who started to leak. All were closely monitored and most harassed after retirement to keep a constant stream of trauma coming to keep them off base. In the last few years these lethal sanctions have been reduced significantly and nearly eliminated except for those working close to serial murderers like the Klintons (e.g. Seth Rich).

    The Internet was to be primarily and Intel spy tool, but its secondary purpose of convenient access to vast sources of information was identified as a major emerging threat to the Ruling Regimes prevention of the public learning too much real truth about their covert crimes.

    Several tactics were initiated by Intel to counteract this:

    The use of false “limited hangout” websites that can seduce Internet users to attribute validity to the website sources, but which can deliver periodic bad payloads when deemed necessary in order to deceive the public over critically important secret about Regime crimes.

    There is now an ongoing war by the Intel controlled website providers and search engines against websites and authors who publish serious, documentable or documented proof of serious covert crimes.

    So much serious truth about covert crimes has now been released that an estimated 12-14% of the Internet users now believe that the Ruling Regime is totally criminal and actually responsible for assassination, unjustified wars, False-flag terror/shootings (some real/some real), money laundering, drug and weapons trafficking, sex and organ trafficking, occult pedophile use and murder/cannibalism of babies and children, adrenochrome harvesting and sales/use, that the Ruling Regime has ordered the major media and Internet social; website providers to institute USG and Intel suppression plans including the use of sophisticated assignable algorithms for website and authors which are designated as suitable targets to suppress through this high tech censorship.

    As this war between TRUTHERS and TRUTH-SUPPRESSORS heats up, the Ruling Regime (which hijacked the USA at Jekyll Island in 1913 and instituted “Babylonian Money-Magick”), the Ruling Cabal is afraid they are now losing the information war despite their massive and growing Internet censorship and is seriously considering fall back routines such as starting a major international war, or another deployment of a bioweapon. It is possible that the Regime is now seriously considering starting a war with Chine over Taiwan, or a war with the Russian federation over the Ukraine, or both at once, a two front war which US Generals say is beyond our current capabilities.

    Babylonian Money-Magick is the occult deployment of debt-notes as real money, which is loaned debt which required repayment with interest, the greatest financial fraud in history.

    As this war between TRUTHERS and TRUTH-SUPPRESSORS heats up, the Cabal may be under attack by a high level group within the US Navy which support Trump and considers him the Presidential victor. There are many rumors that a secret war in the DUMBs in now ongoing against the forces that have been aligned with the Ruling Cabal and that soon we will see the results. Until then we can only speculate.

    One thing that cannot be denied is that the Alt Media Truthers (Prof Fetzer set the path for many of them and started a new internet social sport of connect the conspiracy crime dots), have made tremendous progress in getting the secret, previously hidden truth out to the masses, truth that a CIA’s controlled “Operation Mockingbird Media” would never release. Certainly the Cabal has many reasons to fear the masses due to the Internet’s truth transmissions about there many serious covert crimes against We The People and humanity in general. They are likely desperate and may be pushed aside by new and powerful forces that may be arising and taken over right now. Soon we shall likely find out.

  16. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    NO. Conspiracies involved coordination to commit ILLEGAL ACTS. Birthday parties are not ILLEGAL. Nor was the Manhattan Project. I am stunned at the failure to think things through. By your standard, every effort at business by two or more parties would be a conspiracy! Cooperation per se is not conspiracy. You are ignoring distinctions that are implicit even in ordinary linguistic practice.

    • Replies: @sunris
  17. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    Nice point. Again and again, we hear of someone who knew someone who knew someone who died at Sandy Hook (Orlando, Parkland, Las Vegas, . . . ). We have pursued these cases when we have had a name to track and found, again and again, it was a false report based on a fictional person. There are confused sources and gullible saps galore in American society today. Truth is a scarce commodity.

    • Agree: TKK
    • Replies: @Timothy Madden
    , @Wade
  18. Mulegino1 says:

    NO. Conspiracies involved coordination to commit ILLEGAL ACTS.

    Not necessarily. Of course, criminal conspiracies are illegal by virtue of their criminality. But the term itself, as classically understood, has not always referred exclusively to criminal acts, as John Courtney Murray illustrates below:

    I would like to relieve the word “conspiracy” of its invidious connotations. It is devoid of these in its original Latin sense, both literal and tropical. Literally it means unison, concord, unanimity in opinion and feeling, a “breathing together.” Then it acquires inevitably the connotation of united action for a common end about which there is agreement; those who think alike inevitably join together in some manner of action to make their common thought or purpose prevail. The word was part of the Stoic political vocabulary; it was adopted by Cicero; and it has passed into my own philosophical tradition, the Scholastic tradition, that has been formative of the liberal tradition of the West. Civil society is formed, said Cicero, “conspiratione hominum atque consensu,” that is by action in concert on the basis of consensus with regard to the purposes of the action. Civil society is by definition a conspiracy, “conspiratio plurium in unum.” Only by conspiring together do the many become one. E pluribus unum.

  19. Betrand Russell, 90 years old, spotted the lies of the official version of the JFK hit, straight away. By September 1964 he published ‘ Sixteen Questions on the Assassination’, and recruited an expert group the ‘Who Killed Kennedy Commission’ with members such as Toynbee, Kenneth Tynan, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Michael Foot, J.B.Priestley and other luminaries. The whole thing stank, to all but the fakestream media sewer’s inhabitants, from the very start. To see the buffoon Tucker Carlson, declare that Oswald was the lone assassin, driven by his communism, just a week or so ago, tells you just what a cretin, or liar, or both, he is.

    • Agree: dimples
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  20. So the ruling establishment is a criminal operation. Name a time when it was ever different? Think of the Boston Tea Party and explain how it was different to 9/11 or JFK etc in kind or effect. George Washington himself was not a nice man. None of the heroes of the revolution were. The mendacity and greed were baked in from the beginning. America has always been corrupt to the core. The only saving grace was a certain puritan Christianity and that has been sidelined for now.

    Oliver Cromwell is likely the last honest leader in the Anglo Saxon world and he was a piece of work in his own right. Many sainted and hollowed leaders from the past were true deviants. Winston Churchill is a good example. War monger and serial incompetent extraordinaire. FDR is another.

    The thing is that most people are so stupid and unwilling to think at all, sheep you might say, that it is unnatural to imagine that the wolves will not feed. That the wolves are on a kamikazi mission to destroy themselves and everything else is a bit worrying. Likely they will not succeed because they are only human too.

  21. onebornfree says: • Website

    “There are many videos and expert studies of the collapse of WTC-7 available on-line, which means that the recorded sequence of events can be reviewed again and again. ”

    This “just” in:

    _All_ of the videos depicting the collapse of WTC7 are fakes- that is, they are all poorly made CGI fabrications made months, or possibly years before the alleged events of 9/11:

    Also, this “just” in:

    _None_ of the original”live” broadcast footage shown on the 5 US MSM Tv stations [ ABC , CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC] that depicted either Fl. 175’s “strike” on WTC2, or the collapses [or whatever you wish to call them] of WTC’s 1 and 2, was/is genuine live footage.

    As with all of the WTC 7 building collapse videos, all of that original “live” MSM footage is in fact also [poorly made] CGI fabrication, created months, or perhaps years before Sept. 11, 2001, as Simon Shack had conclusively demonstrated all the way back in 2008:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  22. @Jim Fetzer

    I ask my favourite Israeli search engines: “I buy thermite demolition charge”. and I get a seller on page one. I ask “I buy nuclear demolition charge” and I get, to my surprise, Canada’s government asking for them, and a seller. So I cannot deny the existence of nuclear demolition charges. However:
    On the day, I saw the copious dust, and predicted an upsurge of Parkinson’s and Altzheimer’s in those exposed, a prophecy well confirmed. Not only was aluminium oxide in plenty supply, that dust was peppered with iron globules, as one would expect of thermite. “Nano thermite” does exist, but in this context, I think the term over-used, to project a sense of surrealism or fantasy upon those who deny the aeroplane theory. I see no links to the article/s where you “debunked” the thermite theory, and there is no reason that both thermite and nuclear demolition was not used, so the A&E4911 is still good in my books. At least they sued science and engineering, instead of psychology and speculation to unravel the “HOW”.
    We know an Israeli corporation was involved (them “dancing Schlomos”) but it was purely commercial, I think, so the “Israel did 911” thing is mostly nonsense. The whole thing was a commercial endeavour, exploited by those in the know to make money, justify war and implement Bolshevik protocol upon all who would listen. The “WHOM” were obviously the guy who leased the twin Towers, insured them, then sued for TWO “attacks”. That’s the guy who leased a building from the Port Authority, which is normally not allowed?
    There is, however, to my own knowledge, only one serious, credible and coherent attempt at explaining the “WHY”. With no regard to the HOW or WHOM, there is still the question of “WHY?”
    I humbly submit the following explanation:
    https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/32-paranoid-goy/economics/109-911-wayleave
    Hint: It was insurance fraud!

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Wizard of Oz
  23. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    The collapse of WTC-7 was filmed from so many different perspectives that this claim by Simon Shack is simply preposterous. We watched it happen. Larry Silverstein admitted he agreed to have it “pulled” which is a construction term for bringing a building down by controlled demolition. What in the world does Simon Shack think happened to WTC-7, if not for having come down in a controlled demolition?

    I dare say, on this issue, A&E911 has it all over Simon Shack. Consider the alternative explanations for his stance: (h1) Simon Shack is right and we have no idea what happened to WTC-7; or (h2) We know what happened to WTC-7 and are forced to conclude Simon Shack is wrong. It’s embarrassing, but we have here the exemplification of an effort to undermine serious research about the atrocities of 9/11.

    For more, see “9/11: Who was responsible and why”,

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  24. @paranoid goy

    This is embarrassing. The one link I added in my first comment and this guy doesn’t even bother to check it out! Here’s what I wrote (in my first comment above) followed by the explanation (that he cannot explain away):

    I have done my best to expose those who have actually run it into the ground, which includes both Judy Wood and her DEW group and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as I have explained many times in many places. Here’s a nice example: https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/09/on-c-span-richard-gage-leaves-9-11-truth-in-a-time-warp-2/ My faith in Steven Jones and his nano-thermite hypothesis had run past its expiration date by June 2006, when Alex Jones invited me to be the keynote speaker at his American Scholars Conference.

    Here’s what paranoidguy would have you believe (copied directly from the link I cite):

    Most Americans are too gullible to realize that this is citing the very source that Gage is disputing. But it could have been worse. He could have pointed out that Niels Harrit, a proponent of the nano-thermite hypothesis, has estimated that it would have required “hundreds of tons” to do the job (where Harrit has also offered the more precise calculation of from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons for each tower) or that the lab Christopher Bollyn has cited Los Alamos as his source for “explosive nano-thermite” told Gordon Duff “they couldn’t produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it couldn’t blow a hole in a piece of paper”.

    Why nano-thermite can’t cut it

    If this had been an episode of “The Twilight Zone”, it might have made more sense where 9/11 Truth is caught in a time warp. Richard Gage must know by now that nano-thermite cannot live up to its capabilities as advanced by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Nano-thermite (or even “thermite”, which is the term Gage used) has only 1/13 the explosive force of TNT and, whatever contribution it may have made to the collapse of Building 7, cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers.

    As Denis Spitzer et al., “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010), observes, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites: Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nano-thermites are non-explosive. So Mark and I may have been overly generous.

    Having published three articles explaining that nano-thermite cannot have done it and to inform prominent researchers about this discovery, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.”

    Dwain also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. This law requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel, which is far beyond the highest recorded detonation velocity of 895 m/s for nano-thermite.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  25. Avalanche says:
    @MarkU

    I, too, always discarded Judy Woods as a kook; until, long, long after looking into and discarding her; I read a non-fiction ‘entry’ in one of the “There Will Be War” series of anthologies; gathered and edited by Dr. Jerry Pournelle who was a brilliant sci fi author — and ALSO a brilliant high-level scientist (physicist, maybe? Don’t remember). The TWBW series comprises BOTH sci-fi and serious essays on (what else?) war and weapons and the like.

    Pournelle’s essay on some of the projects he worked on included one at one of the Nat Labs (Los Alamos? Sorry, don’t remember, haven’t time to look it up) . That project WAS DEW: Directed Energy Weapons. And Pournelle wrote that ‘back then’ DEW was working out, quite well, and suddenly “went black.” That was back in, like, 1985?

    So, WHAT has the oh-so-honest-and-truthful govt been doing with DEW research since 1985? And does Woods deserve another closer look, if JERRY POURNELLE wrote positively of DEW? Woods does have other … really stupid … points she tried to make (back 10 years? when I looked into her stuff) — but now I am withholding deprecation of the DEW. (Then, take a look at some of the CA fires — and the ‘burned to dust’ houses, RIGHT NEXT to unburned trees… I still have no interest in pursuing.)

    The thing that wrapped Woods up for me back then, as either a kook or too stupid to live, was when she MARVELLED (on video) that some charity was asking for donations of new steel-toed books for the workers because the guys’ boots were melting! That, she said, “proved” that the ground was hot enough to melt steel. (Oh fer cryin’ out loud! It melted the RUBBER-analog IN WHICH the steel toes are embedded — did she never even ASK the guys?!?)

    p.s., the TWBW series have been/are being republished by Castalia House publishers — including Jerry Pournelle’s additional involvement in the republishing up until his death. Great books!

    • Replies: @Beachhead
  26. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “The collapse of WTC-7 was filmed from so many different perspectives that this claim by Simon Shack is simply preposterous. We watched it happen. Larry Silverstein admitted he agreed to have it “pulled” which is a construction term for bringing a building down by controlled demolition. What in the world does Simon Shack think happened to WTC-7, if not for having come down in a controlled demolition?”

    No, own up, you didn’t watch it happen. At best you watched it appear to collapse on video, on TV, _after_ the event allegedly occurred. 😎

    I’m not Simon Shack but I imagine he would say something like :

    ” The WTC7 collapse videos are all obvious [poorly made] CGI fakes. They all appear to show a simulated controlled demolition. Obviously, WTC7 was destroyed , but we have no certain knowledge of when that [off-camera]event actually occurred that day. _Because_ the videos are all obvious CGI fakes ,we cannot know for certain that they were demolished by controlled demolitions, using standard demolition explosives- [dynamite], _however_, that is my best guess to date, and, it [ie standard, controlled demolition via dynamite]is also my best guess as to how WTC1 and 2 were similarly demolished [off camera] that day.”

    Reminder: The Burden of Proof :

    Any serious researcher, when confronted with video “evidence” of any alleged event, is , as with all other alleged evidence [eg “eye witness” statements, photos, documents etc] obliged/supposed to first establish the authenticity of that video “evidence” _before_ elevating such alleged “evidence” to to the level of trustworthy, genuine evidence from which reasonable theories about what did/did not happen can be put forward.

    With regard to _all_ of the video and photographic “evidence” of the alleged events os 9/11, this simple, essential step was completely bypassed by 99% of 9/11 researchers, including yourself, Mr Fetzer.

    In fact, regarding the original supposed “live” MSM Tv broadcast imagery, you have in the past stated :

    “..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..”
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  27. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    Here we see JTRIG tricks at work, CIA trying to fixate everybody on a single point of technical minutiae. CIA pioneered this wheeze when they whacked JFK by harping endlessly about ballistics. Then their media shills jeer at independent researchers for obsessing about ballistics.

    Now that CIA blew up some buildings and got busted, they’re trying it again. Thermite! No, Nukes!! No, DEW!! No, Space lasers!!!

    In both case the evidence of CIA crime is probative in any independent court. Good thing CIA bribes, blackmails, or kills all independent judges. We’ve got enough right now to hang Brennan, Blee, Wiltshire, Bowman, and a host of worker bees.

  28. The MSM was virtually silent concerning JFK assassination theories as David Crosby of the Byrds tried to tell America at the 1967 Monterey Festival. The very big turning point was Watergate and that was the background for opening up the assassination investigation.

    A couple of points: Ron Unz has a style of writing I like a lot, not Jewish but American, but if I can fault him its *maybe* his dogmatically hanging on to conspiracy beliefs, not listening and answering objections to it, on what (little?) I have read . He should attempt to refute the alternate pov or modify his opinions accordingly as lovers of truth do. I have in mind here Pincher Martin, an UR commentator, with his lone gunmen theory based on forensic evidence.

    The writer mentions the small crater size of the 911 flight which impacted the ground. For anyone interested flight 1771 was also supposed to have made a similar crater in the 1980’s – or did it?

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Troll: ivegotrythm
    • Replies: @profnasty
  29. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Leander Starr

    So the ruling establishment is a criminal operation. Name a time when it was ever different? “

    This just in:

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    “People do not expect to find chastity in a whorehouse. Why, then, do they expect to find honesty and humanity in government, a congeries of institutions whose modus operandi consists of lying, cheating, stealing, and if need be, murdering those who resist?” H. L. Mencken

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  30. @Jim Fetzer

    Let me see if UR allows me to answer:
    I looked at your site, and recognised it as one I previously devoured, even though I differ from you on many little things, not enough to fight over.
    I myself never alleged that “nano thermite” was used, just the “regular” stuff that is used in shaped charges, commonly used for steel structure demolition. Your physics on how thermite works, approaches the issue from a purely ballistic angle. That, unfortunately, is misinformed. I am not the best person to explain, but the calculations you offer, are of the exact kind that insists a space rocket has to achieve escape velocity. The two processes are actually very good metaphors for each other. Buzz, not bang, is better.

    As for nukes, I want to cling to my innocence a little longer, and believe that, should they exist, only the Armies have them. I shudder at the thought of commercial trade in this grade of materiel.
    As for “impossible” quantities of explosives needed? You could smuggle in a truck loaded with explosives, how easy wouldn’t a wheelbarrow per hour be? “Maintenance, coming through, please walk the other side of the screen…!”
    My information comes from the remains of demolished structures as amply described in technical literature, and many a website, videos, TV shows. I will not argue, but thank you for confirming my stated suspicion that the specific term “nano thermite” was inserted into The Narrative as a straw man factoid.
    P.S. I swear to whatever you hold holy, some years back, there was a whole series on (Discovery??) where a demolition company showed us a number of extra large demolitions, how they measured the charges for every seperate cut, how they precut certain bits with gas torches, the thick rubber sheets wrapped around each cutting site to prevent the charge shaper (brass/copper angle bar) from shooting off as a projectile…
    If you find those dozen-odd episodes, please let us know!

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  31. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Of course, I agree with onebornfree on this point:

    No, own up, you didn’t watch it happen. At best you watched it appear to collapse on video, on TV, _after_ the event allegedly occurred. 😎

    The (purported) planes hitting the North and South Towers are a case in point. Although we have some 52 videos of “Flight 175” hitting the South Tower, we know how it was done.

    We know it had to be faked because those videos show aerodynamically and physically impossible events (entering the tower its whole length in the same number of frames it passes its whole length through air) and traveling at an impossible speed for a Boeing 767 at that altitude.

    There are three alternatives: (h1) CGI; (h2) video compositing; and (h3) holographic projection. But we have a large number of (albeit conflicting) of reports of seeing a (small or large or commercial or military) plane, when on (h1) or (h2), no plane would have been visible in real time.

    Richard Hall’s Flight 175 3-D Radar Study seems to have sorted it out, where I have received a copy of a page from an Australian Military Manual for an Airborne Holographic Projector, which appears to be what was used in this instance.



    So the question becomes, if we were not watching the controlled demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11, what were we watching? It exhibited classic elements of a controlled demolition: slight drop at the top, all floors coming down together, 12% of 47 floors left as debris.

    Spell it out. I am sure we can’t wait to hear your alternative explanation. Lay on.

  32. @paranoid goy

    Let’s see. Mart Hightower is a Chemical Engineer. He surveyed the nanothermite literature and found:

    for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. This law requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel, which is far beyond the highest recorded detonation velocity of 895 m/s for nano-thermite.

    What is there for you not to understand? And Neils Harritt, a proponent of the nanothemite theory, has given his estimate that it would have taken

    from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons for each tower) or that the lab Christopher Bollyn has cited Los Alamos as his source for “explosive nano-thermite” told Gordon Duff “they couldn’t produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it couldn’t blow a hole in a piece of paper”.

    The US Geological Survey studied dust samples from 35 locations and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event, some of which only exist in radioactive forms. So what is there here that you do not understand? I am just the least bit baffled. Tell us.

    • Replies: @dimples
  33. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “So the question becomes, if we were not watching the controlled demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11, what were we watching? Spell it out. ”

    Can you read? I already did “Spell it out. ” Stop playing dense [ or learn to read- whichever the case may be ] 😎.

    I clearly stated that all WTC7 collapse sequences are 100% CGI fakes, [and provided a video analysis that demonstrated that], and that therefor they could not be used as conclusive evidence of _anything_, but that it could be reasonably assumed/speculated that WTC7 had most likely been demolished off camera via conventional demolition technology.

    I notice you also continue to ignore the main point of my previous reply, that is, that yourself, and 99% of the so-called “9/11 truth movement” have completely ignored standard investigative procedure and just merrily assumed, with no actual evidence, that any/all WTC7 collapse sequences are genuine footage, preferring instead [out of laziness?] to believe that because there are so many, and they all appear to show the same event, that somehow they “must” all “therefor”, be genuine.

    Now I can understand why a beginner might make such a egregious, lazy assumption, but a professor with a degree in the philosophy of science and the scientific method? Come on now ! 🤣

    Admit it Jim, you have no real idea as to whether _any_ of the original MSM’s alleged “live” video footage for 9/11 is genuine, simply because you never bothered to seriously check, [most likely because you didn’t know what to look for, or how], and so now, instead of just owning up to that glaring fact and moving on, you choose to just conveniently ignore the entire issue and cling to/divert/obfuscate via Richard Hall’s laughable holographic plane image theory [and his accompanying lies], and similar silly unprovable fantasies.

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @profnasty
  34. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Long on insults, short on facts. The WTC was obviously destroyed, including WTC-7. If what we saw on television were CGI fakes, then what happened to those buildings? Anyone who watches my 9/11: Who was responsible and why, can see that you are not dealing with reality but promoting fantasies.

    On 9/10, the WTC was there. On 9/11 and thereafter, it was gone. Claiming that it was all done with CGI defies reason and rationality. I am sorry, but it’s profoundly insulting to claim that we can never know what happened on 9/11 when we already know most of what happened–except for you, alas!

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @onebornfree
  35. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Dr. Fetzer, you were in the Marine Corps. Are you aware of any kind of explosive that detonates without a bright flash?

    I will argue it is remarkable there are no bright flashes of any kind visible during the demolitions of the Twin Towers as televised on September 11, 2001. We see the results of a powerful force tearing the buildings apart and hurling debris 100s of feet, but no bright flashes are visible of the kind we would expect from both conventional explosives and also from nuclear detonations.

    Are you aware of the capabilities of the L-VIS video insertion software from Princeton Video Image (PVI)? This is the software CBS execs were warning about in early 2000, after the technology was used by CBS to obscure NBC’s logo in Times Square during its New Year’s Eve telecast. The execs claimed that the technology made fake plane crashes look “too real.”

    He said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology — which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows — on news programs. The danger is ”that it looks too real and therefore it’s wrong or potentially wrong,” he said. ”I certainly agree it’s potentially subject to abuse.”

    He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/13/business/cbs-is-divided-over-the-use-of-false-images-in-broadcasts.html

    For more on PVI’s L-VIS, please see Ivan Amato’s article “Lying with Pixels” in MIT Technology Review

    https://www.technologyreview.com/2000/07/01/236243/lying-with-pixels/

    Note that this particular CGI technology has the capability to both insert and remove objects from a live video stream.

    It is conceivable therefore, that L-VIS and/or some related CGI was used to remove the signature of the destructive force that took down the Twin Towers, so I think it’s best to get educated about the capabilities of the video insertion technology, and keep an open mind about how that technology might have been used in the televised 9/11 magic show.

    Part of the magic show included roles for liars like Stanley Praimnath at the WTC and Lloyde England at the Pentagon.

    Moving on, destruction to properties surrounding the WTC was extensive, amounting to over $4 billion, and resulting in the eventual laborious dismantling of two of those buildings, the Deutsche Bank Building, and Fiterman Hall.

    Due to the extensive damage to surrounding structures, calling the 9/11 WTC demolitions “controlled” is really putting lipstick on a pig, as the WTC was destroyed with a very heavy hand indeed.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  36. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Thanks for a sensible comment about how the Twin Towers were blown apart on 9/11. The reason appears to be that they were nuked from the bottom up (of the tube within the tube) and what we saw externally was an effect of blowing the buildings apart from the top down and the floors stationary to be taken out in turn, where these massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. Dennis Cimino was among the first to put all the pieces together, where the images are missing from this but you can gather the import from the text that remains: https://jamesfetzer.org/2015/09/9-11-a-world-swirling-in-a-volcano-of-lies/ Let me have your further thoughts. None of this was illusory but it was done in a complicated fashion. This is a more sophisticated analysis than in my 9/11: Who was responsible and why. It was a nuclear event but exactly how it was done remains open to discussion and debate.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @the grand wazoo
  37. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “The WTC was obviously destroyed, including WTC-7. If what we saw on television were CGI fakes, then what happened to those buildings? ”

    Please learn to read/comprehend. I never said that they [and the other 4 WTC buildings] were not destroyed on 9/11. 😏

    All I’ve stated here is that all of the MSM “live broadcast” imagery of those tower “collapse” events is 100% CGI imagery, and that the buildings were all brought down off camera, most likely using conventional demolition methodology [ i.e. pre-planted dynamite charges.]

    See: “The “Tower Collapse” Animation Sequences”:
    http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  38. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    And how are we supposed to tell your claim is true or false? I have explained how we know that the videos of Flight 175 entering the South Tower are fake: there are no collision effects, when, had this been a real plane, it would have crumpled external to the building with bodies, seats, luggage, wings and more falling to the ground. But it didn’t happen. We have photos of the sidewalk and roadway beneath each of the facades: there’s nothing there! It didn’t happen.

    We also know that the “plane” passes its complete length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its complete length through air. Since d = r x t, we know that there was no change in velocity, which is physically absurd unless a massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air. We can prove those videos are fake because they violate the laws of physics and of engineering.

    You are making the claim that WTC-7 WAS brought down by a controlled demolition, but that the videos SHOWING IT coming down by controlled demolition are CGI. Not to suggest that you are adopting a preposterous position, but by 5:20 PM/ET, the eyes of the entire world were focused on New York City. I am sorry, but your position massively discredits you. I would have thought that you would be too embarrassed to make an argument this ridiculous. Apparently not.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @onebornfree
    , @eah
  39. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I will argue that the need to protect the so-called “bathtub” structure beneath the WTC pretty much rules out the use of any basement nuclear device to bring down the Twin Towers on 9/11. And that’s not the end of it. What about all that gold that reportedly was being stored beneath the WTC? Do you think the plotters would have risked destroying and/or irradiating their booty?

    You wrote:

    these massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.

    While on the one hand I agree that a very large amount of dust was created when the Towers were destroyed, up to 2 feet deep in some places by one account, on the other hand, I will point to the overhead photos taken in the aftermath of Black Tuesday, images which show a great number of the external box column sections scattered all over the WTC site, and also many more of these so-called “chex” sections that were blown out well beyond the WTC site.


    Some of these sections slammed into the Winter Garden Atrium, the Deutsche Bank Building, the World Financial Center buildings, The Verizon building, and all other structures surrounding the WTC, causeing over $4 billion in damages.

    You can’t do that with fine dust.

    • Agree: Pheasant
    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  40. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    Yes. They had to protect the bathtub, which is why they had to devise a plan that would not allow the debris from those massive, 500,000-ton buildings to collapse into their own footprint. Which they did by turning them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which is a signature of the use of nuclear devices. Fr. Frank Morales from St. Marks Episcopal Church, who was a first responder, came on my shows TWICE and explained each time that they were destroyed to (or even below) ground level. Had they collapsed, there would have been around 13.5 floors of debris (12% of 110) apiece. Did you watch “9/11: Who was responsible and why”? But the gold had been removed the night before. Why not check out my video and get back?

  41. Sparkon says:

    But the gold had been removed the night before.

    Some perhaps, but not all of it.

    There was a publicized gold recovery operation conducted in late October 2001 led by Mayor Giuliani, along with his Police and Fire captains and a couple dozen officers from their departments, that was reported to have recovered $230 million in gold bars from the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia located under WTC 4.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html

    Coincidentally, the gold recovery operation took place the very day Queen Elizabeth II announced that she was knighting Rudy Giuliani, and also giving dashing awards to the Police and Fire captains.

    Later, the Bank of Nova Scotia reported a $200 million dollar loss in gold bars on 9/11. Maybe an accountant could explain how that worked.

    Yes. They had to protect the bathtub, which is why they had to devise a plan that would not allow the debris from those massive, 500,000-ton buildings to collapse into their own footprint. Which they did by turning them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which is a signature of the use of nuclear devices

    Some perhaps, but not all of it.

    In addition to the photo in my #39, other overhead post 9/11 WTC photos show clearly that a multitude of the exterior box column sections escaped destruction, as did at least a few of what appear to be columns from the central core, so I cannot agree with your assertion that the entire mass of the Twin Towers – or even most of it – was turned to dust.

    The concrete was turned to dust, no doubt, and there was plenty of it, but many of the exterior box column sections survived virtually intact as did at least a few of the central core columns, another one of those niggling little facts that would tend to rule out a basement nuke channeled upward through the central core, magically it would seem, doing its dirty work only when it had reached the proscribed height, made a nifty U-turn and headed back downward.

    An independent investigator who did have access to Ground Zero and inspected some of the columns from the central core was troubled by what he saw in that none of the steel columns were bent or mangled, and all of them seem to have failed at the welds between sections:

    Donald Friedman was a privately contracted engineer from LZA Technology who was at Ground Zero to help oversee cleanup operations. In his book After 9-11, An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center he observed:

    I had misgivings about the core columns I was seeing … I was unhappy that the columns I saw lying on West Street seemed to be in too-good condition.

    These huge columns—the largest weighed more than one ton per running foot—were almost all straight, with clean edges at both ends. There were some dents here and there, but I expected a piece of steel that had been wrenched out of a building to be bent. I examined the ends of the columns every chance I got. Every welded splice at the column ends I saw had failed the same way: by ripping out of the steel.

    […]

    Under the extraordinary loads imposed during the collapse, the columns were free to buckle after the welds ripped off of the flat surface of the groove. Like a lot of the structural damage I saw, this was not a normal phenomenon and it was hard to accept.

    Friedman seems to be implying that the joints between columns were improperly designed. Please see my previous comment, which includes links to a very high resolution overhead photograph of “Ground Zero” where the great number of external box columns and some of the central core columns can be seen, along with the entire area surrounding the WTC.

    https://www.unz.com/pescobar/from-9-11-to-the-great-reset/?showcomments#comment-4171985

  42. @Vinnie O

    I do, fire away, I love reading about that kind of stuff. Joe Rogan had Alex Jones on his podcast (episode #911), in 2017. Everything Jones talked about/predicted on that episode came true, including creating a false pandemic to control population and get us on a social credit system like China is currently starting to use. Once you get past the loud ranting, Jones is pretty spot on about a lot of things.

  43. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “And how are we supposed to tell your claim is true or false?”

    Well,duh! By closely examining the videos of the collapse frame by frame for examples of common signs of fakery, of course! 😎

    For example, black lines around building profiles, which , as I understand it, are a tell tale left over artifact produced during CGI video layering productions, and are commonly called “chroma keying”.Tell tale chroma key black line artifacts are to be found within practically every part of the original “live” US MSM broadcasts, not just in WTC7 collapse videos.

    “Chroma key compositing, or chroma keying, is a visual-effects and post-production technique for compositing (layering) two images or video streams together based on colour hues (chroma range). The technique has been used in many fields to remove a background from the subject of a photo or video – particularly the newscasting, motion picture, and video game industries. ….”
    From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  44. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Well, you create a straw man (exaggerated version of my position) to make it easier to attack. I did not say ALL OF THE TWIN TOWERS WAS CONVERTED INTO DUST. And I am puzzled that you seem to doubt it was a nuclear event, where I have acknowledged room for discussion and debate about how it was done EXACTLY. Do you deny the US Geological Survey results of dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan, which revealed the presence of elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event? How do you propose to explain that away? Tell us.

    The concrete was turned to dust, no doubt, and there was plenty of it, but many of the exterior box column sections survived virtually intact as did at least a few of the central core columns, another one of those niggling little facts that would tend to rule out a basement nuke channeled upward through the central core, magically it would seem, doing its dirty work only when it had reached the proscribed height, made a nifty U-turn and headed back downward.

    If you are unfamiliar with the US Geological Survey results, they are published here (among other places): What really happened on 9/11: America was Nuked!, https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/09/jim-fetzer-what-really-happened-on-9-11-america-was-nuked/ My impression is that you don’t buy into the use of nuclear devices, so please give all of us a brief sketch of your position. I am open to revising my (tentative and fallible) conclusions on the basis of new evidence and alternative hypotheses. So what exactly is your position? Don’t be shy. Spell it out. Thanks!

    • Replies: @TKK
  45. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    Asked Dennis (whose account you are attacking) for any comments:

    one of the most insidiously ‘in your face’ pieces of evidence supporting the use of nuclear devices, turns out to be a very nice video shot from a helicopter more than 3 miles from the epicenter of the WTC complexes. it is comprised of an otherwise normal video with a sudden ‘break’ in the video pedastal / sync that is all too indicative of an EMP event, which arguably now can be synthesized using other means of ‘compton electron’ creation and propagation. but what is even more evident is the gaussian noise that broke the squelch levels on radios for a pretty good distance, making voice communications impossible due to the broadband component of that constituent of a nuclear detonation and the EMP effects. The video of the sudden break of sync on the video device doing the recording, coincidental to the gaussian noise on all of the NYC police and fire radios for an approximate amount of time which is proportional to a nuclear device detonation, seems to provide proof of something that couldn’t simultaneously cause video sync break on the chopper and the break of squelch on the radios at the exact point in time or coincidence interval that these two separate but related things took place. I might add that had I not seen the helicopter video to confirm what I only could ‘surmise’ was the cause of the squelch break on the radios with the gaussian white noise….I’d have had to keep searching for more proof of an EMP pulse and the requisite compton electron release evident on that day in NYC. this is the kind of thing that conventional explosives cannot create. Look up ‘compton electron’ and get a clue about how these are released and their effects on radio communications and electronic devices. then tell us there is no evidence of nuclear devices used in the towers. The supposition that a nuclear detonation cannot be focused in ‘shaped charge’ fashion is something I would think Edward Teller would disagree with you about, as well as other Sandia Labs personnel with high level clearances working on the U.S. nuclear arsenal today. In other words, a nuclear detonation isn’t an omnidirectional event horizon at all, it can be steered and indeed not pinpoint focused but caused in such a way as to direct energy release and blast damage in a specific vector from the device itself. the same mechanism that provides this technique is the same general application that allows variable yield devices to exist. In any case, the other point we would like to make is that the full up aggregate mass of the steel core columns has a significant apparent deficit compared to the rubble pile evident after the buildings collapsed into the bathtub or basement. This can only occur when the very molecular structure of the steel was broken down in a way that effectively converted mass to energy on 9/11/2001., again, something that conventional devices really cannot do.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  46. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    More from Dennis:

    the question to ask is how so much steel went ‘missing’ and ceased
    to be in the rubble pile as was evident on 9/11. merely cutting into 55
    foot sections as the cutter charges did, did not make it all go away to
    the extent that it wouldn’t overflow the bathtub with a huge pile of
    girders which wasn’t there in the aftermath. the steel didn’t get
    transported into another dimension and time somewhere, it was
    converted to energy. and the very structure of the building was a
    huge ‘faraday cage’ that effectively suppressed the total magnitude
    of the EMP in a way that kept places farther away like Boston from
    having major electrical device damage due to the EMP presence.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  47. Sparkon says:

    I argue against nukes in the basement for the reasons I’ve mentioned: the bathtub and the gold. I think the danger to the bathtub would have been from the initial blast of a nuke in the basement, and not so much from falling debris. In the event, the bathtub was slightly damaged on 9/11, but was not breached.

    Additionally, the overhead photographs do not show a crater or any evidence of an underground nuclear detonation at or near the footprint of either tower, and indeed some parts of the core structures seem to be poking up out of the debris at Ground Zero.

    Of course, nukes in the attic, or a string of them, would not have been an immediate danger to either bathtub or gold.

    All of us are handicapped, I suggest, by a lack of knowledge of the state of the art of nuclear weapons a/o 2001.

    The value of portable nuclear weapons lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible. In nuclear weapon design, there is a trade-off in small weapons designs between weight and compact size. Extremely small (as small as 5 inches (13 cm) diameter and 24.4 inches (62 cm) long) linear implosion type weapons, which might conceivably fit in a large briefcase or typical suitcase, have been tested, but the lightest of those are nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) and had a maximum yield of only 0.19 kiloton (the Swift nuclear device, tested in Operation Redwing’s Yuma test on May 27, 1956). The largest yield of a relatively compact linear implosion device was under 2 kilotons for the cancelled (or never deployed but apparently tested) US W82-1 artillery shell design, with yield under 2 kilotons for a 95 pounds (43 kg) artillery shell 6.1 inches (15 cm) in diameter and 34 inches (86 cm) long.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

    So, how small could they go with mini or micro-nukes by 9/11? The Shadow may know, but I don’t.

    In the past, I’ve argued that there was no need in Manhattan for even one 110-story skyscraper in the late 1960s, but between the Rockefeller brothers and the Port Authority of NY and NJ they built two of the towering white elephants, thereby doubling the amount of vacant office space in Manhattan.

    I suggest the Twin Towers were built as part of a scam, and were destined to be destroyed as the centerpiece of an occult ritual tied to the Knights Templar and their reputed theft of gold and secrets from beneath Solomon’s Temple.

    Maybe that’s what 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey was talking about when he called 9/11 “a thirty-year-old conspiracy.”

    Thanks for your interest Jim.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  48. @Jim Fetzer

    More from Dennis:

    he f—ers who decided to use the built in Farraday Cage of the
    structures was no less than a freaking genius. but enough of the energy
    got out to hit that chopper’s airframe and break the video sync very
    badly. that was an electrical phenomenon, not a physical one. and it was
    ‘compton electrons’ that generated the gaussian noise that broke the radio
    squelches and fucked the video pedastal up on the recording in the
    chopper. had I not been monkeying with EMP generators to ‘TEMPEST’ harden
    naval war ships while at Electromagnetic Technology, INC. with Russell
    Hamm, a senior scientist who worked at Maxwell Labs after his stint with
    me at Electromagnetic Technology, Inc., I would never have been able to
    know how this EMP energy looks and what it does. But I do know. and if
    Russell Hamm is still alive today, he also knows. and so does Frederick
    Sieg, my boss whom I worked directly for.

    we created a ‘mini EMP’ generator that created the ‘ringing waveform’ and
    allowed us to focus that energy on waveguide and cable runs on board ships
    so we could ‘stop’ the EMP ingress points and give the ships both TEMPEST
    safety and EMP survivability. It was non destructive testing but it
    really showed the U.S. Navy how to make their ships a bit more ‘hard’
    relative to EMP pulse intrusion to electronics needed to fight, such as
    comms, EW, and radar/ECM.

  49. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “And how are we supposed to tell your claim is true or false?”

    A Reminder: The Burden of Proof :

    Any serious researcher, when confronted with video “evidence” of any alleged event, is , as with all other alleged evidence [eg “eye witness” statements, photos, documents etc] obliged/supposed to first establish the authenticity of that video “evidence” _before_ elevating such alleged “evidence” to to the level of trustworthy, genuine evidence from which reasonable theories about what did/did not happen can be put forward.

    With regard to _all_ of the video and photographic “evidence” of the alleged events os 9/11, this simple, essential step was completely bypassed by 99% of 9/11 researchers, including yourself, Mr Fetzer.

    In fact, regarding the original supposed “live” MSM Tv broadcast imagery, you have in the past stated :

    “..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..”
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @profnasty
  50. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Well, what you suggest is very much what I propose in “9/11: Who was responsible and why” and earlier. So we have several alternative hypotheses about how it could have been done using nuclear devices: (h1) a larger nuke in the subbasements; (h2) a series of mini or micro nukes distributed throughout each of the towers; (h3) . . . . So we appear to be closer than may have been obvious at first encounter. VT (Veterans Today) has an impressive series of as many as 50 articles on the use of nukes on 9/11, including “The Secret History of 9/11”, https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/11/01/the-secret-history-of-9-11/; “Breathtaking: Solving Nuclear 9/11, the Pommer Report”, https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/12/30/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/, and more. I interviewed Dimitri Khalezov early on and was in a state of disbelief when he sketched to me an account of the buildings being destroyed from the ground up (the inner tube) and then from the top down (the outer tube), but I have been unable to rule it out and the Pommer Report makes it more plausible. VT has a lot on Dimitri, too, including “VT Nuclear Education: Khalezov on Mini Nukes and the WTC”, https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/09/05/vt-nuclear-education-khalezov-on-mini-nukes-and-the-wtc/ Welcome your further thoughts. But this is clearly the right ballpark.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @profnasty
    , @skrik
  51. Sparkon says:

    I interviewed Dimitri Khalezov early on and was in a state of disbelief when he sketched to me an account of the buildings being destroyed from the ground up (the inner tube) and then from the top down (the outer tube),

    As always, pay special attention to first impressions and gut reactions. I must emphasize that, as I see it, Khalezov’s tales are far too tall for all but the entirely gullible, or those with an agenda. His claims are additionally ruled out by the physical evidence – much like James Files’s BS claims about participating in JFK’s assassination.

    Again, the presence in WTC rubble of mostly intact steel columns from the central core rules out your (h2) and Khalezov’s wild theories. As I’ve noted above, some of those columns were inspected by Donald Friedman as they lay on West St., some are visible in the overhead photographs, and some may be seen in photographs over at Metabunk in the link I gave earlier. Here it is again:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-towers-core-columns-what-held-them-together-welds.9256/

    The Twin Towers were destroyed by some covert means while the public was fed televised imagery that was certainly phony in the case of UA175 plunging into WTC 2, raising the possibility that all of the televised broadcasts on 9/11 used CGI in some manner.

    In the case of WTC 7’s televised demolition, I agree with onebornfree that the images contain obvious artifacts of CGI.

    We know there must have been some glitch or mix-up with Bldg. 7’s demolition because of BBC presenter Jane Standley’s premature announcement of its “collapse.” Although it has tried mightily, BBC has been unable to come up with a convincing explanation for the premature announcement, claiming it came from Reuters, who’ve claimed they got it from an incorrect local broadcast.

    We also have FDNY fireman Rudy Dent’s statements that Mayor Giuliani and his fire chief were in Bldg. 7 for some time, emerging only right before the building was destroyed.

    Yes, there are interesting technical questions about how the WTC was destroyed on 9/11, but there are many other interesting aspects to this crime, such as for example, “Black Betty” Ong, subject of a previous long discussion at UR, Norman Mineta’s testimony to 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton about VP Dick Cheney’s actions and orders as a plane was approaching the Pentagon, and CNN announcer Carol Lin’s leading statements in her broadcast, breaking the first news about the WTC to viewers with the eyewitness testimony of CNN producer Vice-president of Finance Sean Murtagh, who claimed he saw AA 11 fly right past his vantage point on the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza in midtown Manhattan ” teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip” before plunging into WTC 1.

    Could a 767 traveling almost 500 mph really teeter wingtip to wingtip – whatever that means – at 1000 ft altitude?

    Well, at least Murtagh didn’t claim to have watched AA 11 crash into WTC 1 on TV, as Pres. Bush did on at least two occasions

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  52. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    You are being a bit too coy for my taste. Barry Jennings was inside WTC-7 that morning and heard explosions taking place, even feeling himself stepping over dead people. I cannot imagine why anyone would dispute that WTC-7 came down by a controlled demolition. What would be the point of faking it? I am sorry, but you seem to be overly territorial. The evidence for the use of nukes to blow the Twin Towers apart is simply overwhelming. And, of course, if you had taken the time to watch my video, “9/11: Who was responsible and why” (above), you would know that Pilots for 9/11 Truth determined that the (image of a) plane shown in the Flight 175 videos was traveling to fast to be aerodynamically possible. I am having a hard time with your coming on so strong but being unwilling to define your own stance. Why don’t you take a look and explain where you disagree and why. What do you think happened to WTC-7, after all? SPELL IT OUT.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  53. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    And of course W’s reports of having watch Flight 11 hit the North Tower (in real time) are fascinating because (1) they appear to be completely sincere, (2) he has indeed made the assertion more than once, and (3) it would have to have been on the closed Secret Service TV in the Presidential Limousine. Which, in turn, is revealing because that would have required a camera to be focused on the facade of the NT which normally would be utterly bereft of interest. In other words, proof of advanced knowledge of what was about to take place by the Secret Service and the Bush/Cheney administration. Please also confirm your agreement or not with the following four theses:

    (T1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
    (T2) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
    (T3) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; and
    (T4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;

    which (collectively) are known as “no planes theory” (better: none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed). Do you agree or disagree with each of those four theses?

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  54. eah says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    … had this been a real plane, it would have crumpled external to the building with bodies, seats, luggage, wings and more falling to the ground.

    I can only imagine that people who believe this are ignorant of, or don’t understand, the concept of kinetic energy:

    KE = mv**2 / 2

    Note KE increases as the square of velocity, meaning as velocity increases, KE increases very rapidly — a jetliner loaded with passengers, cargo (including luggage), and fuel, traveling at speed, has tremendous kinetic energy, and could easily smash through the facade of the WTC; there are post 9/11 papers showing this via finite element analysis — as the KE of the plane is dissipated upon impact, it is transformed into forces that would disintegrate both the facade and the plane.

    To make it clear: if you could accelerate it to a sufficient velocity, you could ram a balloon through the facade of the WTC.

  55. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, I don’t think you’ve done much reading of previous discussions about 9/11 here at Unz Review, and I certainly don’t expect you to review my comment history at UR, but if you’d bothered to do that, or even checked with your colleague Dr. Kevin Barrett, I suggest you’d have quickly learned, that I – yours truly – have been one of the most outspoken proponents of the no-planes theory (NPT) at Unz Review over the last several years.

    There were no hijacked airliners on September 11, 2001, and no airplane crashes at the WTC, the Pentagon, nor at Shanksville.

    WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were all destroyed by controlled planned demolitions on Black Tuesday.

    The purpose of a controlled demolition is to avoid damaging neighboring properties, but the perpetrators of the WTC’s destruction failed miserably in that regard on 9/11.

    The USAF did not intercept any hijacked airliners on 9/11 for the plain and simple reason there weren’t any. The story of the Arab hijackers is complete fiction.

    Pointing out the use or possible use of CGI on 9/11 does not equate to any kind of denial of the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Rather, it is simply gathering evidence and educating those who read here.

    What I’ve read indicates AA 11 and AA 77 were not even scheduled to fly on Sept. 11, 2001, and there is no take-off record for either. ACARS data from UA 93 and UA 175 indicated they were both still aloft well after they had been reported to have crashed, UA 175 into WTC 2, UA 93 into the ground at Shanksville.

    There is no trace of legitimate airplane debris at any of the alleged crash sites, just a few planted parts, as you note at the top here. However, there was a news report that the FBI had wrapped up recovery operations at Shanksville in late September 2001, with over 90% of the aircraft recovered. In like manner, there were a few news articles immediately after 9/11 talking about huge rubble heaps where the Twin Towers had stood.

    A jetliner of some kind did fly over the Pentagon about the same time a bomb was detonated there, but that airplane did not crash and kept going. This real airplane was observed on a different flight path than the phony airplane supposedly responsible for knocking down the utility poles, one of which was claimed to have smashed through the windshield of Lloyde England’s taxi.

    https://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/lloyde-england-eyeofthestorm

    I have been open to the idea of some kind of micro nukes being used to destroy the Twin Towers in top-down fashion, but as I’ve written, most of us have no real appreciation what the busy chaps in their nuclear weapons labs might have conjured up after the trail on small nukes went cold.

    With that limitation of ignorance about what the nuke weapons designers have been doing, in the past I have speculated about some kind of string of nuclear ladyfingers, like detcord, that might at least partially explain what I see in the demolition videos, where the wave of destruction appears to be continuous from top of the towers toward their foundations before the entire affair is lost in clouds of dust and smoke, but the lack of any flashes is very troubling.

    We see the results of some powerful forces tearing the buildings apart, but the destructive agent itself remains invisible. WTF is it? Some parts of the towers were turned to dust, but clearly, a great number of the external box column sections survived mostly intact. A few seem to have been hurled outward with much greater force than most.

    I would think each of those prefabricated exterior sections had some kind of identifying marks specifying its postion in the structure. With any real investigation, it should have been possible to a) record the location where each box column section was recovered b) plot a trajectory back to its original position in the building’s external facade, but of course we didn’t get anything like that, at all.

    In my view, it is conceivable the bright flashes from WTC 1 & 2’s destructive agent(s) could have been removed in real time with L-VIS.

    In addition to setting up the entire magic show with the portrayal of UA 175 seeming to crash into WTC 2, the other plausible purpose of employing CGI, video insertion, compositing and such on 9/11, was to conceal some aspects of the demolitions.

    It was a magic show featuring liars at every turn, so it may be impossible to sort it all out with respect to the agents of destruction, but other leads would seem to be much more promising.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  56. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    This is bad. Embarrassing. The external core columns were massive and formidable. They were connected to the core columns by steel trusses, on which was poured 4-8″ of concrete. Since the building was 208’x208′, that means each floor consisted an acre of concrete on a steel truss, which was connected to massive external support sections. (See “9/11: Who was responsible and why”.)

    Purported Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) of these floors. Flight 11 with seven (7). Just think of what happens to a plane in flight when it encounters a small bird weighing only a few ounces. Tremendous damage! Now imagine hitting an acre of concrete on a steel truss! Then multiply by seven (North Tower) and eight (South).

    We know that the effect of a plane traveling 400 mph (or more) hitting a (stationary) 500,000-ton concrete and steel structure is the same as a stationary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building moving 400 mph (or more). Perhaps that helps you to understand something you obviously do not. Have you ever studied physics?

    I would bet that you also think that a straw can penetrate a tree, as we sometimes see following a tornado. I hate to disillusion you, but trees are twisted by the force of tornados and open cracks, where things like straws are sometimes embedded. You could no more get a Boeing 757 into a Twin Tower than a can of beer can pass through a stone wall–even if you throw it really, really hard!

    Your grade on this pop quiz: F.

    • Replies: @eah
  57. eah says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I would bet that you also think that a straw can penetrate a tree, as we sometimes see following a tornado.

    Yes, if accelerated to a sufficient velocity it could.

    As an analogy, I think people question evolution because the human mind cannot really grasp or imagine a period of time measured in e.g. hundreds of millions of years, nor the changes in both the environment and life forms that could occur — it’s similar with special relativity and effects like time dilation: the human mind cannot comprehend velocities approaching the speed of light (c), and hence how the time/space ‘reality’ we experience might be altered at such speeds.

    If you could accelerate them to e.g. 0.5c, (as an example), you could ram a balloon through the facade of the WTC, or a straw through a tree — believe it or not.

    You should use the ‘REPLY’ function on this website when answering.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @onebornfree
  58. Sparkon says:
    @eah

    The only collision that has any relevance to 9/11 is a collision between aluminum and steel. Water balloons have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Steel is much harder, heavier and stronger than aluminum. Aluminum alloys are used for aircraft construction because they are light and strong enough, because the airplane is not expected to encounter anything but air while flying. For landing, it has strong landing gear with rubber tires to absorb some of the shock.

    Aluminum cannot cut, pierce, or penetrate steel, no matter how fast it is going. The softer, weaker, lighter material will always yield to the harder, heavier, stronger material irrespective of the velocities of either or both.

    It is for that reason anti-tank and anti-armor kinetic penetrators are fashioned from DU and other very hard, heavy, dense materials in order to penetrate the armor of tanks, and those rounds are propelled to very high velocities indeed, where by contrast the reputed speed of the airliners on 9/11 was about 500 mph for AA 11, and 575 mph for UA 175, or about as fast as a speeding BB shot from an airgun.

    • Agree: Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @eah
    , @Stephane
    , @Sam J.
  59. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Thanks. Yes, it is a law of materials science (which cannot be violated and cannot be changed) that, in collisions between materials of different density, the more dense prevails over the less dense–always! This is not a matter of opinion but a natural law.

    • LOL: eah, northeast
    • Replies: @eah
    , @eah
    , @Sam J.
  60. eah says:
    @Sparkon

    Water balloons have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Oh man — unbelievable — it was just an analogy to illustrate the concept of kinetic energy, the energy of motion, and that with a sufficient velocity even a very light object would possess enough energy of motion that it would, upon impact and dissipation/conversion of that energy, destroy or disintegrate both the object and what it collided with (via the ‘work’ done by that energy).

    There is a physical law: conservation of energy, which includes the work that is done when/if energy is transformed or dissipated.

    A thought experiment: suppose it was possible to accelerate a balloon to 05.c (just a sample velocity) — the amount of KE present would be ENORMOUS — if this balloon was rammed into the WTC while traveling at 0.5c, what would happen to all that energy? — note it takes VERY LITTLE energy (work) to destroy the balloon — the answer is clear: the energy would go into destroying the facade of the WTC (the work).

    Both you and Fetzer ignore this part of my original comment: there are post 9/11 papers showing this via finite element analysis — the question of whether a plane could have passed through the facade of the WTC did arise, and got some technical attention, post 9/11 — suggestion: do an internet search for such a paper, look at the abstract, including the affiliations of the authors and their contact info, and try to get in touch with them — because your problem is not just with me, it’s with the physicists et al who did the analysis.

    All of this is fairly elementary, and the fact you and Fetzer have such trouble accepting it shows more than anything the confirmation bias many 9/11 ‘conspiracy theorists’ have (I also do not believe the official explanation, but I’m also scientifically educated and literate).

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @eah
  61. eah says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    >a law of materials science

    There is no such “law” — there are, however, other relevant and valid laws of physics — see my reply to ‘Sparkon’.

  62. Stephane says:
    @Sparkon

    Aluminum cannot cut, pierce, or penetrate steel, no matter how fast it is going. The softer, weaker, lighter material will always yield to the harder, heavier, stronger material irrespective of the velocities of either or both.

    I’d say you’re wrong, have a look at this evaluation of aluminium-lined shaped charges (it’s a PDF so you will need to download the file I linked).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813009612/pdf?md5=3b95b8ae537e9e79fed52f7f70d87b15&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813009612-main.pdf.

    At least theorically, a steel target can be broken by just about any material impacting on on it, if there is enough kinetic energy exchanged between the impactor and the target to overcome the cohesive strength of the target.

    Harder, denser impactors are better at that game, but not mandatory. Explosively formed penetrators are generally copper (dense but ductile) but sill able to defeat steel armor.

    • Agree: eah
  63. onebornfree says: • Website
    @eah

    “Yes, if accelerated to a sufficient velocity it could.”

    Exactly what “sufficient velocity”? Pray tell!

    290mph, perhaps?

    In the Evan Fairbanks fake collision sequence above, Fl. 175 is traveling its own length prior to impact, at a speed of 11 frames per sec., giving an estimated speed [calculated at the then standard professional frame speed of 30 frames per sec ] of around 290 mph, while in the Fox 5 fake sequence [see link below] the plane takes only 6 frames to travel its own length- for a speed [at a video frame speed of 30 frames per sec.] of 540 mph.

    See: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

    Also see: “9/11 Video Fakery: So Exactly Where Did Fl.175 Hit WTC2 ?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/911-video-fakery-so-exactly-where-did.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  64. eah says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    >the more dense prevails over the less dense–always!

    Would you say steel is more dense than water? — have you ever heard of a water jet cutter? — they’ve been around for decades — a stream of high pressure/velocity water can cut through steel (link) — This system used a 100,000 psi (690 MPa) pump to deliver a hypersonic liquid jet that could cut high strength alloys such as PH15-7-MO stainless steel.

  65. Sparkon says:
    @eah

    Oh man — unbelievable — it was just an analogy to illustrate the concept of kinetic energy,

    But your “analogy” has no merit. It hardly even qualifies as an “analogy” because a water balloon has nothing in common with an aluminum-skinned airliner. It’s apples and oranges.

    a·nal·o·gy
    /əˈnaləjē/

    • a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
    • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

    I don’t want any papers. I want a demonstration. You and Stephane are free to provide any demonstration of aluminum cutting through steel without the use of explosives, as in a shaped charge.

    Finally, I doubt a water balloon could be propelled to even 100 mph. I say the balloon would burst from atmospheric drag and heating from friction long before it was going very fast at all.

    But of course you’re free to provide us with a demonstration of this alleged potential of water balloons to smash through steel, but your thought experiment is worthless because you can’t prove any of it.

    If you can prove it, let’s see it.

    Not a paper, but a demonstration.

  66. eah says:
    @eah

    >the question of whether a plane could have passed through the facade of the WTC …

    As an example, a paper from MIT:

    Aircraft Impact Damage

    From pg 2:

    The problem of interactive failure and fragmentation of two deformable and fracturing bodies, i.e., the aluminum airframe and steel structure, has not been addressed in the literature. … The external columns were impacted at a very high speed and the process is controlled mainly by local inertia. As the fuselage and wings cut through the steel facade of the Towers, the affected portions of the column sheared off. It was found that the momentum transfer between the airframe and the first barrier of external columns was responsible for most of the energy dissipated in this phase. The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction of that energy.

    As I said, you can find other papers on this topic — they generally use some form of finite element analysis, and all (that I have seen) come to the same conclusion: the plane possessed more than enough kinetic energy so that upon impact, the work done by the dissipation of kinetic energy would shatter the facade and allow the aircraft to pass through — in fact, per the MIT paper the energy needed to shear off the steel columns in the facade was “only a fraction” of the energy dissipated in the initial phase of the impact.

    You can be a ‘no planer’ if you want (?), but you should not use the difference between the density of aluminum and steel to claim that a plane could not have penetrated the WTC facade as an argument — because that’s just plain wrong.

    Finis.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  67. Sparkon says:
    @eah

    Over the last 20 years, I’ve heard variations on this same argument over and over and over again, yet in all that time, eah and his ilk have not presented even a single demonstration of aluminum cutting through steel.

    I specify “no paper,” and here you come again with another paper.

    Aluminum-skinned aircraft cannot cut through even birds, but MIT wants us to think those same fragile wings could slice through steel box columns. What rubbish!

    Image: Daily Mail

    It is not a question of the density of materials, but of their hardness and strength. Lead is very dense and heavy but it is also fairly soft, so lead slugs flatten when they hit steel armor. If fact it is no easy task shooting bullets through steel, as I mentioned above.

    BTW, when describing your balloon fantasy, I meant to write – “It’s not even apples and oranges.”

    • Replies: @Stephane
    , @Truth Vigilante
  68. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Something odd here. I myself did the frame count on both Michael Hezarckani and Even Fairbanks’ videos and the image of the plane passes its whole length into the building in the sane number of frames it passes its whole length through air. Joe Keith, who designed the (on-ground) shaker system for Boeing to test the structural integrity of aircraft under various conditions of flight was the first to advance the argument. See “Joe’s Law”, https://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/ You seem to have been played.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  69. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “You seem to have been played.”

    No, you simply really to learn to read. Get a grip! 😎

    My post was about a comparison of the per frame flight speed of Fl.175 in the [fake “amateur”] Fairbanks sequence, versus the [MSM “live” broadcast]Fox5 sequence.

    Nowhere did I even mention the obviously equally fake “amateur” Hezarkhani sequence.

    See: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  70. EGAD! Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission (where he had authored a draft of its final report a year before he shared it with members of his staff), has been appointed the Chair of the COVID-19 Commission. What a complete farce!

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Thanks: ChuckOrloski
  71. Stephane says:
    @Sparkon

    The skin itself is thin and easily broken through, as your bird impact picture show, but the structural members of an airliner are far stronger.

    The main wing spar is a large box beam of high-strength aluminium alloy, and it’s center part has a cross section larger than the exterior colums (they are about 15 inches square, 0.4 inch thick). Even if the columns themselves are not sheared trough, with a lateral impact of that magnitude you can at least expect some damage and deformation affecting their load-bearing capacity.

    Don’t forget that the building itself is mostly air, not a steel and concrete monolith, between the columns themselves are wide gaps of much flimsier material.

    Granted, the colums and floors will break down most of the aircraft into pieces, but the momentum will carry the fragments around and through the holes, disappearing the plane inside rather than bouncing it back, kinda like the way they make fries by catapulting potatoes on a grate.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Genrick Yagoda
  72. Stephane says:

    As for the “no slowing down”, this is somewhat tricky and the answer may be conter-intuitive, because here we have a structure of ribs and longitudinal members, not really designed to resist head-on frontal impact colliding against a grid with a lot of nearly free space, while our eyes show us a solid (the airplane) colliding agains anoter solid (the building).

    How much of the kinetic energy would be used up in breaking the aircraft or some collums ? How much force can the dislocating front of the aircraft transfer to the still undamaged rear ? Enough to significatively slow it down ?

    I am not a material engineer and I have neither the datas nor the know-how to compute that myself, but if we want to answer one way or the other it’s the kind of checks that has to be done.

    I have looked for that kind of math, but I’ve not been able to come up with much beyond the kind of documents linked by eah.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  73. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Stephane

    I think we have reached beyond the point of physical absurdity. Review my 9/11 video:

    I am baffled that anyone would come here and offer completely indefensible replies.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  74. Sparkon says:
    @Stephane

    No. The aluminum alloy spars in the wing are thicker and stronger than the airplane’s skin, but they are still not nearly as strong as steel.

    In any event, the wings would not have been the first part of the aircraft to hit the building. That distinction would have fallen on the nose and forward fuselage of the airplane. Still with me?

    Once the nose of the airplane hits the building in this fantastic scenario, the rest of the airplane would start slowing down pretty dramatically.

    Before the wing roots and/or the engines could even impact the exterior of the building, the entire nose and fuselage of the aircraft forward of the wings would have had to have penetrated not only the building’s exterior, but also some portion of the central core, and in all of that the airplane is losing speed and momentum, so by the time your Ginsu steel-cutting wings and their alloy spars could have reached those steel box columns, most of the forward momentum of the airplane would have been lost, and the shredded, smashed airplane would have been falling off the front of the building.

    Image: 9/11 Plane Hoax dot com

    Psst. Of course, we did see one video where the entire nose of UA 175 appeared to penetrate WTC 2 and come out the other side, so there’s that – phony as a $3 bill.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Stephane
  75. @Sparkon

    Thanks, Sparkon. Does Stephane seriously believe anyone is going to buy such a preposterous account once they understand the physics involved? Your posts are a breath of fresh air! The “official 9/11 narrative” is riddled with these absurdities.

    • LOL: eah
  76. Blissex says:

    The whole article seems rather misguided to me for methodological reasons: it is really about theories, rather than conspiracy theories. Who demolished the WTC? Who killed Kennedy?
    There are competing theories about that. Some are official and faintly ridiculous, some are unofficial and more plausible.

    The problem with theories about most things is that most things we “know” is hearsay, sometimes many times removed. Is the moon really made of cheese? Is it cheddar or rather swiss? Only the few people who have been on moon knows for sure which type of cheese the moons is made of. 🙂 All that we can do about most theories is to notice inconsistencies and make a bet about how plausible they are, with a lot of scepticism about all-too-convenient “official” stories.

    But that is rather different story from conspiracies, for two reasons, the first is that a difference of opinion about theories does not necessarily involve conspiracies. Perhaps the “official” theories about WTC and JFK were the result of deliberate conspiracies, but that is a completely independent issue from the plausibility of the “official” theories.

    The second is that there are lots and lots of conspiracies, so most guesses about conspiracies are plausible. it is pretty common for groups of any type, especially “insiders”, to conspire to deceive outsiders to obtains some unfair advantage. 200 years ago Adam Smith himself wrote as a matter of course that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public”.

    So seeing conspiracies everywhere is actually quite rational, they are everywhere. But what conspiracy theorists get wrong is that they think that they are effective, while most conspiracies have little effect because both most are badly organized and since there are so many, they work at cross purposes. Are there conspiracies of Wall Street nabobs to fuck over everybody else? Of course, and some are even listed (GS, …), Are there conspiracies of Texas oil barons to fuck over everybody else? Of course. Are there conspiracies of Big Tech bros to fuck over everybody else? Of course. They end up fucking over each other too, but the overall effect is that they all together fuck over most of the public, that is workers and other “marks”. That is what really matters to me. They can fuck over each other as they please, but really the side effects on everybody else are too bad.

    The really big problem with conspiracies to grasp unfair advantages is that they are very expensive to everybody else.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  77. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Blissex

    This comment might make a modicum of sense if it were not the case that “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” are common targets of the mainstream media, 24/7, when conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes–most often, committed by elements of the government–where they are doing their best to defeat investigations because they might lead to exposing the government’s complicity. If you actually read this piece, you clearly did not understand it. Your commentary has no point, given what I explain here. Completely irrelevant. Why don’t your read it again and give this another go. Thank you.

    • Replies: @Blissex
  78. Blissex says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    «conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” are common targets of the mainstream media, 24/7, when conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes»

    Again this largely happens because you and others call *yourselves* “conspiracy theorists” and your theories “conspiracy theories”, but then the government theories are also “conspiracy theories”.

    The point I am making is not that your theory as to WTC or JFK are wrong, but they are mislabeled, because they should be called just “theories”. You have a theory about what happened at WTC or to JFK, and the government have another theory, there is no need to add a claim of “conspiracy”. Calling your theories “conspiracy theories” mislabels them and in a negative way.

    That is the government’s narrative and yours have two independent sides to them, the “theory” as to what happened, and whether there was a “conspiracy” about that or hiding what happened, and by whom. If you confuse the two you help the government ridicule your theory as a mere “conspiracy theory”.

    As to conspiracies your theories as to what WTC and JFK also prove my point that most conspiracies are fairly stupid: the inconsistencies and fabrications you found in the government theories show just how incompetent the “conspirators” have been. Fortunately for us.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  79. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Blissex

    You seem to miss that MY POINT is that “conspiracy theories” are THEORIES and ought to be assessed on the basis of THE SAME CRITERIA as scientific theories. We are called “conspiracy theorists” by the mainstream media DAY AND NIGHT. I don’t get your point. I have here and elsewhere made the observation that the government (and the Democrats, especially) are promoting conspiracy theories. Maybe you will appreciate what I have published previously on this, “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, https://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf Read it and get back.

  80. onebornfree says: • Website

    “conspiracy theories” are THEORIES and ought to be assessed on the basis of THE SAME CRITERIA as scientific theories. ”

    Yes indeed, they”ought” to be.

    So why have you consistently avoided basic ,standard, scientific investigative methodology with regards to _all_ the original “live broadcast” MSM imagery of 9/11 , and instead just cavalierly assumed that :

    “..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..”? Pray tell.
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html

    Reminder: The Burden of Proof :

    Any serious researcher, when confronted with video “evidence” of any alleged event, is , as with all other alleged evidence [eg “eye witness” statements, photos, documents etc] obliged/supposed to first establish the authenticity of that video “evidence” _before_ elevating such alleged “evidence” to to the level of trustworthy, genuine evidence from which reasonable theories about what did/did not happen can be put forward.

    With regard to _all_ of the video and photographic “evidence” of the alleged events os 9/11, this simple, essential step was completely bypassed by 99% of 9/11 researchers, including yourself, Mr Fetzer.

    “Regards”,onebornfree.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  81. Stephane says:
    @Sparkon

    Lead is not as strong as steel, yet a wadcutter bullet is still able to punch through sheet metal if the gauge is thin enough.

    Let’s figure a test scenario : always the same type of lead bullet, shot at the same range and velocity, against targets made of the same grade of standard construction steel (not hardened), but increasingly thick, starting with very thin ones, something like #30 or #31 gauge.

    There is a progression in the result as the thickness increase : from a hole to a deep dent to mostly intact steel, and from a nearly intact bullet to lead dust.

    An aluminium bullet of the same shape, tested in the same way will give the same kind o progression, shifted toward thinner plates because it’s much lighter than a lead one and has a far lower penetration.

    Now transpose that kind of test to an hypothetical 767 hitting a grid of box columns at about 500 mph, gradually changing the thickness of the metal int the columns.

    If the columns are made out of #30 gauge sheet, I think you will agree that the plane is likely to be damaged but to punch through.

    If they are made of 4 inches thick plates, the end result is likely to be the steel mostly intact, maybe buckled a bit, and a disintegrated airplane, whith some of the debris passing between the columns and others staying outside.

    The transition from one scenario to the other will be progressive, with more and more damage to the airplane and less and less damage to the columns.

    With the known thickness and strength of the WTC perimeter and core columns, in which area are we ? Airliner heavily damaged or broken up, but still punching through ? Minor damage to the columns and heap of debris outside ?

    Before the wing roots and/or the engines could even impact the exterior of the building, the entire nose and fuselage of the aircraft forward of the wings would have had to have penetrated not only the building’s exterior, but also some portion of the central core, and in all of that the airplane is losing speed and momentum, so by the time your Ginsu steel-cutting wings and their alloy spars could have reached those steel box columns, most of the forward momentum of the airplane would have been lost

    The slowing down of the airplane in such a collision scenario depends on multiple factors and is much more complex than, say, guesstimating the behavior of a bullet striking a metal plate.

    What amount of force are the columns that are hit first able to oppose to the front of the aircraft ? What would be the corresponding deceleration rate ?

    Is the aircraft’s body strong enough to transfert that amount of force back to the rest of the airliner ? Probably not, but how much will it be able to transfer before failing ? Again, what would be the corresponding deceleration rate, and thus what would be the impact speed of the wings on the columns on each side of the nose ?

    From peoples on the “a 767 would have been able to break the perimeter columns” side of the argument, I am able to find papers trying to calculate what would have happened, explaining their modeling hypothesis and the conclusion they reached.

    From the other side, I have not yet been able to. I would really be interested in demonstrations of the implausibility of the official impact scenario, as long as they are backed up by numbers rather that gut feelings.

    • Replies: @eah
  82. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Egad! When I have demonstrated (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the images of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the North and South Towers are fabricated using holograms, which we know because what we see about them entails violations of the laws of physics and of engineering (which cannot be violated and cannot be changed), thereby demonstrating that these visual images are fraudulent, how can you make such a blatantly absurd and indefensible claim?




    When there are dozens of videos of WTC-7 coming down (in a clear, classic controlled demotion–with all the floors coming down at the same time in a symmetrical pattern into its own footprint at about the speed of free fall, which experts like Danny Jowenko have confirmed and (even) Larry Silverstein admitted)–I am exercising due diligence. You, however, are not. Grasping for an explanation, I am forced to conclude you are not here seeking truth.

  83. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Egad! When I have demonstrated (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the images of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the North and South Towers are fabricated using holograms, which we know because what we see about them entails violations of the laws of physics and of engineering (which cannot be violated and cannot be changed), thereby demonstrating that these visual images are fraudulent, how can you make such a blatantly absurd and indefensible claim?

    There’s more than one way to skin a cat, Dr. Fetzer, and certainly a number of ways to fake images, so whose reasonable doubt you’ve satisfied is open to dispute.

    To my knowledge, there has never been a demonstration of this reputed hologram projection technology. I don’t want to sit through your two hour video, so could you tell me please, the time mark in your video where you demonstrate that holograms can do what you claim?

    Thanks Jim.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  84. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jim Fetzer

    “Egad! When I have demonstrated (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the images of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the North and South Towers are fabricated using holograms, which we know because what we see about them entails violations of the laws of physics and of engineering (which cannot be violated and cannot be changed), thereby demonstrating that these visual images are fraudulent, how can you make such a blatantly absurd and indefensible claim?”

    There were _no_ holographic projections of planes flying into buildings. 😏

    _All_ of the “plane-strike” imagery [i.e _every_ pixel_ of _every_sequence] is CGI, that is computer composed /generated; the plane, the building, the smoke, the fire, the explosion, the gash, the exposed steel girders, the sky, trees, the foreground, background etc. etc.

    This is as true of the “amateur” sequences fabricated by video professionals such as Fairbanks, as it is of all of the original “live” US broadcasts of the same event [Fl. 175 strikes WTC2] from ABC,CNN, CBS, NBC and Fox.

    Heck, the flight paths don’t even match video to video, [which they would if either a real plane or a holographic image had been used], so obviously these [30 odd, if I remember correctly] contradictory sequences were not even created/ composed on one computer, but had various authors.😎

    See: “THE PLAIN PHONY ‘PLANE’ PATHS- comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175”
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2372768#p2372768

    But wait! There’s more!

    Not only are all of the “plane strike” sequences 100% CGI fabrications, but both of the only 2 available original “live” broadcast sequences of the falls of WTC2, and then WTC1, are also 100% pure CGI fabrications, as is the [never broadcast “live”] fall of WTC7, an analysis of which, complete with tell-tale chroma-key black lines around building outlines, I posted here in post 43, above.

    “Regards” onebornfree

  85. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Start at 52:00 should work. There are three ways it could have been done: (h1) CGI; (h2) video compositing; and (h3) holographic projection. Witnesses reported seeing (what they took to be) a plane in real time approaching the South Tower; but had it been done using (h1) CGI or (h2) video compositing, there would have been no image to see in real time (only during the broadcast on TV). Watch as I explain what Richard Hall discovered in his Flight 175 3-D Radar Study, which cracked the case; and notice I was sent the page from an Australian military manual for an Airborne Holographic Projector. (h3) is the only hypothesis that can explain the relevant data: the impossible flight trajectory, the impossible entry, and radar 1,200 feet to the right of the image approaching the tower. Check it out:

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @ivegotrythm
  86. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I watched 10 minutes of your video from the 52:00 mark to 1:02:00, and while you touch on interesting stuff over that segment, there is not one word in there about holographic projection.

    I am familiar with at least some of Richard Hall’s work, and have commented on it before at UR:

    Hall didn’t specify the source for the videos he considered. In 2010 NIST released an enormous cache of data including video tapes after a successful FOI lawsuit:

    The International Center for 9/11 Studies has secured the release of hundreds of hours of video footage and tens of thousands of photographs used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

    NIST had all that material for up to nine years, a period of time entirely adequate to edit and/or create as many fake videos as wanted of UA175’s remarkable apparent encounter with WTC 2.

    Of course, the perpetrators of 9/11 who destroyed the WTC would never stoop to the tedious task of faking a few dozen videos to cover their tracks.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/?showcomments#comment-2540558

    Unfortunately, the video posted by James Charles of Richard Hall’s work has been removed from YouTube for violating its terms of service.

    This is the problem with using videos as part of an argument. First, they disappear. Second, it’s a pain wading through a video looking for something somebody said, and then needing to transcribe it for publication online, especially when you’re looking for something promised that isn’t there, Dr. Fetzer.

    So what I said stands: I’ve never seen a convincing demonstration, or any demonstration at all of this fantastic holographic projection technology.

    By contrast, I’ve seen plenty of demonstrations of the power of CGI, 3D graphics and PVI’s L-VIS system to do everything we saw on 9/11, but I can’t explain why that Naudet bros. video of what is supposed to be AA 11 looks like cotton balls, or something, while Hezarkhani gave us nice razor sharp imagery of UA 175.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  87. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Well, I begin with the evidence that no plane crashed in Shanksville; then turn to the proof that no plane hit the Pentagon. I am fairly taken aback that you did not persevere to the discussion of the evidence that no plane hit either the North Tower or the South. It’s all there. You appear to be as impatient as most Americans, who have a 15-minute attention span. In your case, only 10. Frankly, when I am distilling a decade or more of research on 9/11 into a compact, fact-laden presentation, for you to be willing to spend only 10 minutes defies belief. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth back in December 2005 and have made presentations all around the world (Buenos Aires, Athens, London, and Vancouver). I invite you to invest just a bit more time and effort on the results of my collaborative research with some of the best experts in the world. MG Albert Stubblebine (US Army, Ret.), for example, reviewed my research on the four crash sites and not only agreed with me but added more reasons why I was right. He was, of course, in charge of all US military signals (photographic) intel. You might even agree with us about all four.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  88. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, we already agree there were no hijacked planes, nor any airplane crashes on 9/11, and also that the WTC was destroyed by pre-planted explosives of some kind, but you’re missing my argument, dodging my point, and giving me a song & a dance.

    You claim the fake imagery on 9/11 was created with holographic projection. I have to call BS on that claim until I see a convincing demonstration of the holographic projection technology.

    That is all.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  89. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    That’s pretty pathetic. It’s in the video. Just scroll forward and check it out. Nothing is hidden. You act like a child who has to be spoon-fed. Frankly, it’s childish and rather embarrassing. Try 1:02-1:12, just past where you stopped before:

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  90. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Ah so.

    Asking for proof or a demonstration is childish, pathetic, and embarrassing in your mind?

    Well, you had your chance, and you gave me a bum steer. I sat through 10 minutes of your video, listening to you growl and wasting my precious Internet bandwidth for nothing!

    So now, I’d like to see a transcript of your video so I don’t have to waste any more time going around in circles with you, Dr. Fetzer. If there had been anything worthwhile about holographic projection technology in that 10 minute segment I watched, I would have been happy to make the transcript myself, but not now.

    Just the part with the discussion and demonstration of holographic projection technology will suffice.

    Fool me once…etc.

    And by the way, according to the ABC report on 9/11 made by John Cochran to Peter Jennings, Pres. Bush already knew about WTC 1 even before he left his resort hotel on the morning of September 11, 2001.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  91. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    The discussion of the North Tower began where I suggested you begin. Your precious BANDWIDTH inhibited you from watching further? I am sorry, but you are not serious about this. Disappointing. Extremely.

  92. eah says:
    @Stephane

    From peoples on the “a 767 would have been able to break the perimeter columns” side of the argument, I am able to find papers trying to calculate what would have happened, explaining their modeling hypothesis and the conclusion they reached.

    From the other side, I have not yet been able to. I would really be interested in demonstrations of the implausibility of the official impact scenario, as long as they are backed up by numbers rather that gut feelings.

    You won’t find anything like that for the simple reason Finite Element Analysis demonstrates conclusively that a plane would easily penetrate the WTC facade — here’s how someone else put it (link):

    While one could argue with the Purdue university research, it would require that the contrariant produce similarly detailed research such as their own finite element analysis. That has never materialized from any group or individual taking the stance that the planes could not penetrate the buildings.

    Above comment refers to a FEA of the plane-WTC impact done by people at Purdue; you can watch a visualization of the results on YouTube here.

    BTW, anyone who questions the validity of FEA and/or the sophisticated computational models and simulations (not the same as a visualization) developed using FEA ought to consider never boarding a jetliner again — because these same methods are used to design airframes, wings, etc — all parts of a plane subject to load, especially via external forces.

    Also on YT you can watch how a thin, light (mostly air) ping pong ball accelerated to a high velocity makes a clean hole right thru a wooden ping pong paddle — link — and here’s a video explaining the physics of this where you also see a ball blast a clean hole thru a paddle — link.

    What this whole comment thread shows more than anything is the utter futility of discussions re ‘what really happened’ to the twin towers; no one’s mind is ever changed — on display are LOTS of scientific illiteracy/ignorance and confirmation bias.

    Paraphrasing Doug Horne in one of his talks on JFK: ‘Once you conclude that JFK died and his death was covered up as part of a conspiracy, you need to get out of Dealey Plaza to appreciate the significance of it. Otherwise you risk turning the assassination into something akin to a parlor game.’

    Perhaps the same is true of the physical destruction of the WTC.

  93. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    This is preposterous. Engineers and pilots have concurred that it would have been physically impossible for a Boeing 767 to have penetrated either of the Twin Towers. It didn’t happen. They had to fake it because no real airplane could have done it. They would have crumbled exterior to the buildings with bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail falling to the ground. It didn’t happen.

    On your indefensible theory, an aluminum aircraft weighing around 100-tons would have overcome the resistance posed by a massive, 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building when they were (in the case of the North Tower), intersecting seven (7) floors of an acre of concrete apiece on steel trusses and (in the case of the South Tower), intersecting eight (8) floors of an acre of concrete apiece plus.

    Remember, the effect of the plane moving at around 400 mph hitting the 500,000-ton stationary building would be the same as the 500,000-ton building moving at around 400 mph hitting the stationary plane. Think about it! This exemplifies the relativity of motion.

    Give the complete absence of any collisions effects–where their velocities show no diminution–I am dumbfounded that any rational soul would persist in making the argument. The plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length through air.

    Since d = r x t (distance = rate times time) where the distances and the times are equal, the rates must be equal as well. There are no signs whatsoever of any change in velocity. NONE. Even on a theory as preposterous as yours, that converts your position into a manifest physical absurdity.

    Rationality can be measured (in terms of belief) by the strength of the supporting evidence for the alternative hypotheses under consideration. Events that are logically, physically or technologically impossible cannot take place. For there to be an interaction like this with no effects is impossible.

    Rationality can also be measured (in the case of actions) by the extent to which the action furthers one’s aims, goals or objectives. For you take the action of publishing a physically absurd account in this instance means that you must have a powerful motive to make an intellectual fool of ourself.

    There appears to be no reasonable alternative explanation than that you want to misled those who know little about physics in a case of the greatest magnitude of importance to the American people. I am sorry to say that I can find no discernible alternative explanation for your behavior here.

    Those who may be interested in my collaborative research on JFK and 9/11 may want to take a look at America Nuked on 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016) and JFK: Who, How and Why (2017), both of which are available from moonrockbooks.com.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  94. Here is the page from an Australian Military Manual for Airborne Holographic Projector:

    • LOL: Alfred
    • Replies: @Stephane
  95. onebornfree says: • Website
    @eah

    “Finite Element Analysis demonstrates conclusively that a plane would easily penetrate the WTC facade ”

    Yeah right, and without even slowing down, or having any parts fall off outside upon first impact, of course! 😎

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  96. If you can believe that, by throwing an empty beer can against a stone wall really, really hard, you can penetrate the wall (if you can believe that, by flying an aluminum airliner into a 500,000-ton steel & concrete building really, really fast, you can enter the building with no collision effects), then you can believe impossible things. Bear in mind, the laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. You must give this more thought.

    • Replies: @Ray Caruso
  97. Stephane says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Are you sure that it is really a manual ?

    All I’ve been able to find using that kind of keyword was a prospective document for the US Air Force from 1996 trying to explore what kind of technologies they may need to retain air and space dominance.

    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a392587.pdf

    I have found thatpage Airborne Holographic Projector at page 128, along with other pie-in-the-sky stuff like Hypersonic SSTOL, Microwave weaponry, killer microbots or ground to orbit to ground high power lasers…

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Sparkon
  98. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Stephane

    And you have a better explanation for the data in this case: the impossible speed; the impossible entry; the absence of collision effects; no debris beneath the facades; witness reports of seeing (what they took to be a plane) prior to the entry (in real time); followed by impossible collapses of both towers? I can’t wait to hear your alternative explanation for the data points. You seem to have become evasive. Is that the best that you can do?

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Polemos
  99. Sparkon says:
    @Stephane

    Thanks for finding that complete document.

    I was laboriously piecing it together using the Internet Archive to chase down the URL at the top of that page Jim Fetzer posted in his #94.

    You’re right. It’s a pie-in-the-sky USAF 2025 dream sheet. Here’s what it says on page 3:

    Disclaimer

    2025 is a study … to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, … The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

    This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

    [my bold]

    Mention of various programs or technologies throughout this paper does not imply Air Force or DOD endorsement of either the mission, the program, or adoption of the technology. This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

    But you really have to see those attack microbots!! Yikes! And now you can…

    Brief Description

    “Attack microbots” describes a class of highly miniaturized (one millimeter scale) electromechanical systems capable of being deployed en masse and performing individual or collective target attack. Various deployment approaches are possible, including dispersal as an aerosol, transportation by a larger platform, and full flying/crawling autonomy. Attack is accomplished by a variety of robotic effectors, electromagnetic measures, or energetic materials. Some “sensor microbot” capabilities are required for target acquisition and analysis.

    Capabilities

    • blah blah blah

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  100. YouTube preempts conspiracy videos with a link to their official source Encyclopedia Britannica. I was amused that the title of my latest video directly contradicts their official source:

    Context

    Pearl Harbor attack
    Encyclopedia Britannica

    Pearl Harbor attack, (December 7, 1941), surprise aerial attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on Oahu Island, Hawaii, by the Japanese that precipitated the entry of the United States into World War II. The strike climaxed a decade of worsening relations between the United States and Japan.

    The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise (Part II)

  101. @Priss Factor

    Yea, that guy is basically a mirage.

    I’ve never seen even 20 seconds of current era video of him nor any newer pictures than the rotating three or so that were taken — who knows when?

    We’ve been played, yet again. By a ghost.

  102. “salvage was done by an Israeli firm and then planted on the lawn that day as “proof” a plane had crashed there”
    More “israelis”! Their footprints are all over 9/11, and weren’t Dov Zakheim and Lucky Larry lucky!

    Re JFK, It’s worth remembering that “American businessman” “Jack Ruby” (Jacob Rubenstein!) murdered Lee Harvey Oswald.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  103. GMC says:

    Yep, remember when the phrase – This educated guess has all the right stuff to be the facts ? It got taken over by the words – Conspiracy Theory – and how convenient for the Gov and their puppet media. Educated guesses and evidence , showed everyone how to , connect the dots, and usually leads to a Governmental agency cover-up.

  104. sunris says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    -hi Jim, may advance a little more debate, the word connotations have been driven as pejorative, though, then consider the word illegal or legal, and monopolies, amazon, paid little tax, microsoft gates puts all his shares in foundation and does a bunch of vaxxing, false wars without required act of congress, a million of these examples, yet, not called conspiracy because made legal, by conspirators, corporatists.
    So when you say business by two people, I could argue it is a conspiracy, regardless good or bad, because I don’t fully follow govt or social steering which includes language. To further, your example of word cooperation, we’re trained to see one way and is phonetically softer, whereas, conspiracy phonetically lends itself to harder meaning, though if we choose, can change meanings of words by using them differently.

    The word cooperation, could also be conspiratorial, again depends on who’s calling what, what, to suit purposes. The govt doesn’t call excluding whites from special handouts racism, they call it ‘affirmative action’. I argue that the same way social steer-ers twist things, we can twist or untwist things also, for our purposes, and in de-fanging the word conspiracy, which is only used to put down truthers, there are other words we can use to define groupism negative, gangs, collusion, big pharma media cooperation, cabals etc.
    Main argument is, free to define language for ourselves. It’s the most basic thing in thinking, determine how we communicate. Language matters, which to me includes some self chosen defining.
    Just thought to advance some arguments. Appreciate your efforts Jim.

  105. I’m reminded of something I read long ago…. “I’m not interested in conspiracy theories but in the facts of conspiracy”

  106. Wally says:
    @Vinnie O

    said:
    “The Public will believe ANYTHING they’re told and accept VICIOUS attacks on any naysayers.”

    And vicious attacks are the norm upon those who reject the absurd impossibility of the “Holocaust” narrative.
    I’m quite sure that Mr. Fetzer rejects that religion as well.

    * Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the “Holocaust”: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12642

    * The Persecution Of Revisionists: The “Holocaust” Unveiled by Mark Farrel:


  107. Cause 80% of the people are stupid. That means the vast majority of conspiracy theorists are stupid. Add in the 3 letter agency funded mud to the mix. What do you get? Normal people calling you guys crazy mofos.

    • Replies: @The Real World
  108. noname27 says: • Website
    @MarkU

    It’s no hunch. All you need is pair of eyes and an operational brain. The seismic record for that day alone proves there was NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the twin towers.

    As for the dustification of the steels go here:
    https://worldtruthvideos.org/watch/irrefutable-watch-the-twin-tower-steels-turn-to-dust_2BxbYjHd8xRHZ1O.html

    Fetzer is controlled opposition.

    • Disagree: Truth Vigilante
    • Troll: ivegotrythm
    • Replies: @GMC
  109. @Sparkon

    Chee, if I was going to blow up a building which contained gold, I would take the gold out first, wouldn’t you? And controlled demolitions are not that controlled as to be perfect.

  110. Alfred says:
    @eah

    Finite Element Analysis demonstrates conclusively that a plane would easily penetrate the WTC facade

    Sure it would have penetrated it in the same way that Parmigiano cheese penetrates a grater.

    BTW, I was a civil engineer. Finite Element Analysis is our bread and butter. You don’t need such a powerful program to prove that steel columns would slice the wing of an aircraft. The wings are made of aluminium and 1/8 inch thick. Anyway, Finite Element Analysis is not used for dynamic analysis. It is used for static analysis – e.g. the effect of the wind pressure on a tall building.

    To work out the effects of an earthquake or an explosion on a building, entirely different methods are used. One must account for things like oscillation for example.

    Clearly, someone has bamboozled you with some nice buzzwords.

    • Replies: @eah
    , @Stephane
  111. mcohen says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    hi Jim

    you have certainly made a career out of 911.have you cleared the magic 1 million usd mark.
    there have been no videos of the planes shown to the public.they do not exist,so do not bother referring to 911 videos.

    • Troll: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @mcohen
  112. mcohen says:
    @mcohen

    and Jim.lets not forget reality does bite

    In October 2019, a Wisconsin court ordered Fetzer to pay the father of a Sandy Hook victim $450,000 in a defamation case.[13][14][15][16]

    • Replies: @noname27
  113. If the CIA had nothing to do with the murder of JFK, why did they issue memo 1035-960?

    https://steemit.com/history/@thelastheretik/cia-coined-and-weaponized-the-label-conspiracy-theory

  114. @Jim Fetzer

    There WAS a plane flying around the area at the time of “first” impact (8:46 AM) on 9/11. (“First impact” was an explosion in the basement to start the evacuation.) But this plane flying around to be seen did NOT crash into anything. It was a decoy. You know, you can use a real plane as a decoy, you don’t need holograms. Some people saw the real plane flying around, some people heard the real plane flying around. But no real people saw a real plane crash into any building, except in 1945 when the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building, (by mistake in a fog) and took out a room in the corner of the building. The (very large, big time) Naudet video team creating the official documentary 9/11 record, showed obvious Israelis around the buildings yelling at the goyim “Look! a plane hit the building!” and another Israeli coming out of the Millennium hotel said, authoritatively, for the camera, “I saw a plane hit the building, and [listen, shmuck] I know planes [you don’t know anything]. It was a 757, or maybe a 767, or maybe a 320, or maybe a 300” etc. etc. etc. The Naudet Mockumentary is the Zapruder film of 9/11.
    As for the demolition substance, it seems to be as mysterious as what was in the Israeli missile that hit Beirut harbor recently.

    • Replies: @AB_Anonymous
  115. Vojkan says:

    If all the arguments your adversaries oppose you consist of fallacies, jeer, persiflage, invective, shaming, intimidation then odds are that you are right.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  116. dimples says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    “for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. This law requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel, which is far beyond the highest recorded detonation velocity of 895 m/s for nano-thermite.”

    The nano-thermite is called thus because that it was it was. I assume it was used because as far as I am aware it is an explosive as well as a thermite. If used, this type of explosive was used because it doesn’t leave any of the nitrate residues which characterise normal explosives.

    I would assume that if the nano-thermite was used, it was placed next to the vertical column joints which as far as I can tell were bolted together. Finding any information on this particular subject seems difficult but I assume that each steel column segment was about two stories high, approx 30 feet long placed on top of each other. The column ends are too thick to be welded together on site, particularly at the bottom of the building, so each vertical end would have been bolted together with flanges and maybe some light welding. If the thermite was placed at these vertical joints, it would not need to be high explosive to blow the joint apart without significantly damaging the columns. The lightweight concrete used for the floor pans would just break up into dust when the floors collapsed.

    The above may be wrong I’m happy to be enlightened on the subject. I’ve never found any technical reference as to how the column segments were joined vertically.

    • Replies: @dimples
    , @Jim Fetzer
  117. So as long now when we are at conspiracy theories I can now publish my conspiracy theory about Global Warming.
    So here it is:

    Global warming.

    The collection of pea brain politicians want to stop Global warming by controlling the carbon dioxide in atmosphere. That is actually more ridiculous than trying to stop the rushing train by putting a single straw on the rails.
    Confident politicians are trying to change Gods setup.
    Obviously they cannot succeed.
    And Gods setup is that way that 95 percent of humanity will be eliminated.
    God did set it up this way when he did create our solar system.

    Global warming?

    Global warming is continuous process that started at peak of the Ice age that did happen about 18 thousand years ago.

    [MORE]

    There is now no more global warming. There is now accelerated global warming.

    People now noticed that our planet is warming up. People did not notice global warming before, because the changes were not noticeable during one person lifetime.
    So what is the reason for accelerated global warming?
    Some 30 or 40 years ago great change did happen. And it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
    Carbon dioxide stays in lower atmosphere is not cumulative process. With rain carbon dioxide creates carbonic acid and it falls to the ground where it helps in creation of top soil. Also plants do absorb carbon dioxide. So carbon dioxide is being part of the recycling process Carbon dioxide is not and newer was the cause of global warming. Although there always were large forest fires they never influenced anything..

    So here is what is happening!

    Staging.

    I do find it difficult to pick the starting point of explanation, but I am picking the starting point of peak of the Ice age. Ice age is now accepted fact so I do not have to prove it.
    We did find some Neanderthal skeletons and some pictures on the walls of caves where they were living. (But the question is: Did all Neanderthals live in caves?)
    Also we have here a traveler through Alps clothed if fur and leader with pouch of berries.
    Scientist determined that he died six thousand years ago. He was discovered only because the thick layer of ice above his body has melted away.
    Than we have latest excavations in Sahara desert where were find skeletons an villages and former lakes what did prove that Sahara was a place with ample flora a fauna.
    But most important fact we find in Bible when Jews did leave Egypt they were wandering 40 years in wilderness and when they were very hungry God did send them manna. The manna was sweet. So at one time area which is now Sinai Desert was bursting with vegetation and life. And the manna was coconuts falling from coconuts trees.
    All this is proof that Global warming was present and happening continuously to this day.

    And this is only the end of the Stage, Foreword, or like I love to say Prelude.

    And now I can go to the theory itself .

    MYSTERIOUS LADY THEORY

    I have no doubt that most of readers will not understand the theory because to understand it, it requires certain minimal knowledge of static, kinematics, dynamics and vectors.
    It also requires certain familiarities with works of two Slavic Geniuses , Copernicus, and Kepler, and also Holandian Ticho de Brahe.

    But there is no reason to despair. All you have to understand that everything has two sides. As Newton law that every action has an opposite reaction of equal size. Also every coin has a head ant tale. So if there was an Ice age there must be also a hot age.

    I will concentrate mostly on Kepler.
    So how it went down,
    Tycho de Brahe spent most of his life observing night skies recording the position of planets at time intervals. Eventually when he finished his work, he did not know what to do with it, so he did send all his notes and sketches to Kepler.
    On bases of these notes Kepler formulated 3 laws on movement of orbiting planets in our Solar system. (you can Google Kepler to find the Laws,)
    What is significant is the interpretation of second Law which is about of equal areas. The interpretation is that velocity of the earth orbiting tne Sun is not constant. The velocity when earth on the curve around the sun is higher than when is on the curve on opposite side. (Far away from sun.)

    But I do have a problem with first Law (the ellipse)
    First problem is that ellipse is an anomaly.
    Second problem is that ellipse is inherently unstable.

    As the earth rotate around the Sun trajectory is determined by two obvious forces. The gravity pull of the sun and the centrifugal force emanated from kinetic force of the earth.
    These two forces never change so the orbit must be circular,

    So who is right Kepler or me.
    Actually Kepler is right because his Law is based on factual findings of Ticho de Brahe.

    But here is the snag, First law of dynamics is that nothing changes in our universe unless force is applied to it. So there must be some invisible unknown force that warps the circular orbit of earth into ellipse. I do call this unknown force “Mysterious Lady”

    So there are three forces determining the trajectory of the earth not two. (Holy Trinity,)
    And so mysterious lady is pushing the end of ellipse continuously away from the other end. That is more and more away from sun making the ellipse longer and narrower. Because now earth is spending more time on the ellipse that is far away from sun, the temperature of the earth is decreasing and than the ice age sets in up on earth. Because the vector of Mysterious lady is in direct opposition to Suns gravity, strength of Mysterious lady is decreasing with each orbit. Eventually Suns gravity eliminates all force of Mysterious lady and earth execute his last progressing orbit. And that is the peak of the ice age,
    Than Sun is starting to pull back orbit of the earth, making ellipse fatter and shorter until earth make last orbit which is precise circle.
    But Sun pulling back the earth trajectory is building up the potential energy in earth.
    And now we know the origin of Mysterious lady. It is actually inertia of earth built up by Suns gravity. So when earth makes the precise circular orbit, that is the peak of hot age. And passing that point, inertia in earth is starting to build the ellipse on opposite side of Sun and the process repeats itself.
    So the movement is like pendulum.
    Orbit of the earth defined by two vectors. Vector of kinetic energy and vector of earth inertia.

    According my calculations movement from peak of ice age to peak other ice age takes forty thousand years,
    ………………………………………
    So where are we now?
    We are approximately 2 thousand years away from peak of hot age, when orbit of the earth becomes precise circle. And I believe it is not too good news for humanity,
    At the beginning I did mention the red line and accelerated Global warming.
    So what is happening?
    Sun is emitting heat waves into universe but so does also earths, the face turned away from sun. This acceptance of heat energy and emitting heat energy was in balance.
    But because earth is spending more time closer to sun the enthalpy of the earth is increasing, Increase of enthalpy means accelerated Global warming.

    Prophecy and consequences

    Seasons.

    Although it was happening before now it will happen more obviously. The summers will become longer and winters will become shorter. It will happen until circular
    orbit of the earth when seasons will vanish and all year will be only summer. I am not going to note on the impact on the flora. In every case the impact becomes questionable.

    Going back to present.
    Environmentalists are now alarmed by diminishing icebergs on poles. Claiming of the rising of the level of oceans is threat to humanity. That is not a threat. That is a joke.

    About our Mother Earth.
    Earth is not a sphere to call earth sphere is good enough when we argue with people who claim that the earth is flat.
    Earth is ellipsoid with larger axis of distance of two opposite points on the equator an smaller axis from pole to pole.
    But even that is not precise because earth is more squashed on north pole than on south pole.
    That proves two things.
    Earth was once liquid mass.
    The solidifying of surface of the liquid mass did begin on North pole.
    On North pole we have deep see while on South pole we have solid earth mass.

    So what are the detrimental factors threaten the humanity?
    (Here are enthusiast of global worming actually right.)
    1.Increased temperature.
    2.Weather

    Temperature of air on most areas will increase to such extent that it will become non breathable.

    Concerning weather, it is more complicated.
    As earth will heat up and all snow and ice will vanish the temperature differences will of different areas considerable decrease. That will influence the air movement around the globe.
    The air movement will considerably decrease. It will decrease to such extent that most of evaporated water from oceans in a form of clouds will not reach solid ground but they will fall back in a form of rain into oceans. Result of this will be dry lands on continents.

    So here is signs to watch. Amounts of rain in all areas.
    Tornados Hurricanes and Typhoons will be no more. They will die out.

    The results.
    The earth axis of rotation is not perpendicular to area of its ellipse it is inclined 22,7 degrees. That means that southern hemisphere is more exposed to sun when earth is on curve around the sun.
    So Australia will first that will become arid uninhabitable land. All flora and fauna including the population will die out. Following new Zealand Africa Middle east South America will die out.
    Eventually all area up to Northern Polar circle will become uninhabitable.

    Only Northern parts of Canada, Labrador, Iceland and Russian Tundra will be inhabitable.

    Naturally by progressing the devastation there will be great migration Earth population to North.
    Some countries will accept selectively some emigrants but there will not be so many accepted .
    Russian Taiga is a huge land and they will accept mostly Slavic people Except Polish and not Russian speaking Ukrainians.

    We have Lucy from 3,2 million years and we have Ardi from 4.4 million years.
    So humanoids and humans survived several hot ages so why such a pessimistic outlook for humanity now?
    Well?
    We do not know how may died in hot age and how many survived.
    And here is the huge difference. They did not have an axe and saw. All surface of earth was cowered and protected by canopy of trees.

    This time it will be different.
    People did cut down most of the trees for inhabitation, fields and roads.
    So now the earth is mostly naked.

    So what can humans do now to at lest somehow diminish the impact of hot age.
    Not much!
    Maybe plant trees on every free area could help a little bit.
    The other thing is imperative. Canada should dig a deep channel from Great lakes to arctic circle, and Russia should dig a deep channel from Caspian lake to Russian Tundra.
    To have a soft water for population and for irrigation to have a back up
    in case of insufficient rain.

    I still stand by my calculation of peak of the hot age 2 thousand years from now, but that is within error of plus minus 5 hundred years. So maybe we will start to notice the beginning of hot age soon.

    We have scientist star gazers, who could measure the distance of earth to sun at time of peak of winter, and at time of peak of summer and establish the parameters of ellipse.
    And doing twice or more times could determine the gradient of earth nearing the sun.
    From that it can be calculated precisely the peak of the hot age.

    What is most peculiar to me that Trump wanted to buy Iceland from Denmark.
    Did he wanted a safe land for future US population? Because he knew what will be coming? This is very suspicious to me. But Democrats have different idea
    They just will kill all Iceland population and take over.
    Soon will be here on earth life or death situations for most of nations, so conflict will arise with unforeseen consequences.

    Final conclusion.
    Bible is saying that God created heaven and earth. I would put it slightly differently.
    Many parameters of our Earth and our Solar system that support life, in my opinion could not happen randomly. I am strongly convinced that our solar system is Gods pet project.

    Post Scripted

    Please do not misunderstand me. I am condoning all activities what Governments are doing, fighting Global warming and Climate change. But these activities will have zero influence on what is coming.

    I am only wondering if I will get at least one echo.

    April 30, 2021

    Signet by Zarathustra, Diploma Engineer

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  118. dimples says:
    @dimples

    Well the answer to my question re how the columns were held together vertically is in this very thread!

    Thanks to Mr Sparkon:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-towers-core-columns-what-held-them-together-welds.9256/

    The column segments were in fact held together with light welding only. The weld passes do not encompass the full thickness of the column but are basically a 1/2″ run around the outside of the joint. No flanges were used. The weld joint does not need to be ultra-strong as most of the column load is vertical.

    I don’t have any doubt that a mildly explosive nano-thermite could break the column joints easily but I’m no expert.

  119. @onebornfree

    Fairbanks is fake and Fox 5 is real?

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  120. @Jim Fetzer

    I think that you are arguing, correctly, that the images of planes melting into a building are fake, because the planes did not exist, and real planes would NOT melt into buildings, but be smashed to pieces, while Stephane is arguing what theoretically COULD happen IF real planes travelling at a speed of 9,000 per second were to hit a steel and concrete building. (Planes can’t fly that fast.) What is puzzling is why you think holograms are needed to explain the fake videos of non-existent planes melting into real buildings rather than explaining the fake videos with simple computer graphics, which can be superimposed even in live, direct, video, as in the case of FOX News direct from a helicopter. The FOX “news reporter” in the Fox news helicopter which transmitted an image of a non-descript, generic, black, plane silhouette without indentifiable marks going straight through the WTC 2 from south to north was a videographer who also had an independent video service-business specialized in computer generated imaging. The helicopter moved at the wrong moment and made the CGI appear as if the nose passed through the building intact. If that was a hologram, would such a blooper have happened?

    • Agree: Laurent Guyénot
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  121. @MarkU

    I’ve read Judy Wood’s book but I couldn’t find any reference to her in Jim Fetzer’s well reasoned article about true and false conspiracy theories. So, why did you move the goal posts in order to launch your ad hominem attack on the author of the article? What arcane cult are you representing? Please tell us what theory we should truly embrace about the crime of 911.

  122. Sean says:

    What’s Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?

    What’s right with them?

    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-to-tell-science-from-pseudoscience.html
    So if you want to know whether something is science you need (a) observations and (b) you need to know what it means to explain something in scientific terms. What scientists mean by “explanation” is that they have a model, which is a simplified description of the real world, and this model allows them to make statements about observations that agree with measurements and – here is the important bit – the model is simpler than just a collection of all available data. Usually that is because the model captures certain patterns in the data, and any kind of pattern is a simplification. If we have such a model, we say it “explains” the data. Or at least part of it. […]
    You have to make a lot of assumptions for these ideas to agree with reality, …. These contrived assumptions are the equivalent of overfitting. That’s what makes these conspiracy theories unscientific. The scientific explanations are the simple ones, the ones that explain lots of observations with few assumptions. .

    So how do you avoid tinfoil hat territory The Overfitted Brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization Simplify get eight hours a night; no nightcaps, alcohol is a very potent inhibitor of REM sleep even if you have it at breakfast. Dreams are narratives of “fabulist and unusual events” like movies, novels, and, er, conspiracy theories. While many pay to consume them, few really take them seriously.

    Within evolutionary psychology, the attempt to ground aspects of human behavior in evolutionary theory, there has been long-standing confusion with regard to human interest in fictions, since on their surface fictions have no utility. They are, after all, explicitly false information. Therefore it has been thought that fictions are either demonstrations of cognitive fitness in order to influence mate choice (Hogh-Olesen, 2018), or can simply be reduced to the equivalent of “cheesecake” — gratifying to consume but without benefit. Proponents of this view have even gone so far as to describe the arts as a “pleasure technology” (Pinker, 1997). However, the OBH suggests fictions, and perhaps the arts in general, may actually have an underlying cognitive utility in the form of improving generalization and preventing overfitting, since they act as artificial dreams.

    Such stuff.

  123. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    Why No Image Blur Per Frame?

    An additional comment to my previous post {post no.95}:

    It is also impossible [or at least was, in 2001, maybe it still is] for a camera to clearly track on film any object moving at even 250mph [let alone 560+ Mph- the “official” speed Fl.175].

    To confirm my claim, just talk to any sports photographer familiar with trying to capture images of Formula 1 racing cars moving at “only” 100+mph back in 2001.

    Therefor, there is no way that a video camera could track an object [either real or holographic],moving at 250mph, in such a way that every frame would show an almost clear image- there should be a significant amount of image blur per frame, which means that :no real plane and no holographic image of a plane moving at even 250mph would be a clearly seen image per frame in any genuine video or photo.

    Which means that the video I posted above [post 95] is a total CGI fraud- there was no real plane traveling at 500+ mph, and no holographic plane image traveling at even 250mph either, end of story.

    See also: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  124. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Studying the world of Pro Wrestling is something which fascinates Fester. Uncle watches it with a passion and claims the squared circle is the” new” moment. Uncle says he likes pro wrestling because 99% of the action does not have Jews or Blacks—–. Fester is not a racist —he simply likes the sport but often states —-the entertainment would be ruined if “real” athletes and promoters entered the Ring. Oswald —tragedy. With shooting ability like that —the next Year in the Olympics –Oswald would have returned to USA with Platinum Medals —– shooting a goose 400 yards away blindfolded and shooting over his shoulder —–and it is a Dead Hit !!!! Only that Spanish speaking aircraft controller in Ukraine could outperform Oswald ——-“Calling MH 007” —- and again that Buk shooter would have made Oswald appear —second best. Ring action begins soon –Undertaker taking on Mankind…..Boris Karloff – guest referee…..

  125. Iris says:
    @MarkU

    I remember you showed a short video of falling beams and you said “this is steel turning to dust”, any news on that stuff?

    This criticism of yours is extremely unfair and is so excessive that it makes one question your intentions.

    The two strikingly incriminating characteristic of the WTC alleged “collapse” are precisely that (1) the structural steel beams were dustified, (2) the building footprints bore molten steel for a period of over 3 months.

    Such characteristics in pressure and temperature are so extraordinary that they immediately raise the red flag that nuclear explosives were used.
    – Only a nuclear pressure shockwave can instantly dustify steel.
    – Only nuclear fuel can “burn” for months without additional input or oxygen.

    Any truth seeker, like Dr Fetzer, who would have picked up on any of these huge, tell-all anomalies at an early stage would have provided a great lead and service to the public, and deserves our gratitude.

    Judy Wood should have highlighted the factual and very significant steel dustification and stopped at that, instead of adding her ludicrous hypothesis of DEM.
    The real scientific attitude is to proceed by elimination, not by accumulation. But not everybody is a trained physicist to realise that an impossible argument may undermine an otherwise excellent argument.

    Ultimately, people need answers and may rush to provide one. What is condemnable and suspicious is if they stick to these wrong answers as time passes by and new information comes out.

    Conversely, there are also honest and trained people who censor themselves and refuse to acknowledge the obvious for political or preservation reasons. The engineers in the A&E911 truth collective understand very well the simple and unassailable evidence for the WTC nuclear demolition. But their apparent (??) position is to only ask questions and force the government to propose the answers, never to propose the answers themselves.

    Finally, in the camp of the most advanced and definitely most sincere 9/11 truth seekers, on can quote German physicist Heinz Pommer, bless him. He did an extraordinarily commendable work in explaining to a larger public the nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers. But somehow, he cannot help but making further, unprovable hypothesis about the type of nuclear device used, which results in making his work unfathomable to trained scientists.

  126. geokat62 says:

    You do not have to be familiar with the extensive conspiracy literature by authors including (to cite only some of the most famous)…

    Excerpt from, American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?:

    These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  127. Marckus says:
    @Priss Factor

    Turdham is one more example of the tough fruitcake. He is like the guy with skull, axe and sword tattoos all over his head and body who runs away when things get exciting. My system is infallible. As soon as others or they themselves represent as super bad, I immediately assume the opposite.

    In the end he looked out for himself and his own interests. That’s the way politicians and bureaucrats operate. Sadly, the ordinary man must do the same or be duped and tossed onto the scrap heap.

  128. Polemos says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    You’re saying he’s being evasive when he points out that it’s not an Australian Military Manual as you claimed? Even links to the thing!

    Where did you get the idea it was Australian?

    onebornfree, Sparkon and Stephane all come across as reasonable people thinking through this and exhibiting patience and diligence, and you’re coming across over the course of this conversation as someone progressively losing his patience or his focus or his self-awareness. Your initial essay was alright, but probably because you had time to slow down, edit, and check your work. Slow down, read what they’re writing, because how you missed/misinterpreted what onebornfree was saying about things is odd —unless you weren’t taking the time to get it. I like that you’re willing to engage your audience directly, but take your ego out of it and let yourself be wrong, confused, or mistaken.

    But don’t accuse others of doing what others see you do.

    Australian?

    • Agree: Sollipsist
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Loup-Bouc
  129. anarchyst says:
    @ivegotrythm

    If planes were videotaped hitting the twin towers, the cameras would have had to have been pre-positioned and aimed at the twin towers.
    The “dancing israelis” and mossad “urban moving systems” had the right idea–they were ready…

    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  130. Marckus says:

    Well a long and drawn out article on conspiracy theories. Who needs a Doctorate in logic and psychology to understand this phenomena ? A simple example is:

    Q-What crashed into the Pentagon ? A- A plane ! Q-Where is the debris ? A- ???????????

    When what you hear differs from what common sense indicates, in many diverse and separate incidents, you are being lied to and the only conclusion is that there is a conspiracy.

  131. What is wrong with conspiracy theories? They might end up killing you this and next year. The year of Covid and the election, we learned most just want a simple narrative to fit into their over educated, esteem inflated, and gas ridden brains. I will theorize the elite mastermind types actually use to enjoy that some see thru their evil plots. It’s why a good bit is hidden in plain site, like chemtrails. Bet it also gives them the giggles to send their narrative writers (journalists) to call names at the questioners (conspiracy theorists) . However in 2121 our rulers do see a bit peeve we aren’t all lining up with our arms extended and sleeves rolled up for their poison juice injection. That just might mean conspiracy theorists will soon be designated by Garland Merrick to be white supremacists, who are in dire need of have civil liberties stripped and then assassinated. Notice they aren’t going after blacks who also are rejecting the “vaccine” in sizeable numbers. But then again all this is my personal conspiracy theory.

  132. eah says:
    @Alfred

    >… the same way that Parmigiano cheese penetrates a grater.

    Of course during penetration of the facade the dissipation/transformation of kinetic energy and momentum would also contribute to the destruction/disintegration of the plane (duh) — the idiotic claim here was that because (most of) the material used to construct the plane (e.g. aluminum) was less dense than the steel in the facade, the plane would not be able to penetrate the facade, regardless of its kinetic energy/momentum.

    >… steel columns would slice the wing …

    ? — no one said the plane would not be damaged/the wings would not be ‘sliced’ — and in every paper I saw, FEA was the method used to demonstrate that the plane had more than enough kinetic energy to penetrate the facade — that’s what this is about.

    >Clearly, someone has bamboozled you with some nice buzzwords.

    No, I don’t think so — rather, I think you’re another educated idiot who puts up childish straw man arguments but is too dumb to recognize it.

  133. MLK says:
    @Anon

    Conspiracy Theories are exercises in reductionism. Perfectly understandable via the comment to which I responded.

    Going down the rabbit hole can be indulging in what I distinguish as Wacky Conspiracy Theories, or being forced to address every asserted jot and tittle, whether disputed or not.

    RussiaGate struck me in important respects akin to the Kennedy Assassination if it had failed. Grand conspiracies are brutally functional and so are the theories that are fed beginning the moment the event becomes public.

    Keep in mind, whomever can carry out a crime of this scale has the means to obscure their liability, including by deflection. We should accept the impulse of authorities at the height of the Cold War to contain theories pointing to the Soviet Union.

    Here’s my essential point in analogizing the criminal conspiracy against Trump to a failed Kennedy Assassination. Grand conspiracies are phenomena in motion. Once JFK was brain dead, the principal objective had been achieved. That then functioned as a condition precedent for a number of possible follow-on objectives, both intended and opportunistic.

    Don’t fall into the trap of discounting them via hindsight.

    Thus while Kerry tried to make something of it during the 2004 campaign, no one half intelligent quarrels with the decision by Bush and those protecting him to leave him twisting in an emasculating wind on live TV in that children’s classroom. Then to a secure Nebraska airbase — the released to the nation video of which has been completely memory-holed.

    In the case of Trump, they failed in their principal objective/condition precedent until, finally, stealing the 2020 election. If they had, then all relevant and interested parties, foreign and domestic, would have endorsed/acquiesced to the resolve in some form or fashion self-interestedly (and self-protectively).

  134. anodinous says: • Website

    It’s amazing how can someone write an analysis of “The JFK Assassination Literature” without mentioning Vincent Salandria.

    The fact that to this date he keeps being forgotten, and his work, conclusions and corollary ignored or obscured, attests to the importance of him.

    “Only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions.”

    Further reading:
    https://off-guardian.org/2018/11/22/jfks-killing-fifty-five-years-on-casting-light-on-9-11-and-other-21st-century-crimes/

    http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2018/11/vincent-j-salandria-on-murder-of-john.html

    https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/LawyersDissentingView.html

  135. The argument that Trump was the beneficiary of Putin’s assistance in 2016 is not without its merit. As I recall, the Dems and mainstream media were colluding hard to install Hillary and in the course of that action, withheld critical information valuable to American voters. Information that was damning to “Hunter” Hillary. Seems to me that President Putin did us and the world a valuable service by making that information available. And in doing so, ensured the right choice was made, Trump beat Clinton.

  136. Iris says:
    @Polemos

    you’re coming across over the course of this conversation as someone progressively losing his patience or his focus or his self-awareness.

    It happens to the even the most patient person when swarmed up by trolls.

    • Replies: @Polemos
  137. @Leander Starr

    I agree. This nation’s formation was a conspiracy from the start.

  138. Great to see you here, Dr. Fetzer!
    On JFK you mention 4 “alternative hypotheses”: (h1) it was done by Fidel Castro, (h2) it was done by the Mafia, (h3) it was done by the KGB, and (h4), it was done by the CIA. After eliminating the first three, you retain (h4) “including the indispensable collusion of LBJ and the FBI.”
    Why have you not considered the 5th alternative (not exclusive of the 4th), nor mentioned Michael Collins Piper among “famous authors” ?

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @utu
    , @S
  139. @Jim Fetzer

    If you can believe that, by throwing an empty beer can against a stone wall really, really hard, you can penetrate the wall (if you can believe that, by flying an aluminum airliner into a 500,000-ton steel & concrete building really, really fast, you can enter the building with no collision effects)…

    * A human throwing something “really, really hard” doesn’t mean 600 mph. If you don’t know that, there is something wrong with you intellectually; if you do know it, there is something wrong with you in terms of integrity.

    * The portions of the buildings actually hit by airliners weighed a small fraction of 500,000 tons. To the extent the mass, rather than the structural integrity of the buildings, is relevant, the relevance lies in the mass of the portions that sustained the impacts. Again, if you don’t know that, there is something wrong with you intellectually; if you do know it, there is something wrong with you in terms of integrity.

    * The WTC towers were not nearly as dense as a stone wall. In fact, they were mostly empty space. Once more, if you don’t know that, there is something wrong with you intellectually; if you do know it, there is something wrong with you in terms of integrity.

    * By contrast, a Boeing 767 airliner carrying a full load of fuel is approximately five times denser than an empty beer can. This fact is not quite as obvious as the others, but it is something someone genuinely interested in the truth would verify before making a facile yet inane comparison between an airliner hitting a building and a man throwing an empty beer can against a stone wall. If you must make that comparison, it would have to between a beer can with walls five times as thick as normal and thrown not against a stone wall but against a surface somewhere between a chain link fence and chicken wire. And it would have to be thrown by Superman so it could reach 600 mph.

    I have an open mind about the incidents of 9/11/2001, but bullshit like yours doesn’t help to make the case against the official story.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @ThreeCranes
  140. profnasty says:
    @onebornfree

    Video proves the first plane DNE.
    Pinnochios nose suggests likewise second plane.
    Everybody smells #2, but ignore #1.
    My proof? Godzilla 1998.
    Many points to ponder.
    Putin sent US a clue with the Russian 911 memorial monument. It’s from the movie.
    First plane- FRENCH FILM CREW.
    QED.

  141. @Jim Fetzer

    Most interesting video, but does it really rule out the “video compositing” hypothesis (best argued by Ace Baker in his documentary “9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera”)? Is it not conceivable, even plausible, that those who produced those 50 or so videos showing a plane would have coordinated their effort and made their videos consistent with an agreed trajectory, precisely the trajectory documented by Dan Bower in his “Radar Data Impact Speed Study”?

    • Agree: Iris
  142. Max Payne says:

    Disclaimer: there was a conspiracy, but not the smokescreen controlled counter narrative here.

    Demolition?

    A Montreal-based Italian-operated company was responsible for setting the concrete. In New York City. I can easily see the shody worksmanship that triple corruption can allow. Its more viable of an explanation than explosives. Just saying…

    Engineers are relying on specs and blueprints. Perhaps contractors don’t follow specifications. Is that not more feasible than explosives? Its so feasible that shady construction companies are a trope/meme. NYC its legendary.

    Like American cars, American buildings can only pass “initial quality” (read: 90 days). Makes sense to me. We all see the quality of the infamous McMansions springing up everywhere glued together.

    And WTC 1,2 and 7 all had extensive internal modifications to support heavy cabinets, servers, water and HVAC systems, so on and so on. On already false foundations. Thousands of engineers with dependent jobs (based on contracts) signing off thousands of changes…

    Wtc7 had dumb secret service bums burning documents (assuming the country is at war my guess) which got out of hand and once again shody construction reveals itself.

    Can’t trust the US government… But you can trust Giuseppe and his cousin doing construction on time, with high quality work and within the budget. Okay.

    You are witnessing a system that is too embarassed to admit obvious faults in harmful foreign alliances, internal organization security, national security, construction standards, and reaction time. “No one would have ever guessed they would use planes as missles”. Just management pointing away from itself.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  143. @Vojkan

    Sorry, but it’s not clear which side you’re on.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  144. Iris says:
    @Ray Caruso

    I have an open mind about the incidents of 9/11/2001, but bullshit like yours doesn’t help to make the case against the official story.

    More imbecilic crackpottery .

    The Twin Towers structural steel was at places as thick as the skin of an armoured tank.

    To perforate an armoured tank, an anti-tank missile must:
    (1) move at a high speed, at least Mach 2 to Mach 3, so 1500 to 2200 mph, far above the alleged 500 mph the alleged WTC ghost-planes were allegedly flying at.

    (2) be made of a material harder than the target’s material, hence missiles are fitted with warheads covered in tungsten or the infamous depleted uranium.

    No aluminium plane can perforate a high-rise building’s steel structure.

    If it were possible, Afghanistan’s Talibans would have decimated US armoured fleet by hand-throwing makeshift grenades made in Coke aluminium cans. Beyond ludicrous.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  145. profnasty says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    The planned demo of WTC is by now a foregone conclusion. We should consider Christopher Bollyn, in his investigation of the perps. His scholarship is conclusive.
    Note: If possible, on BitChute, see the movie 911 Octopus. It’s a beautifully produced film which considers several key aspects of the event. It is very entertaining to watch.

    • Replies: @Mehen
  146. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @dimples

    But on the nano-thermite (or any other collapse hypothesis), there should have been about 12% of 110 floors of debris (about 13.5 floors)–and it’s not there. We have that with WTC-7, which actually DID collapse: 5.5 floors of debris = 12% of the original 47. The Twin Towers did not collapse. Fr. Frank Morales was on my radio shows (twice). He was a first responder from St. Mark’s Episcopal Church; and both times he emphasized that the buildings were destroyed to or even below ground level. They did not collapse but were blown apart in every direction (externally) from the top down and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust–a telling signature of the use of nuclear devices.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @utu
    , @dimples
  147. profnasty says:
    @Jack McArthur

    Very good.
    Endless discussion on causes of WTC 911 have reduced it to it’s original intent– Entertainment.
    It was Jewish Lightening, plane and symple.
    For another laugh, investigate the 2008 crash. Then, watch the movie, The Producers, with Zero Mostel.(Except in 2008 the plan actually succeeded.)
    ….. Hilarious!!!!

  148. The JFK assasination has been of interest to me since 1988, when I went to the Book Depository window from which the shot was allegedly fired (I believe that’s no longer possible). As it happened, I owned the same rifle and had experience with it. No way someone shooting down from that angle could expect much accuracy from that weapon. I then went to the “grassy knoll” and it’d have been like shooting ducks in a barrel as the limo came slowly up the incline.

    The Twin Towers were of interest because friends died in them.

    I’m not a conspiracy buff per se, but those two incidents… Please! And that goes for lots more since.

  149. aspnaz says:

    Even university professors have shown a decided aversion to conspiracy theories,

    Too busy working out whether that student is a boy, a girl, an it, a dog, a cat, a sheep, a goat, a lizards … then working out whether they are thinking hate thoughts … then wondering why people think professors are full of shit.

  150. Agent76 says:

    Sep 25, 2020 A Message to New “Conspiracy Theorists”

    So, it’s 2020 and you’ve fallen down the rabbit hole. Disorienting, isn’t it? Well, don’t worry: you are not alone.

    https://podbay.fm/p/the-corbett-report-podcast/e/1601032200

  151. @Anon

    The entire humanity suffers from those devils but what can you do knowing they control money… a miracle would be required to get away from under their stranglehold!

  152. Iris says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    and both times he emphasized that the buildings were destroyed to or even below ground level.

    It was actually even much more spectacular than that.

    Not only the Twin Towers were demolished at basement level, but an entire underground subway line and related station (Cortland St) were also destroyed at basement level, that were not even directly standing under any of the Towers.

    The damage was entirely below ground level, since the WTC witnesses present on the day were surprised to see subway passengers suddenly coming out from the station, covered in soot.

    The damage was so extraordinary that the subway’s steel beams sagged. No form of energy resulting from conventional collapses or conventional explosion can produce such result.

    Such damage to the subway could only have occurred following an underground explosion that produced an extraordinarily powerful pressure shockwave.

    The WTC was demolished by underground nuclear detonations.

  153. Comrade Stalin and parteigenosse Hitler very convincingly explained to a lot of people what’s wrong with conspiracy theories.
    Unfortunately, most beneficiaries of their explanations did not survive. But the public got the message in both cases.

    • Troll: noname27
  154. noname27 says: • Website
    @mcohen

    Thanks for reminding me how useful Fetzer is to his employers – The US Federal Government.

  155. Mefobills says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Babylonian Money-Magick is the occult deployment of debt-notes as real money, which is loaned debt which required repayment with interest, the greatest financial fraud in history.

    Your statement will confuse Unz readers. I’m no fan of what happened in 1912, but there is some nuance here that has to be understood by regular readers.

    Debt instruments can be issued under one proviso: First Rule #1: They (new hypothecations) must channel toward productivity modes.

    To state it in another way, when you go to a bank to take out a loan, where new “credit” is hypothecated into existence, if said new money channels toward industry or toward new innovations, or helps a business install new technology, or robots, etc. – that loan should go forth. This new loan can have positive interest on it, and said positive interest is NOT usurious. Credit properly aimed is paid back with growth and production. The growth is not necessarily harvesting the planet, but is accounting, where the economy transforms into newer and better ways of doing things.

    Babylonian money magick types have a goal, and that is to create and channel new credit toward their ends. Known monetary science is obscured with false economic doctrines like neo-liberalism and lolbertariansim that confuse the public. A good parasite confuses the host, to think said parasite is to be protected.

    The question that should always be kept in mind is: “Who creates the money and to what purpose?”

    If you do run a “credit system” for your national economy, then #2 monetary science rule is that some debt free money must also be issued, to then pay the interest on #1 productivity loans.

    A third rule #3, is that the debt free money, issued by the Sovereign (((not the privateering Cabal))), must channel into the commons FIRST, to then improve said commons. The debt free then becomes wages, which then becomes savings.

    Rule #4, former debt free that became wages, becomes savings and is under no pressure to drain into canceling debt instruments, and then disappearing. This “permanent money” can only be drained by taxes. Further, it is to be channeled only toward non-producti0n loans, especially housing. This then prevents housing bubbles, and creates a virtuous cycle where savers are being rewarded by home buyers. The former U.S. savings and loans, or Canada’s Trust system was an example of this in action.

    All of these rules apply to positive money, where there is interest being paid, only the interest is not usurious.

    Usury is a power relation, where those in power are harvesting or taking from their victims, who don’t have power. The Babylonian types are intent on perverting the system, by hook or crook, and then taking usury for their own sordid gains- they are not at all concerned with the general welfare.

    Our (((friends))) would make sure that any interest in the system could not be paid, and this would then DRAIN the money supply toward them. Real assets would be transferred to the “creditor” during inevitable boom-bust cycles as a consequence of their malformed money magick.

    • Thanks: ThreeCranes
  156. Vojkan says:
    @Henry's Cat

    How does the side on which I am affect the accuracy of my statement?

    In other words, if I am the one using fallacies, jeer, smears (I thank you for the opportunity to make that addition to my list), persiflage, invective, shaming, intimidation, does it invalidate the assertion that using them makes the side against which they are used most probably right?

    • Replies: @Polemos
  157. Beachhead says:
    @Avalanche

    Thanks for pointing me to Castalia House.

  158. @jsinton

    Someone said the other day when the lemmings are jumping off the cliff, the one running the other way is the one that looks crazy.

    That was all faked by Disney. I kid you not. If you just assume first that everything is a lie you have the key to unlock reality.

  159. Mefobills says:
    @onebornfree

    “So the ruling establishment is a criminal operation. Name a time when it was ever different?

    One Born Free Dumb is the mole in whack-a-mole game. He must enjoy his false narratives and then getting whacked. Like the mole, he doesn’t have the mental digits to learn, he is wedded to his false belief system.

    Let’s name some times, shall we!

    In the upper middle ages, after King Edward 1 (Longshanks) kicked the Jews out of England, was a time of general prosperity.

    England used King Edward’s talley sticks as money, and debts were canceled every year at the big fairs, like Mayfair. This system was so efficient that an average wage earner could support a family of four on about three months of labor. The living conditions were that the population had paid for homes, and mutton at least three to four times a week. The remaining 8 or 9 months of the year was spent doing volunteer economy, helping out others, or going on vacation.

    When Venice was first formed, the Doge was picked by straw vote. This then prevented corruption. Any new loans issued were examined BEFORE they were issued to then prevent the weak from being harvested. The bank of Venice was controlled gold, such that gain and loss of gold to the economy was balanced, and hence prevented civilizational collapse. (It was only later that Venice became corrupted – and yes, our (((Friends))) were involved.)

    Hungary had a Constitutional Kingdom that lasted nearly 1000 years. The King and his selected upper house could be recalled by the voters if they disagreed with his actions, or if the upper and lower house didn’t get along.

    In modern times, Singapore’s government (Lee Kuan Yew) is fairly successful, and is not criminal.

    Note, all of these government types are NOT LIBERAL.

    The problem with lolbertarians is that they issue forth bull-shit doctrine that obscures reality, so that criminals can operate without scrutiny. If your pocket is being picked, that is OK because it is a business, not the government doing it.

    In other words, lolberatarianism is a real conspiracy theory that gives cover and sanction for clown world.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  160. @Laurent Guyénot

    Even greater to see you here Mr Guyenot.

    I read your book ‘From Yahweh to Zion’ and absolutely loved it.

    Great of you to allude to Michael Collins Piper’s book ‘Final Judgement’ – which is CLEARLY the stand out in JFK research which points out the OBVIOUS Prime Mover in the JFK assassination.
    (Why Jim Fetzer never mentions it is beyond me).

    Hint (and I know you’re already aware of this Mr Guyenot but this is for the benefit of others) : The SAME entity was behind the JFK assassination and the 9/11 False Flag.

    No entity on Earth (by orders of magnitude), benefitted as much as them from these two acts of treachery.

    • Thanks: ChuckOrloski
    • LOL: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  161. Hey Mr. Jim Fetzer!

    I admire & respect this article. Thank you.

    Nonetheless, I have one problem.

    Why no reference to the brave work of the late-Michael Collins Piper? 😟

  162. Jiminy says:

    Has anyone seen the railway videos on the internet of the welding of rail lines being joined with the use of thermite in a specially shaped crucible? Or maybe even a vw air cooled motor catch alight and burn uncontrollably? Have people ever seen a sugar fire or an explosive flour fuelled fire. Solid fuelled rockets can be powered by a variety of surprisingly simple ingredients. Concrete can be made in various densities. Aerated concrete is popular for house adornment. Lightweight concrete floors were part of the twin towers design.
    And then people say that an aeroplane made with aluminium that weighs maybe 99 000kg travelling at high speed cannot crash through the side of a building. Should the plane really be like a cartoon plane flown by the coyote in the roadrunner cartoons, hitting the wall and sliding down to the ground? A lot of the towers rubble had to fall into the seven story basement upon collapse. And were any studies done on the effects of an explosive demolition performed on a tall skyscraper in a rather confined space?
    There was a case of a skydiver slicing off his colleagues legs after having a midair collision. How is that possible? Buildings are demolished every week with conventional explosives. Why would anybody need to use nuclear or laser techniques? I’m certain that people sometimes overthink things because the incident is to difficult or traumatic to accept fully. So it has to be rationalised some how. Example being only nuclear wielding, cave dwelling muslims can bring down a skyscraper.

  163. @anarchyst

    If planes were videotaped there would have to be planes. And there weren’t any as you well know.

  164. utu says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    “… there should have been about 12% of 110 floors of debris…” – All steel was 1% of volume and all concrete was 5% of volume of towers. Some of debris was scattered beyond the footprint and some was swallowed by 6 levels of the underground part. There is no missing debris.

    https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_9-11-physics-debate-were-the-three-world-trade-center-buildings-demolished-with-nuclear-devices/#comment-4545931

    The rhetorical question “where did the towers go?” by Judy Wood was just a rhetorical device of the argument from incredulity fallacy that works on suggestible lazy and stupid people by preventing them from further investigating the issue.

    There is no missing debris.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  165. utu says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “Why have you not considered…” – Because Fetzer’s job is not to solve the problem but to muddle it up which he has been quite successful doing for several decades.

  166. @Sparkon

    in the past I have speculated about some kind of string of nuclear ladyfingers, like detcord, that might at least partially explain what I see in the demolition videos, where the wave of destruction appears to be continuous from top of the towers toward their foundations

    At last you have given us your theory. Next, please tell us how the detonators in the lower parts of the “detcord” survived the effects of the detonations above. Then explain how that massive hot spot came about in the sub-basements and stayed there for four months.

  167. @Truth Vigilante

    Let us not beat around the bush. In the spring Kennedy told Ben Gurion the Israelis could not have an Atomic bomb and nobody could attack anybody. In the fall Kennedy was dead, simple as that, killed by the organization that is supposed to protect America from enemies foreign and domestic and instead fills its pockets with money from every poisonous and destructive activity it can find. And their marching orders came from Ben Gurion. Then LBJ told the Israelis go ahead, build your atomic bomb and kill Arabs. Haveinu Shalom alayhem.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  168. Iris says:

    And there’s the rub. As James Files, who may or may not have been behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll informed me, “When the government commits a lie, it’s stuck with it!”,

    Thanks ever so much for posting your interview with James Files, who confessed to being among the hired guns who shot President Kennedy. The insider information he provided was independently corroborated by others, also present at Dallas, and his confession was deemed credible by Jim Marr, a foremost JFK researcher.




    It is highly interesting to get confirmation from James Files that the Chicago mob, to which his team of hitmen was affiliated, was not under total control of Sam Giancana, but that Giancana actually reported to Hyman Larner.

    Hyman Larner was a very powerful mobster and fervent Zionist, whose notorious partnership with Mossad included state-level arms smuggling to Israel , via Panama.

    As put by one of the commentators quoting Michael Piper:

    the old legend that “the Mafia Killed JFK” finds itself entangled with a very significant Mossad connection that casts new light on the secret history of organized crime. Both Giancana and Rosselli were under the thumb of Mossad-connected crime boss Hyman Lamer.

    That such information and associations can still benefit from total institutional cover up, almost 6 decades after the events, is an insult to human intelligence and amply explains why the disenchanted public develops alternative historic narratives, that the PTB’s chooses to label “conspiracy theories”.

    • Thanks: Polemos, Daniel Rich
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  169. Mefobills says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Jim,

    You are right. An aluminum tube will collapse like a straw when impacting a steel building, especially at the relatively low speeds of jet flight.

    A physicist with even a small understanding, will realize that chaos theory prevents buildings from collapsing symmetrically.

    For the non-engineering non-scientific types, please buy the game of Jenga, and then play it with your kids. Ask them why Jenga towers always topple and never fall into their own footprint. Your kids are not brainwashed yet, and may be able to explain it to you.

    You cannot convince some people. The only case non scientists can comprehend is building 7, and only because an airplane didn’t hit it. Many of the non-scientific types can be convinced that fires from furniture and what not can bring down a masonry and steel building, despite it being impossible and never having happened in history.

    In other words, you cannot waste your energies on some people, they are beyond reaching. I enjoy whack-a-mole with onebornfreedumb because he is a good foil for reaching reasonable people.

    This is why universal suffrage democracy cannot work, as it is too easy to dupe the general population with false narrative.

    Also, the way the brain works, is that first images received are myelin sheathed. Propagandists use first image technique to dupe the public with false narratives. This is why the owned press had narrative ready post 911, to then program the sheeple.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Peripatetic Itch
  170. skrik says:

    Conspiracies happen; no ifs, ands or buts.

    But re 9/11: *No* dustify, *no* nukes and *no* DEW etc.; people advocating for any such = *no* sense, *no* feeling. I don’t have to prove it; simply *no* ‘new’ physics, just good old pre-planted explosives. rgds

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Jim Fetzer
  171. anon[650] • Disclaimer says:

    Take solace in the fact that whoever did 9/11 will be revealed by God in front of everyone on Judgement Day. The dancing Mossad agents and Silversteen’s insurance purchases alone prove their involvement. “Pull it” out of Silversteen’s mouth showed me that the buildings were wired for demolition. The Mossad art students setting up a ledge (an artistic wooden ledge? lol) on the 91st floor right below where one of the planes hit, alsmost assuredly was either for explosive purposes or had a tracking mechanism to guide an autopiloted aircraft straight to it. Thats 3 instances of Mossad-linked activity right there.

    They need to repent. There is still time to save their eternal souls.

  172. @Sparkon

    You say that some gold was removed before 9/11 but not all of it. Well, that is pretty dumb, isn’t it? Here you are going to demolish the Twin Towers on 9/11 (wink, wink) and you leave the gold there in the vaults? Of course not. But having demolished the Twin Towers you do have to go looking for the gold, don’t you? You can’t say we took it all out before because we knew we were going to demolish the Twin Towers on Tuesday, starting fourteen minutes before the tourist start going up. That would not look right, now would it. Nothing was lost, not even the rare gold coin of which there are less than five in the world. They even found that. But they found no dead bodies, because the Israelis were very humanitarian and made sure everybody got out safely. And boy, O boy, did they find so many wedding rings and return them to the grieving widows! Win-win all around. And early retirement for so many fake victims, and promotions for everyone else. Silverstein never denied they blew up number 7. “Pull it,” Larry said to the New York Fire Department. (They were following his orders.) He just never explained why it was wired for demolition in advance. And no one ever asked. NO ONE EVER ASKED. He went on and on about having to see the dermatologist. His wife kept on telling him, how long has it been since you have seen the dermatologist? Take Tuesday morning off, and go see the Dermatologist. If only Julius Caesar had a wife like that. Julie, it’s the Ides of March, Julie. Go see the Dermatologist, Julie, go see the Dermatologist.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Peripatetic Itch
  173. In the zionist controlled ZUS, the majority of conspiracy theories have been right , this a result of zionist warmongering and false flags, ie the Israeli and traitors in the ZUS government attack on the WTC on 911, just one of hundreds.

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  174. “ Alex Jones, the paradigm of the category, often does excellent work in drawing attention to puzzling cases where what we are learning does not fit into our background knowledge and understanding. And he’s equally good at speculating about possible alternative explanations. But he does not have the aptitude or the ability to carry their investigation further, where sorting out the difference between authentic and fabricated evidence can play a crucial role.”

    If Alex Jones/InfoWars had the financial resources that major networks have, he’d dig up the filth and dirt that blows the top off all the coverups talking place. Instead, (((networks along with big tech, big money))) ban and censor Alex Jones/InfoWars because he exposed their lies and propaganda. Unfortunately, Alex still refuses to mention the real enemies of humanity.
    It became obvious when (((despicable evil satanists))) banded together to silence a sitting President, we knew (((who))) was in control.

  175. utu says:
    @Mefobills

    “An aluminum tube will collapse like a straw when impacting a steel building,” – No necessarily true.

    “chaos theory prevents buildings from collapsing symmetrically.” – It all depends and chaos theory has nothing to do with it.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  176. Che Guava says:

    This is a valid, but not sensible comment.

    There was a minor Internet star called Joe Vialls, RIP. Last time I was checking, his son was still running the site.

    According to Joe, every major explosion or similar event was due to a mini-nuke.

    His writing, always enjoyable. Not always believable.

    However, I wonder, how true. Any atomic artificial elements or isotopes near WTC may well be leftovers from the three-mile island disaster.

    Also, the stock and insurance profits from WTC to both Lowy and the US jew, name I forget, and many other jews doing insider trading on foreknowlege were immense. I recall that the SCE announced an investigation, it was quickly shoved down the memory hole.

    Also that Israelis and those close to them, and of the tribe, were personally contacted and told to stay home on that day.

    The above was all in major media at the time.

  177. @Zarathustra

    I am not a physicist, last time I had a course in physics was in college more than 40 years ago. So, I am not qualified to have an educated opinion on the mechanics of the Solar system.

    From what I know, the Earth does go through hot-cold cycles in the last few hundred thousand years. I am not sure this was the case in Mesozoic era, when the temperatures were a lot higher than now or than temperatures projected for the next 100 years. As this was happening before any human activity, it is obvious that humans are not the cause. The corollary is that whatever humans do, they won’t affect this cycle much, like you said.

    It logically follows that what the “climate warriors” are claiming is a hoax. Considering how much support this narrative gets in the media (owned by we know who), some very rich and powerful people plan to get even more rich and powerful by this hoax. Naturally, most of foot soldiers in this crusade, like in every crusade in human history, are duped fools. Some are likely mentally ill, like Greta, others are just plain ignorant and stupid.

    As to human survival, it is likely that humans will survive, but not in their billions. I don’t think we can determine what’s to be done now, maybe in a few centuries (if humanity survives that long w/o WWIII). BTW, Caspian sea water is salty, Baikal lake has the greatest supply of fresh water on Earth.

    • Thanks: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  178. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim…

    I am a survivor of the WTC attack in 2001. I was in building #5, an annex building to one of the twin-towers. We all got out 30 minutes before a fireball destroyed the entirety of my building where I had worked.

    I saw the remains of building #5, 6 weeks later and it was unrecognizable. It had been charred to blackened-red while its exposed steel infrastructure had been twisted completely out of shape.

    That being said, I enjoyed your article as I believe it was a well reasoned treatise on “conspiracy theories”.

    Why then bring in a complete lunatic like Alex Jones who is known for committing fraud with his product promotions while not being able to say a single sentence without seemingly yelling like a half-wit?

    I read Judy Wood’s book on the destruction of the twin-towers and I thought she introduced an intriguing theory with her suggestions that DEW was used as the primary vehicle of attack.

    Not being a physicist, I had no idea as to how credible her theories were but she did introduce some material that was back up by numerous photographs that clearly demonstrated that something was terribly amiss with the atrocity that killed over 10,000 of my working colleagues on that day. An ATA agent who was on the site the day after, confirmed to me later that my number of deaths was far more reasonable than the 3000 that had been bandied about in the media. The 3000 deaths promoted were only for those remains that could be identified. However, with over 50,000 people in both buildings at the time, the 3000 deaths represent only a 6% mortality rate, which would be highly unusual when so many literally did not know if they should evacuate or not.

    Escorting a frightened young woman uptown on foot as we fled the area, I looked back and saw a gaping black hole in the north side of my tower to which my building was annexed. It looked as if the gates to another dimension had been ripped open since the darkness inside was never ending.

    Needless to say, it was at that moment that I knew that something more than a plane crashing into the building was the cause of this event. And I tend to agree with the analysis that some form of demolition explosive was used that was out of the ordinary.

    How would one explain the twin-towers both coming down in the exact same manner at the same time when one of them had its top-most section leaning to one side?

    However, “conspiracy theories” are like social-memes, or as Dr. Richard Dawkins would say, mind-viruses.

    Just look at how many people in the United States still look at our national flag with reverence despite the horrific bloody history it represents while still disparaging the flags of the Confederacy and The Third Reich, both short lived entities with extremely complex histories, that were far more than the ongoing demonization makes them out to be. Neither of the latter entities have committed the crimes they are charged with at the same levels our own country have been committing them since our inception. And yet, people still want to believe that the United States is a “force for good”.

    With conspiracy theories it is much the same. People want to believe the easiest way that events can be interpreted for them, though such events require complex study and lengthy times to absorb the results; even when the facts are staring them right in the face.

    For example, I have seen all of the pictures released on the Pentagon attack on that same day in 2001. Having been a pilot in the 1960s and early 1970s as a teenager, I understood the effects of aircraft debris that would litter a crash site and I could not even find the slightest indication that a major airliner had crashed into the side of the Pentagon.

    A noted French journalist reported on the same with mathmatical proof that such an impact would have had caused massive amounts of damage to the structure with a tremendous amount of debris for which none was apparent…

    • Thanks: TKK, Polemos, Genrick Yagoda
    • Troll: ivegotrythm
    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  179. To accelerate this national dilution

    The Enemy used deception and illusion

    As before, his confidence never greater

    In the power of his demonic theater

    Over a degraded population.

    He broadcast live on every station

    The brazen, calculated murders

    Of two thousand souls among the girders

    Of gigantic towers he demolished,

    Then celebrated as his golem rushed

  180. Che Guava says:

    This is a valid, but not sensible comment.

    There was a minor Internet star called Joe Vialls, RIP. Last time I was checking, his son was still running the site.

    According to Joe, every major explosion or similar event was due to a mini-nuke.

    His writing, always enjoyable. Not always believable.

    However, I wonder, how true. Any atomic artificial elements or isotopes near WTC may well be leftovers from the three-mile island disaster.

    Also, the stock and insurance profits from WTC to both Lowy and the US jew, name I forget, and many other jews doing insider trading on foreknowlege were immense. I recall that the SEC announced an investigation, it was quickly shoved down the memory hole.

    Also that Israelis and those close to them, and of the tribe, were personally contacted and told to stay home on that day.

    The above was all in major media at the time.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  181. Sparkon says:
    @ivegotrythm

    You say that some gold was removed before 9/11 but not all of it.

    No, that’s not what I said. I suggest you read more carefully so I don’t have to waste time and bandwidth countering bogus claims like yours.

    It was Dr. Fetzer who argued that the gold had been removed the night before. [Thus it wouldn’t have been irradiated by a basement nuke, he implies…]

    https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4603424

    Comment 40:
    Fetzer: “But the gold had been removed the night before.”

    Comment 41:
    Sparkon: “Some perhaps, but not all of it.”

    There was a publicized gold recovery operation conducted in late October 2001 led by Mayor Giuliani, along with his Police and Fire captains and a couple dozen officers from their departments, that was reported to have recovered $230 million in gold bars from the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia located under WTC 4.

    https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4603630

    I have never argued that some or any gold was stolen the night before 9/11, nor have I even ever heard of any such idea before. That was all Dr. Jim Fetzer.

    But I know it’s tough for some to follow a conversation when the two comments are right in a row like that.

    But, to get some benefit out of this exchange, maybe Dr. Fetzer will give us a source or two, as one should always do when making any sensational claim, that there was a gold heist at the WTC “the night before.”

    .

    • Replies: @Polemos
    , @ivegotrythm
  182. Mefobills says:
    @utu

    The reason I bring up chaos theory, is that the impact from the airplane was non symmetrical, and the building fell symmetrically. Chaos theory cannot allow symmetrical implosion with non symmetrical impacts. The non symmetrical knock on forces will accelerate chaos in an unpredictable direction, guaranteeing the building will topple.

    It doesn’t all depend, the official narrative is that airplanes hit the building. Proceeding from that fact alone, the follow-on building implosion into its own footprint is impossible, unless we suspend known physics.

    Electrons don’t jump out of wires and travel through the insulation, they follow the path of least resistance; buildings don’t fall into resistance, they fall into the path of least resistance.

    • Replies: @utu
  183. @Ray Caruso

    Just throwing this out here, not choosing sides. Maybe you can use this.

    Easton aluminum arrow shot from a compound bow @ 330 ft/sec = 225 mph. Cannot, of course, penetrate hi-tensile, structural steel, but then again, as you say, the skin of a skyscraper is glass and aluminum, not steel. There’s this,

    “The towers were clad in an aluminum alloy sheathing that gave the buildings a golden sheen at sunrise and sunset. The material covered the closely-spaced exterior steel columns…”

    “closely-spaced exterior columns”, hmmm

    and this,

    “While the towers withstood the initial damage caused by the impact of the hijacked jet liners being crashed into the structures, the intense fire that then raged proved to be too much.”

    and then we get into the debate as to whether the fires raged hot enough to actually melt the steel or as least to soften it so that it deformed.

    On the pro side is the notion that the towers acted somewhat like a chimney, funneling in a draft like a blast furnace. This intense oxygen fed flame would have been hot enough to soften the steel. On the con side is the visual evidence of an orange, black-smoke producing flame which, as in that diesel truck idling ahead of you at the stop light, indicates an insufficiency of oxygen in the mix, meaning that the flame never reached temperature sufficient to soften steel.

    Too bad no one thought to focus an infrared camera on the burning towers so we could gauge the internal heat before collapse.

    One would think that some of the plane’s structure, e.g. the wings, would have remained outside the building. Bounced off those closely spaced exterior columns. An arrow has much greater sectional density than an airliner. I don’t believe that a beer can is the proper analogy to an airliner. Something in between a beer can and an arrow.

    • Replies: @Hiya Doody
    , @Ray Caruso
  184. TKK says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Mr. Fetzer,

    Have you received any blowback or suspicious monitoring from the Feds on your questioning the holy 9/11 narrative?

    Also, do you find it as repellent as I do how George W. Bush is treated –now– as a fun loving, doddering, zany artist grandpa…pro immigrant even! I have noticed he keeps a very low profile.

    We know why.

    • Replies: @dimples
  185. @Jim Fetzer

    The truth is somewhere between the dark and the light. Humans have limitations in our ability to hear, see, smell, taste and touch, even with enhanced technology. We may be years away from seeing what lay beyond light frequencies or in multi inner-dimensional realms. I have personally witnessed what I believe are space fairing celestial entities, but are they real or advanced MIC experimental craft, I’m not sure. Someone or something is playing one hell of a game with us.

    • Agree: Polemos
  186. TKK says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I went to NYC the February after September 11, 2001.

    You cannot believe the size of this explosion. Video does not do it justice.

    It is MANY hundred city blocks. It looked like a bomb or a nuke had exploded.

    Again, you had to see it to understand. To walk around the site that was roped off, boarded up and considered the “crime scene” took hours. HOURS.

    Airplane fuel could not do this.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Wizard of Oz
  187. @Vinnie O

    Swear to God — go look:
    Rivero at ” What Really Happened” posted a photostat of Honolulu Times that declared, “Japs to Attack Next Sunday”

  188. Here is a conspiracy theory that is a fact, the US is a corporation and is controlled by the zionist banking kabal via The Act of 1871, see fedjack.com.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  189. @ThreeCranes

    You could gauge the heat by the presence of Edns Cintron, waving in from point of impact in a Cardigan sweater, and from firefighter comms that said that the fire had basically burned itself out and finally that there was too much smoke for there to be a high-temperature fire.

  190. utu says:
    @Mefobills

    “The reason I bring up chaos theory is” – because you do not know what you are talking about. I know what you are trying to convey but I won’t be helping you to articulate it. There are just too many parameters at play to easily exclude this or that. Our intuitions most likely will fail. One would have to do a serious finite elements analysis of the whole structure to see what may and what may not happen. This was done for WTC7 by a group at U. of Alaska in Fairbanks:

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-3rd-towers-collapse-on-911-300911896.html

    “The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) following a four-year computer modeling study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

    “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,” said Professor Hulsey. “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”

    https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_9-11-physics-debate-were-the-three-world-trade-center-buildings-demolished-with-nuclear-devices/#comment-4537848

    Similar study was not done for WTC1 and WTC2.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  191. S says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Hi, Guyenot.

    This is something you might find of interest.

    As a potential example of ‘predictive programming, the provacitively named Lone Gunman TV series pilot episode (circa 2000) is well known. While seeming to forecast the future 911, it at the same time looks back on the Kennedy assassination via the series name.

    The Kennedy assassination had its own seeming predictive programming in the form of a couple of episodes of the famous Route 66 TV series.

    One Route 66 episode, ‘Love is a Skinny Kid’, filmed in March of 1962, tells the strange tale of ‘the Kilkennians’ of the fictional Texas town of Kilkenny. While there is no Kilkenny, TX, there is a Kilkenny Co, Ireland, located all but right on top of the Kennedy family homestead there.

    ‘Kilkennian’ is as close as saying ‘Kill Kennedy’ as is humanly possible, without actually simply outright saying it. Similarly, Kilkenny Co is as close as is possible to being the actual location of the Kennedy family homestead in Ireland, without actually being it. The homestead is located roughly along the Kilkenny Co river border on the opposite shore, a virtual ‘stone’s throw’ away from Kilkenny Co.

    The episode features November gun powder plot Guy Fawkes like imagery, in the form of a mask being worn and a figure being burned in effigy. [The 1605 plot to kill the king had its own Oswald, it will be recalled, in the form of the Jesuit priest by that name who knew of the conspiracy but did not partake.]

    There is also strong symbolism of ‘the H’ of WWII, ie the young girl Miriam (the name of Moses’s sister) being injured by being physically burned by fire, her ‘praying’ to her father (who died mid war in 1943) for help during this time but receiving no answer, and finally being taken away by authorities in a ‘night and fog’ like action.

    It is a very bitter and angry Miriam, figuratively now returned from the dead, whose character is central to this episode, and who now wears the Guy Fawkes like mask and burns the figure in effigy.

    The same episode specifically mentions Charles Dicken’s Madame Dafarge and her knitting. Dafarge would encrypt the names of those to be executed by the French Revolution into her knitting. And was Kennedy’s encrypted name ‘knit’ into the script of this episode to signal his own coming execution? [See ‘copycat’ link below for production stills from this episode. Note the still at the beginning featuring the roadsign with ‘Kilkenny’, ‘3’, as in three shots, and ‘Dallas’ printed across it.]

    The other episode, ‘I’m Here to Kill a King’, filmed in October, 1963, but was not shown at the time because it so closely paralleled the JFK assassination.

    The plot revolves around a wholly innocent man, who as a new hire at his place of employment located along side the motorcade route of an important visiting political leader, makes him the ideal fall guy for a high level assassination plot. An FBI/CIA hybrid like organization monitors the assassination conspiracy in real time, but fails to stop it from taking place.

    A scoped sniper rifle is used to make a head shot by the assassin, who is also a body double of the fall guy. It has been prearranged that the assassin will himself be publically assassinated before he can talk. ‘Dallas’ and ‘Lee’ are name dropped in the script. [See ‘Niagara falls reporter’ link below for further parallels.]

    A sub-theme of this 1963 episode is Arabs, New York, and ‘Ground Zero’.

    When Route 66 came into a town for on site filming it was a big deal. It was no different in Dallas, where a full page ad was taken out welcoming the cast and crew in November, 1961.

    Below that, from the same Route 66 fan site, is a newspaper pic of the show’s production crew spending there after hours during that time, at of all places in Dallas, Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club.

    ROUTE 66’ers took in the show at Carousel. From left it’s unit mgr. Bob Maharis, Carousel’s Najada and Route 66 stuntman Fred Stromsoe.
    Dallas Times Herald — December 5, 1961

    https://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2012/08/weld.html?m=1

    http://niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2013/Sep3/lostepisode.html

    https://www.ohio66.com/newspaper/dallas/default.asp#detours

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  192. SafeNow says:

    And then there is the Flight 800 missile-strike coverup, a conspiracy involving at least scores. Jack Cashill, who wrote the definitive book, was once asked how could so many be involved and keep quiet?He replied that it must be “the pensions.” I suspect he was relectsnt to add “or worse.” (For younger readers who are not familiar with this conspiracy, Ron Unz wrote a great essay.)

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  193. niceland says:

    Airplane made of “aluminum” vs. the the structural steel beams in the outer layer of the WTC? There is no mystery here. The beams didn’t stand a chance, and the airplanes left gaping holes in the buildings. I can’t believe people are still messing around with this 20 years later! I agree with commenter “eah” because I know he is right – I haven’t forgotten everything I learned when studying Mechanical Engineering, even if it’s not been my profession so to speak.

    It’s about energy and momentum, not soft vs hard materials colliding.

    Consider this easy to understand example:
    Just after the 2 min mark in the video below you can see what happens to a car door made of steel when hit by much softer lead shots – at similar speed as the planes hitting the WTC towers. The lead shot is probably traveling at 680mph while the airplanes were traveling at 495/590mph

    You can see the guy picking fragments of lead from inside the car after shooting at it. Compared to aluminum blends used in aircraft – lead in buckshot is soft like chewing gum. But like I said, it’s irrelevant. Again, energy and momentum.

    Another video, waterfall from excavator vs car, excellent demonstration of momentum. See for yourself and notice how the waterfall demolishes the car.

    Can we please move on?

    • Agree: utu, Truth Vigilante
    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Iris
  194. @Astuteobservor II

    Your calculation is simplistic, doesn’t necessarily wash but, the comment does evidence that you are likely in that 80% crowd.

    I will assist the cause of deeper intelligence by letting you figure those out. ^^^

  195. Polemos says:
    @Iris

    Well, sure, I can grant that. I am not above getting my ass handed to me and being shown my place —so many brilliant people on this site, it’s a great place to learn the hard way— nor am I above getting frustrated and reaching for my slurs. I’m probably more sensitive to the ways in which people resort to “name calling” as a means of settling disagreements —but for me it generally ends up being a useless and humorless distraction from what’s more interesting and important to me, the adversarial conversation that leads to genuine insights through honest engagement. And, usually, it just ends up being that what someone is berating another for doing is what they either already were doing themselves or begin to do —projection. I often have to wonder whether or not I’m projecting it, too, but then I don’t feel the need to call someone an idiot or a poopoohead or their offered views stupid or nonsensical garbage (as opposed to sensible, compostable garbage). Words can only hurt someone by letting them in to wreck the mind and heart —and why would anyone really want to do that to another, subject them to the inner torment of self-doubt, insecurity, and dissolution? Why take on that karmic weight when I have my own to burn away? Once I came to accept that we are all One, then I understood that the separation I feel from someone who disagrees may be as necessary and important to the whole of our Being as cellular division contributes to the growth, maturity and death of a Whole. Thus, (I) let go and they’ll go and do what they must as the Story unfolds for them. Whatever I do unto others, I am already doing unto myself. Only if I sought to hate and despise myself should I seek that in others, and why do that to myself through them? It’s easier to just bash my own face into a wall or my fists, yet my therapist says I’m much improved by stopping.

    To be open: you, Iris, are someone I respect as genuine about the Conversation, and I don’t recall you “stooping to conquer” on this site. Maybe you have, but it would be for me out of character to see. I appreciate your perspective and the manners with which you offer it.

    I’m clearly much younger than a lot of folks who post here, but I got a lot of the wild out of me in even earlier times. “Back in my day on usenet . . .”

  196. Mefobills says:
    @utu

    “The reason I bring up chaos theory is” – because you do not know what you are talking about. I know what you are trying to convey but I won’t be helping you to articulate it. There are just too many parameters at play to easily exclude this or that.

    I understand your point about finite modeling. It would be hard to do a model on something that was post collision, without making new assumptions. The parameters of a known building suddenly changed, and hence the model changed.

    This is why I always default to building 7, because it is such a clear empirical case.

    I have history with a group of research engineers, all of them very high IQ, believing in the official narrative. It took weeks for some of them to come around; I made some of them derive equations for me.. to try to rough out a model for what had happened.

    In one heartbreaking case, I was taken out for lunch, where one of my fellows confessed. He told me that he couldn’t talk to his wife on this subject (911) because he now understood the impossibility of the official narrative. There was now a wedge between him and his wife.

    We didn’t need the University of Alaska study, or any other studies (none available at that time) to figure things out. It takes a certain willingness to look at data, to be empirical about it, and let the data take you to logical conclusions. This group of engineers was trained to solve thorny problems that escaped others; the whole reason for the existence of the specialized team was to fix and solve intractable problems. Yet, even this group did not want to admit to themselves that their own country could be capable of evil, so it caused an emotional and blinkered reaction out of variance with their training.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    , @utu
  197. @Mefobills

    A physicist with even a small understanding, will realize that chaos theory prevents buildings from collapsing symmetrically. . . . Jenga towers always topple and never fall into their own footprint.

    I looked up demolition sequences for hundred of towers to verify this. They all toppled over. It’s very difficult to get anything to fall into its own footprint. I’ve also observed thousands of fallen trees. None of them came straight down.

    Then I checked out film of the Kobe earthquake. Thousands of collapsed buildings. Almost all of them toppled. The only ones that didn’t were wider than they were tall.

    Don’t even need chaos theory. Any slight asymmetry in the initial damage will force a tall building to fall to the side and topple over. It takes very skilled demolition experts to bring it down symmetrically.

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Replies: @Jiminy
  198. @ivegotrythm

    If only Julius Caesar had a wife like that. Julie, it’s the Ides of March, Julie. Go see the Dermatologist, Julie, go see the Dermatologist.

  199. @Jim Fetzer

    Unfortunately for you, Jim, I know for a certainty that a plane crashed into the south tower because I was standing at the exit to the Wall Street subway stop on Broadway having just gotten off the train to go the the office at 42 Broadway when I both heard and saw a plane flash by between the buildings abutting an alley (I believe Exchange place) and slam into the south tower that produced a massive explosion. I had just enough time to say to my self “what the fuck are you doing” to the pilot.

    And that’s an absolute fact. So anything you say to the contrary that no plane crashed into the building is plane old bunk.

    Now, whether the videos of the effect of the crash on which you rely to claim the crash was a conjuror’s trick have been falsified and that this video was fed into the broadcasts is an entirely different matter,

  200. Polemos says:
    @Vojkan

    But supposing I know the accuracy of your statement, couldn’t I act in such a way as to solicit such things, and thus lead others to infer I am right?

    Or, enlist some mercenary commenting to call me names, and thus lead others to infer I am right?

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  201. Mefobills says:
    @TKK

    Airplane fuel could not do this.

    Airplane fuel is a form of Kerosene. Total BTU content can be calculated by assuming planes were full, or nearly full. The other good assumption is that burn stoichiometry would be at one atmosphere of oxygen, not pressurized oxygen. The buildings were not the inside of a jet engine, where oxygen was rammed in under pressure.

    A rapid explosion of Kerosene is impossible without an oxidizer. Otherwise combustion is rate limited and burn is with a blue flame, like a gas cook top.

    • Thanks: TKK
  202. @Mefobills

    There was a book written decades ago called ‘Friendly Fascism’ about the USA. The West today is a stinking swamp of hypocritical Toadying Totalitarianism, with a range of acceptable opinion that makes Nazi Germany look like a hot-house of debate. Absolutely starkly obvious LIES are peddled by the fakestream media presstitute vermin, possibly the most mucilaginous vermin ever confected, without a second’s hesitation, and with 100% Groupthink, without any deviation or hesitation, but endless repetition. And when contrary facts, even opposing opinion, somehow intrude, as with Chinese Embassy press conferences re. the insanely Evil lies being peddled about ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang, the presstitute scum hiss and spit in outrage at the impertinence of the Yellow Devils. The ‘Free World’ is about as ‘free’ as an ancient bedlam.

    • Agree: the grand wazoo
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  203. Loup-Bouc says:
    @MarkU

    MarkU:

    Your comment epitomizes what neoliberal, neoconservative, money-and-power-greedy leading mainstream psychopaths ought to call “conspiracy theory” but do not because virtually all those psychopaths’ public pronouncements are conspiratorial falsehoods or semi-falsehoods designed to benefit them (leading mainstream psychopaths) by screwing everyone but themselves.

    Professor Fetzer debunks your comment’s falsehoods thoroughly. So, I shall not say more.

  204. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @The Old Philosopher

    Philosophers, old or young, are supposed to know the difference between reality and illusion. You have allowed yourself to be played by Hollywood special effects. Yes, there was an explosion, but it was not caused by a real plane entering the building its whole length and then exploding. How much of a philosopher can you be to allow yourself to be played so effortlessly? It was physically impossible for a plane to have entered either tower with no collision effects. It follows that what you observed was not the effect of a real plane performing a physically impossible feat.

    Did you ever study logic? Things that are physically impossible cannot occur. But the illusion of a plane entering a tower followed by explosions from an independent source (previously arranged for the purpose) is another matter entirely. Did you watch my presentation? I explained it there in considerable detail. And of course it would be arrogant of you to attack me without reviewing the evidence I have presented and made readily available to the readers of this study. Kindly do that and get back. You are discrediting your claim to be a philosopher.

    • Disagree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  205. @SafeNow

    People probably have in mind the actuary baffling series of sudden deaths that plagued those with even tangential knowledge or a tenuous relationship to the JFK hit. Do you really expect the US fakestream media, let alone the yeshiva that is the Injustice Department, to ruthlessly investigate the killing of a man LOATHED by the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Zionazis?

  206. Sparkon says:

    I haven’t forgotten everything I learned when studying Mechanical Engineering, even if it’s not been my profession so to speak. You can see the guy picking fragments of lead from inside the car after shooting at it. Compared to aluminum blends used in aircraft – lead in buckshot is soft like chewing gum. But like I said, it’s irrelevant. Again, energy and momentum.

    Compared to the mostly hollow tubes of aluminum alloys used in aircraft construction, lead shot is solid, so already it’s an apples and oranges comparison, and invalid.

    Solid lead shot cannot stand in for hollow aluminum-alloy tubes.

    767s are made primarily of aluminum alloys, not lead, which was not involved on 9/11 in any known way, so all examples with lead have no bearing on 9/11, and are a distraction.

    The same goes for waterfalls, water balloons, water melons, and water torture, which are all irrelevant and immaterial!

    The only issue with respect to the World Trade Center on Sept.11, 2001 is what would happen in a collision between 1/4″ steel-plate and a mostly hollow aluminum tube at around 500 mph.

    Actually, it’s an entirely moot point because no such collision took place. The representations of those crashes were created with CGI that was broadcast over the national networks.

    By the way, each of the exterior box columns was fabricated from four of those 1/4″ steel plates, so those ginsu steel cutting aluminum alloy wings would have had to slice through four 0.25″ steel surfaces on each column, and not just a single car door.

    In conclusion, I would not recommend chewing on lead shot if you value your teeth. Compared to other metals, lead is soft alright, but nothing like chewing gum.

  207. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    You don’t know that the military has technology decades before it reveals it? And, as I have observed, what hypothesis do you have to explain the data? My suspicion is NONE. The explanation that I have advanced satisfied the requirements for an inference to the best explanation. The evidence has “settled down” sufficiently to make it acceptable as true (in the tentative and fallible sense of science). Unless you have a preferable alternative that better explains the data. your musings have no significance here.

    • Replies: @dimples
  208. onebornfree says: • Website
    @ivegotrythm

    No. Both are 100% CGI, as concluded in my article.

    Please see: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  209. Polemos says:
    @Sparkon

    To be fair, though, in your section where you quote yourself, didn’t you write “Some perhaps, but not all of it?”

    Is it the ‘perhaps’ with which you mean you did not say gold was removed? (I. e.,”Perhaps it was removed, but I ain’t saying it was, only might have”) You also say that you didn’t say the gold was stolen, but was ivegotrythm saying you said ‘stolen’ or just ‘removed’?

    If you aren’t saying someone removed gold prior to the collapse, what does that quoted sentence mean?

    Sorry to nitpick if this is nicking pits.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  210. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @skrik

    No. Unlike WTC-7, the Twin Towers cannot have been demolished by classic controlled demolitions.

    CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES:

    WTC-7: All the floors come down at the same time in roughly free fall into its footprint, and there is a debris pile (characteristic of controlled demolitions) equal to about 12% of the original 47 floors = 5.5.

    WTC-1 & 2: All the floors remain stationary until they are “blown to Kingdom Come” (as Morgan has put it), where both buildings are destroyed (externally viewed) from the top down using some massive source of energy and, when its, done, there’s nothing in their footprints (much less 12% of 110 floors = 13.5).

    GIVE THIS MORE THOUGHT.

  211. @AnonFromTN

    Perfect Dunning Krugerism! An idiot pontificating! The Mesozoic was a different age. The Continents were disposed vastly differently, as were the oceans. The Sun was a little cooler than today. The temperatures then, are IRRELEVANT to those today, because human civilization has arisen during the relative stability of the Holocene, and will not survive the current rapid destabilisation.
    Our species is NOT adapted to sharply higher temperatures and humidity. The creatures of the Mesozoic were, and those that were not, went extinct, as will we, hopefully starting with the Dunning-Krugerites, thus improving the gene pool, albeit only briefly. And whenever the planet’s climate has changed abruptly, there have been mass extinctions, a catastrophe that the denialist psychopaths, including End Times religious imbeciles, are actively looking forward to.

  212. Iris says:
    @niceland

    I haven’t forgotten everything I learned when studying Mechanical Engineering,

    Clearly, you weren’t a very gifted student. Conservation of momentum is a simple and intuitive concept taught at 12th-grade equivalent classes, not even college.

    It’s about energy and momentum, not soft vs hard materials colliding.

    More exactly, it is about conservation of momentum.

    The law of conservation of momentum requires that the reverse/equivalent situation would produce exactly the same result: if the aluminium plane was hypothetically suspended and static in the air, and if it was the 200,000++ tons steel structure which had been flying towards it and had smashed it at 500 mph, which retard would expect the plane to pierce and penetrate the steel structure?

    When you brandish a steel hammer and forcefully whack an empty aluminium Coca-Cola can, what happens in your parallel universe? Does the can pierce and entirely penetrate your hammer, like what allegedly happened at the WTC?

    Can we please move on?

    Indeed, do yourself a favour, show some healthy egoism, stop disrespecting the author of this article who is a thousand time more intelligent than you are and move on from subjects you are clueless about. Cheers.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @niceland
  213. Loup-Bouc says:

    Professor Fetzer’s article recalls, to me, my long-past time of being a member of a law school faculty that included a substantial number of fine critical minds. I have encountered very few such minds among 21st century law-professors, or among 21st century academics of other fields.

    Excellent article, Professor Fetzer.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  214. Iris says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    I both heard and saw a plane flash by between the buildings abutting an alley

    You would suffer from great trauma if you lived through the WTC attack, and it would be understandable that you cannot let go of your initial impression.

    However, while it is certain that there was a giant explosion and fireball atop the South Tower, it is also certain that it was never hit by a real a plane.

    A plane that, upon crashing on a sturdy structural steel façade, does not break, does not bend, does not twist, does not shed any debris, as if sailing through immaterial fog, cannot be a real plane.

    An impact that induces self-healing properties in a building cannot be a real impact, as no damage appears on the façade as soon as the “plane’s wing” is absorbed.

    Not any plane crashed on the Twin Towers. The explosions indeed were real, caused by the nanothermite planted a few weeks before by the Gelatine Israeli “Art students”.

    The planes were computer-generated imagery, added onto the real explosion footages with the complicity of the MSM TV channels.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
  215. @MarkU

    If I were in charge of a Govt Conspiracy, My first priority on day two would be to create as many outlandish whack-job conspiracies as I could.

    And they did.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  216. niceland says:

    People:

    Please consider, the WTC towers were somewhat complex steel structures. While very strong and durable when intact, when damaged to the point of collapse, they were just “house of cards”. When the interconnections in the structure failed a domino effect ensued resulting in free fall collapse. And the only way was down – into their own footprint. That’s just what happens to such structures. No controlled demolition needed to explain this.

    Keep in mind, two things kept the towers standing, the load bearing structures; Outer shell, and the inner core beams. Importantly, the top truss (the very top of the towers) shared the load between these two structures.

    When the towers start to come down one thing is certain – the connection between the outer load bearing shell and the inner core beams is gone. When collapse start it’s load sharing function is gone. On top of that the connections between the two structures is also gone in the collision area where the airplanes hit. And then we have house of card coming down with almost no resistance.

    With the enormous weight of the top section coming down on the lower part, we saw air escaping through windows, throwing material out of the buildings – leaving some to believe controlled explosives were used. And with the long core beams buckling some material, even large chunks are thrown sideways, far out of the footprint, even damaging nearby buildings.

    Consider the top section tilting. How far could it tilt before the connection between the core and the outer shell failed. After that it couldn’t tilt anymore because the support, meaning the building below, had lost structural integrity and was failing. So the only way was down.

    Still, I find it plausible explosives were indeed used to make sure the towers collapse. This theory is supported by witness testimonies and the fact that destroying several of the core beams would ensure a total collapse after damaging the outer shell with airplanes.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Truth Vigilante
  217. niceland says:
    @Iris

    I believe there was a foul play 9/11 2001.

    But we will never get any closer to to truth by ignoring facts and scientific knowledge. This author is way off in his analysis, and why should I respect that? Your ad-hominem is pointless. Waste of time and energy.

  218. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Polemos

    (1) You hallucinate both the content of @Stephane’s comment and the content of Professor Fetzer’s reply.

    (2) You wax presumptuous (a) with your pseudo-psychoanalytic, incompetent attempted incursion into the operation/effect of Professor Fetzer’s ego or other manifestation of Professor Fetzer’s psyche and (b) with your obnoxious advice rendered to a person of mind and pertinent aptitude many times your superior.

    Oddly, though, you do not present even a speck of legitimate criticism of any aspect of Professor’s Fetzer’s article.

    • Replies: @Polemos
  219. Iris says:
    @niceland

    This “pancaking collapse” nonsense has been debunked a million times.

    It is actually very similar to the preposterous NIST official version, for which NIST has lost all credibility because they weren’t able to provide the modelisation data, by which they allegedly proved the global collapse, for cross-examination and peer review.

    So for the umpteenth time: a sky-scrapper civil structure is firmly anchored in the bedrock and calculated so that it can, at any given point, support all the weight above the considered point. The lower part cannot collapse under the weight of the upper part because it was designed to support it.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  220. In a world where Holobusine$$ justifies budgets, grants, donations and buyoffs to place puppet presidents and congressmen and design policy, none of these open conspiracies should be any surprise. With 9/11 and the plandemic, the Ziocorporate terrorists have ensured they’re gonna keep consolidating their “world order” from the top of the pyramid, with the taxcattle assuming all the costs of their profiteering power games in blood and treasure.

  221. utu says:
    @Mefobills

    “We didn’t need the University of Alaska study, or any other studies (none available at that time) to figure things out.” – You can’t be taken serious just as I thought when you started mumbling about the chaos theory. You are a buffoon.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  222. @Iris

    Copper plated lead bullets from an AR-15 easily punch holes in 1/8″ steel plates. Yet consider how soft lead is. I have no difficulty believing an airplane at 500 mph can punch through the side of a steel frame building. It’s a question of a lot of energy delivered to a small spot in a short period of time.
    In my opinion Mr Fetzer is a disinformation agent trying to rebuild his credibility. He lost it all previously because of the nuke nonsense. But you get a lot of information from people like him. His bosses have to give him something to work with. So he’s on my read list.
    Some free advice, Jim. Stop trying to explain the nuke business. You’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

    • Replies: @Iris
  223. Vojkan says:

    It is implied in my statement that the other side is bona fide.

    In your first example, you are either a troll or an idiot. By definition, a troll doesn’t act in good faith. As for idiots, they may actually be genuine but the first rule in dealing with them is to not descend to their level. Therefore, a side acting in good faith will remain unresponsive to your solicitation.

    In your second example, you are a group of trolls setting up a fake polemics. On top of having no authentic side, fake polemics have a built-in glitch (or is it a feature), it is very hard to not notice their futility. That’s two reasons to simply ignore you.

    • Agree: Iris, Polemos
  224. Once we acknowledge the obvious—that the “official account” of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory we are no long able to avoid…”

    Did you mean to say ‘longer‘?

    My all time fav’s Ötzi.

    Aka The Iceman. A dead dude, found high up in the Alps back in 1991, who singlehandedly, and completely involuntarily, proved science to be wrong about when the copper age started.

    Back and to the left.

    Back and to the left.

    Back and to the left.

    Anyone that’s fired a rifle and shot something [not somebody :o], knows the effect a bullet has on what’s being shot at.

    Back and to the left.

    Back and to the left.

    Back and to the left.

    Thank you, Jim.

    I salute you.

  225. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @skrik

    No. Unlike WTC-7, the Twin Towers cannot have been demolished by classic controlled demolitions.

    CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES:

    WTC-7: All the floors come down at the same time in roughly free fall into its footprint, and there is a debris pile (characteristic of controlled demolitions) equal to about 12% of the original 47 floors = 5.5.

    WTC-1 & 2: All the floors remain stationary until they are “blown to Kingdom Come” (as Morgan has put it), where both buildings are destroyed (externally viewed) from the top down using some massive source of energy and, when its, done, there’s nothing in their footprints (much less 12% of 110 floors = 13.5).

    GIVE THIS MORE THOUGHT.

    5.5 floors of debris (WTC-7 to the left); 0.0 floors of debris (WTC-1 to the right).

    • Replies: @skrik
  226. Polemos says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    I have seen folks suggest what had been there was a cruise missile, a large one with characteristics similar enough with a small plane (I recall listening to initial radio reports that the first plane was a small one) —do you think what you saw was quite large or medium-sized, or how do you describe what you saw?

    Or, maybe better, how do you describe what it sounded like?

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  227. @MarkU

    A fairly reasonable piece, ironic that it should come from a man who helped to undermine the 9/11 truth movement.

    Jim Fetzer did not derail the 911 Truth Movement. That movement was hijacked, to misdirect and prevent getting to the truth; which would have meant prosecutions.

  228. Wow, only one of 216 comments (#106) mentions the 8,000 pound elephant in the room…the elephant which bears the entire modern zeitgeist on its shoulders.

  229. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Bill Jones

    You are being silly, Bill. An adequate theory has to explain the available (authentic) evidence. As in the case of JFK, where they “patched” a blow out to the back of his skull, edited the home movies to take out the limo stop and impact of multiple shots, and staged the backyard photographs, the fabricated the 9/11 crash sites, invented passenger lists and (even) fake phone calls. You are allowing yourself to be played. No serious person should adopt your attitude, once they have reviewed the evidence. Take a look and tell me what you think I have wrong. This is a distillation of collaborative research by many experts across multiple disciplines. What do we have wrong and how do you know?


    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  230. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Max Payne

    This is stunningly bad. The Twin Towers won praise and awards for engineering and design. Only one who has never looked at the sequence by which they were demolished could possibly take what you are suggesting serious. They were blown apart in every direction from the top down. The buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. When it was over, there was (virtually) nothing there. Do you seriously suggest that this is the result of shoddy workmanship? It’s embarrassing.

    • Agree: si1ver1ock
  231. Sparkon says:
    @Polemos

    Sorry, but no!

    Dr. Fetzer made the claim that the gold had been removed the night before, without providing any source or citation to back up his claim, so I merely replied “Perhaps,” thinking Fetzer might know something I don’t or didn’t know, but Dr. Fetzer has not provided any citation to back up his claim, and I’ve never made that claim nor have I even heard of it before, to repeat, so I really doubt there was any gold heist at the WTC before 9/11, but of course it’s not wise to try to prove a negative, and crooks are working night and day, so who knows?

    But the important point is that the great chaos surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath, provided very good cover for anyone plotting to steal the gold:

    The gold, which was discovered . . . was being transported through the basement of the building on the morning of September 11,” reads the article. “Recovery workers reached a service tunnel and discovered a 10-wheel [truck] and a number of cars [that] had been crushed by falling steel.”

    https://www.investoffshore.com/how-much-gold-was-under-wtc-complex/

    To sum up briefly, I have argued there was a gold heist during or after 9/11, not before. The crushed truck supports that, as does what follows.

    Nobody really knows how much gold was being stored, preserved, and/or safeguarded in the vaults beneath the WTC.

    Reputed hood Tony Gambino claimed his grandfather built those vaults beneath the WTC and also claimed

    “I know for a fact Bush, the Pope and other top Vatican and U.S. government leaders had prior knowledge and help organize 9/11. They did it for many obvious reason, one being instigating the war in Iraq. But they also did it to get their hands on all the gold that was hidden below in the Twin Towers.

    “My grandfather’s construction company built the Twin Towers and after it was completed, I know they went in and put in big underground vaults to house an enormous amount of gold which is now in Bush’s and Vatican hands in order to fund the war.”

    — Tony Gambino

    Please see my previous comments on the gold heist here:

    https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_9-11-physics-debate-were-the-three-world-trade-center-buildings-demolished-with-nuclear-devices/#comment-4535233

    and here:

    https://www.unz.com/pescobar/from-9-11-to-the-great-reset/?showcomments#comment-4163304

    • Thanks: Polemos
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  232. Mefobills says:
    @utu

    We didn’t need the University of Alaska study, or any other studies (none available at that time) to figure things out.” – You can’t be taken serious just as I thought when you started mumbling about the chaos theory. You are a buffoon.

    UTU,

    Normally you are intelligent and reasoned. But, you are digging yourself a hole and making yourself look bad.

    The fact that there were asymmetrical forces, such as occurs during an airplane strike, and non-linearity (chaos) is not debatable by anybody with a modicum of scientific training.

    This is why I stick to building 7, so I don’t have to argue what should be obvious.

    I’m sorry I went outside of my own rules, with the predictable results – I’m just surprised it is you.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  233. Vojkan says:
    @Polemos

    See comment #223 for my answer. Obviously, I made a wrong click and my reply ended up uncorrelated to yours.

    • Replies: @Polemos
  234. Mefobills says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    The buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.

    What is the energy per unit time required to convert concrete to dust, and then launch it into the atmosphere in a plume shape?

    For the non-scientific types, you can get out your sledge hammer and try to convert some concrete to dust. Good luck.

    Ooops, I am outside of my rules again …sticking to building seven. I’m sure there will be some ankle biting about what should be obvious.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  235. Iris says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    Some free advice, Jim. Stop trying to explain the nuke business. You’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

    The “nuke business” has been demonstrated by scientific calculations, made by a Physics PhD and French university professor with impeccable credentials, who used the century-old, universal and unchallengeable laws of thermal transfer. See link below.

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696

    It is now beyond discussion that the WTC came down by nuclear demolition.

    Since it has been proven by perfectly sound scientific calculations that the amount of heat released, in excess of 1 peta Joules, was in the order of magnitude of a nuclear reactor’s monthly output, only a fool or a lunatic will dispute that the explosives used were of nuclear nature.

  236. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    It was an inference on my part that, since the demolition would be a nuclear event, they would want to protect the gold from radiation to insure its future usability. But I do not claim expertise on the heist of the gold, when it was done and who was involved. I gladly defer to you on this intriguing subplot.

  237. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with conspiracy theories. They get you wound up about things you can’t do one damn thing about and distract you from preparing for the things you can do something about.

    • Agree: TKK
  238. @Mulegino1

    Didn’t the late CIA director William Casey say somewhere that the CIA would know its campaign of mendacity and disinformation had achieved success when everything that the American public believed to be true was false?”

    It would be idiotic to grab a single brush and try to portray all TUR commenters/contributors with it.

    However, hasbara trolls exempted, most come across as individuals that have thoughts of their own and thoughts that do not follow MSM’s crapolla.

    It isn’t about agreement that I’m after. I appreciate those who embrace different thoughts compared to mine.

    When the universe says energy is the result of opposite forces, who am I to contradict that finding…?

  239. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    We are (for the most part) on the same side. What’s interesting about W’s report (made repeatedly) 0f having seen (what was supposed to be) Flight 11 hit the North Tower (in real time) is that no footage of that event was available for at least 24 hours (the Naudets’ video, where the name itself is an anagram of Duane St., from which it was filmed. They love to rub our noses in their shit!).

    He has been completely sincere about having watched it happen in real time, explaining that he said “out loud”, “What a terrible pilot!’, implying that he took it to be real. Since he has to have watched it on the Secret Service CCTV and from the Presidential limo, a camera has to have been focused on that part of the North Tower, which normally would have been bereft of any discernible interest.

    Nothing remarkable should have been taking place at that location at that time. The very fact that the SS had a camera pointed at that facet of the North Tower facade, therefore, implies prior knowledge by the SS that an event of interest would occur at that place and time. Bush was kept in the dark about 9/11 and had to be muzzled to keep him from spouting off about his direct personal (telling) observations.

  240. I appreciated the linked interview with James Files.

    I had been wondering what had happened to him.


  241. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @the grand wazoo

    What do you think you are talking about? I created Scholars and made it world-famous in months. I was responsible for posting every article, video, press release and such published on the web site to the point where a faction led by Kevin Ryan and Steve Jones sabotaged the society by conducting a fraudulent “membership vote” because they were unhappy that I had featured Judy Wood on my radio show on 11 November 2005. I wanted to expand the range of theories considered. They, alas, did not.

    I had long since become disenchanted with the nano-thermite theory (on which T. Mark Hightower and I would publish three articles during 2011 that demolished it in ways that nano-thermite could not demolish the Twin Towers)! You appear to have been played. But that’s how it’s done. Infiltrate a truth group and when it gets serious, take it out. For an accurate history of the society, check out “Founder’s Corner”, where I explain what happened to the society. We were too successful and they had to end it.

    https://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=70

  242. @The Old Philosopher

    Did you catch the markings on the plane?

  243. @Jim Fetzer

    Dr. Fetzer, I respect your work, and often listen to The Fetzer report at Bitchute. What’s your opinion of Heinz Pommer’s analysis, and his conclusion? I know you agree with his nuke theory (more fact than theory), yet never mention him.
    By the way, and with respect. I sure hope you know the English translation of your co-host, Giuseppe Vafanculo, is Joseph Go-fuck yourself, or go fuck off. I’m not saying this to you. Just pointing it out.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  244. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Since Professor Fetzer’s article introduced me to Professor Fetzer, I examined his website. I found some useful articles and URL-linked references. One article disturbed me, not one of Fetzer’s pieces, but a text wrought by Thomas Dalton. Not only did Dalton’s article distress me, but also the fact that Fetzer published it at his (Fetzer’s) website.

    The article is Thomas Dalton, Confronting the Judeocracy: the Six Stages of Enlightenment, https://jamesfetzer.org/2021/04/thomas-dalton-confronting-the-judeocracy-the-six-stages-of-enlightenment/

    The trouble is twofold; (1) Often Dalton’s article uses the term “the Jewish Question,” the term Nazi Germany used in its program of extermination or deadly forced labor of Jews. (2) The trouoble’s other aspect, a much more dangerous one, is this:

    Once it is shown that Jews are massively over-represented in key sectors of society, the standard reply is that this fact does not matter. “Ok, there are lots of Jews in media, finance, and politics, but this doesn’t really matter. People are just people. There are good ones and there are bad ones. If Jews hold lots of influential positions, that only means that they worked hard and succeeded. And anyway, they’re just doing their jobs. ….”

    This seems like a common-sense view, but to make such a claim is to hold an extremely naïve and ill-informed view of the world. It’s true that most decent people, and especially most Whites, tend to view others as individuals; there are likely evolutionary reasons for this, which I won’t elaborate here…. If we judge everyone as basically well-intentioned individuals, then of course, it doesn’t really matter if Jews or any other minority dominates society. If Jews are disproportionate, then it can only mean that they are that much smarter or industrious than others, and thus they deserve their standing. …. And if some Jews commit crimes or other unethical actions, we have to judge and punish them individually, on a case-by-case basis. Or so they say.

    Dalton’s rhetoric begs the inference that if a person’s biological parents are “Jews” or if a person chooses to follow the “Jewish” religion, then that person is, by birth, evil and must be exterminated, imprisoned or otherwise segregated utterly from society, or rendered sociopolitically and economically quite impotent.

    In comments I have posted under more than a few Unz Review articles, I have observed that the Yahweh, and Yahweh’s religion, are immensely manifestly evil. And I have observed the problem that evil Jews have exerted much manifestly influence in governments and the business world and in international relations and…….. Also, I have opined that the world would be a much better poace if the illegitimate non-state “Israel” were disestablished and its many war criminals and crimes against humanity criminals prosecuted.

    I am far from a lover of “Jews.”

    But reality includes the fact that many “Jews” have contributed good hugely to humanity. They have fought for liberty, legal justice, social justice…… They have given us great literature and philosophy and contributed magnificent advances of science and math. And many “Jews” have been just ordinary folks — plumbers, carpenters, electricians, musicians, cab drivers, truckers — who have no inclination or time for aught but surviving at a slightly-better-than-poverty level.

    I do not mean that a Jewish carpenter cannot be a potential monster. I mean that the matter is not such person’s being a “Jew,” but that the matter is whether that person believes Yahweh’s dictum that “Jews” are his (Yahweh’s) chosen people and that “Jews” are not only privileged to conquer and oppress or slaughter all non-Jews, but even commanded (by Yahweh) to do so.

    One cannot know whether a person is a monster except by regarding the person’s conduct, conduct including the person’s choice of religion. If a person is an orthodox Jew by choice (even if by the person’s not fleeing Judaism when she reaches adulthood), one is rational if one wonders whether that person would follow Joshua to slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal of the city of Jericho. But one cannot, rationally, decently, assume that person is capable of such manifest evil. One must examine that person’s actual behavior.

    The exercise is not difficult, at least where it may matter, as in the case of the Jews of Goldman Sachs or Adam Schiff of the House of Representatives or the neoliberals that gave us mass poverty and hordes of illegal immigrants and toxified our environment and the neocons that gave us 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghan and Syrian wars and……..

    But very many “Jews” are not like the Goldman Sachs Jews or Adam Schiff and despise such vile slime and work against them and the goals of neoliberals and neocons. And if we harm or hate a “Jew” because somehow that label fits the person, we ought also harm or hate a “Calvinist” (because Calvinism teaches that riches prove “grace”) or a Roman Catholic (because the Roman Church produced the Inquisition and the slaughter of thousands of indigenous Americans and blesses and gives absolution to Mafiosi) or Christianity (because it has justified virtually every atrocity humans have devised or have sought to accomplish).

    So, Professor Fetzer?

    The troublous question is why Professor Fetzer published Thomas Dalton’s article. I have not perused much of Professor Fetzer’s website. But if he published much such toxic dross or agrees expressly with the gravely dangerous propaganda Dalton pushes, then I shall regret Professor Fetzer’s existence as I regret the existence of all humans who “think” like Thomas Dalton or are characterologically susceptible to thinking such way.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Jim Fetzer
  245. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Emendation:

    This comment correct a typing-error-marred paragraph of my comment to which this comment replies, comment # 245, https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4628121.

    The typo-marred paragraph is this:

    In comments I have posted under more than a few Unz Review articles, I have observed that the Yahweh, and Yahweh’s religion, are immensely manifestly evil. And I have observed the problem that evil Jews have exerted much manifestly influence in governments and the business world and in international relations and…….. Also, I have opined that the world would be a much better poace if the illegitimate non-state “Israel” were disestablished and its many war criminals and crimes against humanity criminals prosecuted.

    That paragrpah ought to be this:

    In comments I have posted under more than a few Unz Review articles, I have observed that Yahweh, and Yahweh’s religion, are immensely manifestly evil. And I have observed the problem that evil Jews have exerted much manifestly evil influence in governments and the business world and in international relations and…….. Also, I have opined that the world would be a much better place if the illegitimate non-state “Israel” were disestablished and its many war criminals and crimes-against-humanity criminals prosecuted.

  246. @Jim Fetzer

    It is possible that the Regime is now seriously considering starting a war with Chine over Taiwan, or a war with the Russian federation over the Ukraine, or both at once, a two front war which US Generals say is beyond our current capabilities.”

    If TPTB thought they’d get away with such a heinous act, it would’ve been done already. The MIC might be drooling over a possible prospect of emptying their warehouses [and restock them at public expense], the guys [not PC, I know] that have to do the actual heavy lifting [grunts and their commanders], are not really ready to have a snaffle shoved down their mouths, or be the proverbial canon fodder.

    The US can’t fight and win wars.

    The cocoon flails, but whatever lived in it, has long since fled, far, far away…

  247. @Jim Fetzer

    Thanks Jim, all of your work!

    This photo basically says it all… Like a fountain!

  248. @Jim Fetzer

    Which, in turn, is revealing because that would have required a camera to be focused on the facade of the NT which normally would be utterly bereft of interest. In other words, proof of advanced knowledge of what was about to take place by the Secret Service and the Bush/Cheney administration.

    We have to look no further than the 5 dancing, Occupied Palestine squatters.

    They knew where to aim their camera at…

    That’s all I need to know about who did what.

    We can discus our heads off about what did bring down which thing.

    My main concern is; the real perps are still walking freely among us…

    side note: I don’t believe the WTC buildings did fall into their footprints all by themselves. I’m with you on that one, for sure, regardless the cause.

  249. dario says:

    General Albert Stubblebine on 9/11

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  250. @eah

    GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! If that’s possible. THERE WERE NO AIRPLANES! FFS!
    We’re all arguing about airplanes. It was a nuclear event:

    The IAEA detected fallout the day after. Why was the AIEA even there? Why were 400 dump trucks at the ready, days before? Where did all the gold go? How many days before did it go? Why was the site cleaned so thoroughly, and the remaining steel offshored so quickly? Wasn’t it a crime scene? What about the molten rock and steel, that stayed hot into January? An Arab passport recovered there and another on the Trade Center sidewalk. Really? What about Shanksville, PA? The earth swallowed it all? What happens when a 300,000 pound airplane traveling 540mph impacts a 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pound planet earth? Do the math on that one.

    Veterans Today archives has a treasure of information to help you sort it out. veteranstoday.com

  251. @Badger Down

    Re JFK, It’s worth remembering that “American businessman” “Jack Ruby” (Jacob Rubenstein!) murdered Lee Harvey Oswald.”

    Don’t forget Zapruder [another jew] who filmed the whole thing [where have I heard that before…?], pocketed a cool $150,000 because of it and had haydays heydays for the rest of his life.

    • Replies: @Franz
  252. Seraphim says:

    All philosophy begins in wonder.

    ”SOCRATES: I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher; for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder” (Plato, Theaetetus 155c-d).
    ”For men were first led to study philosophy, as indeed they are today, by wonder. Now, he who is perplexed and wonders believes himself to be ignorant … they took to philosophy to escape ignorance” … (Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b).
    ‘By Wonder’, in Greek thaumazein: to wonder, to be amazed, puzzled. But the verb is derived from thauma=miracle.

    • Agree: Polemos
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  253. dimples says:
    @Iris

    “The Twin Towers structural steel was at places as thick as the skin of an armoured tank.”

    Since this argument is essential to your beliefs, a reference with details would be handy. I await with little hope. Remember the planes (or no-planes) hit at the top 1/3 of the building so don’t quote figures for the bottom 1/3.

    Thanking you in advance.

  254. dimples says:
    @TKK

    Why would the Feds monitor Mr Fetzer? He’s doing a great job!

  255. dimples says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I confess I’m not really up with all the ins and outs of the nuke theory. How does a nuke blow the building apart from the top down without breaking the windows underneath the collapse zone? Please explain in detail or point me to a reference and don’t just say ‘It’s obvious’.

    Thanking you in advance.

  256. Mehen says:
    @profnasty

    I watched about 20 minutes of your “9/11 Octopus” video on your recommendation.

    It sucked. Horrible production values, full of jump cuts and text boxes flashing by so fast you couldn’t read them.

    Your claim was that the footage was “entertaining” and hard to find elsewhere.

    I didn’t see much I hadn’t seen elsewhere and without the pumping techno beat.

    I did happen to catch a bit in the Star Wars-like scrolling intro that mentioned something about 9/11 being about “destroying Israel”?

    Are you just another deranged psychopathic kike?

    FOH

    • Replies: @profnasty
  257. Defender says:

    They do this kind of shit all the time. Invent and weaponize terms like conspiracy theorist to discredit people who question any official narrative and automatically portray them as mentally ill and highly dangerous people in desperate need of medical treatment. In other words (State run re-education labour camps)

    This instantly keeps the NPC’s inline because their greatest fear is being labelled , racist, nazi, homophobe, conspiracy theorist, etc, etc I would claim the kind of people who question nothing out of fear of name calling are far more dangerous than anyone else.

    Currently anyone who has concerns about being injected with an experimental gene altering concoction bankrolled by a billionaire eugenicists is a conspiracy theorist flat earther. You will see FLAT EARTHER constantly mentioned in vax articles etc. They consistently imply if you have reservations about the taking the shot you’re a believer in flat earth. Condescending assholes!

    These are the same assholes who call white nationalists, white supremacists

  258. @Stephane

    (they are about 15 inches square, 0.4 inch thick)

    From where are you getting this ridiculous number? The smallest beans were 1″ thick, and they graduated upward to 5″ thick.

    No aircraft is going to punch in a Wile E Coyote hole in the side of those buildings.

  259. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:

    What is all the chatter over 9/11? No planes were used and only nuclear detonation can dustify steel into nanoparticles so fine. Conventional demolition cannot create this type of dust. Only Nukes can melt rock and steel and burn for months underground. Only a nuclear detonation can burn 1200 cars in surrounding blocks. It would have taken months and an army of demolition engineers to wire those buildings for TRADITIONAL demolition. But very little time to strategically place suitcase-sized mini-nukes throughout the buildings.

    It is also clear that thermite was used to create the initial explosions and cartoon cut-outs. So finding evidence of Nano-Thermite in the dust is perfectly understandable. Thermite was also probably used in Building 7.

    So all of these competing theories, each in their own way has pushed the investigation forward. They were all wrong about the use of planes. Judy woods theory of “Direct Energy Weapons” is farsicle but she has archived an tons of fantastic pictures of 9/11; a great contribution. There were no planes. This we now know. And it tool 15 years for the “No Planes Theory” to finally become mainstream in the 9/11 Truth Community.

    All of these conspiracy theories evolve to the final solution. Nuclear detonation carried out by Israel. Covered up by Jews. The Myth maintained by Jews. The Means, Motive and Opportunity all attributable by Jews at every turn. American CIA, FBI and Military and MSM and Israel Mossad are responsible. I think America used the Mossad to murder our fellow Americans (the poor bastards on all the four flights). I find it hard to believe the FBI and CIA would wholesale slaughter that many Americans.

    One thing is for certain. Each time these evildoers get away scot-free with a False Flag…they get even more brash and bold in their next invention. The Jews in the know brag about it, write books about the plan years in advance and make movies about it…years in advance. 9/11 was a nuclear event on American soil in the very heart of our busiest city. Why not do it again??? Watch the film, Edge of Darkness with Mel Gibson. Nuclear event being designed to look like an Iranian Nuclear bomb.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Darkness_(2010_film)

    • Thanks: Iris
  260. @TKK

    You are contradicting those (including our host) who have referred to free-fall “into their own footprints” as part of their conspiracy theorising. How do they get it wrong?

    • Replies: @TKK
  261. Jiminy says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    You’re right about the building shape. I’ve seen a lot of demolitions of buildings on tv and mostly they have been low and wide, like stadiums. They easily implode and collapse in on themselves. But I have never seen a close-up of the aftermath and cleanup though. And I don’t know how popular the twin towers construction method is, but I still think that the method of construction played a part in how the buildings fell.
    The nuclear demolition theory seems like it relies on posing the plane crashes as hologramatic mass public hysteria for it to work. No plane, no initial weakening of tower structure. No weakening of structure no collapse. The fuel explosion was thus a dummy thermite fuelled one explaining the compound being found in the rubble. Thermite then was not used to severe key support structure.
    The towers were designed to be flown into by large planes. Don’t forget that in 1945 a b25 flew into the Empire State Building. It does happen.
    When aluminium alloy is used to make wings, quite often the internal structure of the wing is machined from a large billet of forged metal. That will then be laid down in the direction of travel. Then ribs are attached at 90 degrees. Part of the landing gear and servo mechanisms also are housed in the wings, as well as fuel. Of course the wings carry the engines, which would contain very little aluminium. So to compare an empty can to the wings is an understatement.
    If a plane bellyflopped onto the side of a tower then the amount of damage surely would be less.
    When so many of the people who push the nuclear angle live in the US, why hasn’t at least one of them gone to the site with a geiger counter to check readings? Why was there no local or worldwide fallout noted? Or don’t these nuclear demolition charges leave a trace?

  262. @dario

    And look at those nasty things the wicked Wikipedia has to say about Stubblebine:

    “A key sponsor of the Stargate Project (a remote viewing project) at Fort Meade, Maryland, Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his battalion commanders learn how to bend spoons in the manner of celebrity psychic Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, in addition to walking through walls, such as levitation and dispersing distant clouds with his mind. Stubblebine was a key leader in the U.S. military invasion of Grenada (1983). After some controversy involving the experiments with psychic phenomena, Stubblebine took “early retirement” from the Army in 1984.”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  263. @Jim Fetzer

    Aha! You have an unusual personality but haven’t gone mad. I expect your great Gotcha moment will come when you have reached some landmark figure of loony toons accepting your conspiracy theories with or without crazy modification.

    What is the c)ue that you, who couldn’t have made such a
    ridiculous mistake, have just thrust before us?

    “They were blown apart in every direction from the top down. The buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. When it was over, there was (virtually) nothing there”.

    Just the most obvious nonsense here is the millions of cubic yards of dust and would have a mass, even without the steel members thrown sideways, of more millions of tons. As the mass of the main Towers was about 500,000 tons, each, you gotta be kidding.

  264. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinnie O

    He probably was in a situation where he knew he’d be shot if he told anyone so he basically came to the conclusion that his life was worth more than those potential lives lost if he just went along with it. His justification for it was that it was war and people are going to get killed either way.

  265. I didn’t get far beyond reading

    “We know the criteria to employ in the evaluation of scientific theories, why should they not be evaluated by the same standards (or criteria of adequacy), which classically include:

    (CA-1) the clarity and precision of the language in which they are expressed;
    (CA-2) their scope of application for the purpose of explanation and prediction;
    (CA-3) their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence; or,
    (CA-4) the economy, elegance or simplicity with which they satisfy (CA-1) – (CA-3)?”

    It looks all very scholarly and careful but where are criteria which give weight to established physical laws that may or may not be contradicted? Where are a conjunction of common sense observations and intuitions that might raise the bar?

    So…. why does the even smarter and scientifically well credentialled Ron Unz publish such stuff. My tentative theory is that he wants to find out how he may be received at 80 if he is as closely associated with conspiracy theories in 20 years time, rather than for his English for the Children achievement, as Jim Fetzer is. Will someone be writing of him like this:
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-professor-of-denial/

  266. Defender says:

    As for 9/11 no, I don’t believe the official story. It was obviously a complex military style operation that would have taken months of planning by experienced operatives and required a number of established insiders cooperation. So that negates the twenty Arab terrorists with zero flight experience narrative.

    Who benefited from 9/11? Israel. What were the nationalities of the many intelligence agents being busted in the US right after the attacks? Israeli. Who were the moving guys celebrating on the morning of 9/11 and later arrested by a patrol officer and taken in for questioning? Israeli. Did any have ties to foreign intelligence? Yes, Mossad. After returning to Israel and appearing on Israeli television to tell their story what did one of them state: “We were there to document the event” Who was the moving company they were employed by registered to? An Israeli. What was the result when authorities went to interview the owner of the moving company? He has pissed off to Israel.

    9/11 was obviously a Mossad/Israel operation. Pointing that out is far more important than endlessly arguing back and forth with one another about how or how not it 9/11 was carried out. Absolutely pointless!

    Talk of no planes, Holograms, CGI, space beams or whatever else has absolutely poisoned any truth about 9/11 being exposed because people have been told so much garbage they’re quiet happy to just accept the official story now. It has destroyed the 3000 people murdered on that day receiving any justice not to mention the tens of thousand innocents murdered and displaced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There are loads on images of the second plane along with armature footage and on the spot witnesses.

    If people wanted to come up with a theory the most obvious and easiest would be the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot which allows external control of the aircraft from either another plane or satellite. Patent for Honeywell was taken out in 2006 but has been in production since 1995.

    I’m not right up with everything about the missing MH370 but have picked up bits and pieces over the years and it kind of points to Honeywell system being used in the missing Malaysia Flight 370.

    Israel leasing UK Military installation located in the indian ocean complete with 11,000 foot runway

    20 senior staff Freescale tech employees onboard MH 370. experience engineers intel, military, NSA etc

    Four members of a patent semiconductor onboard – Jacob Rothschild inherits the patent and now is its sole owner.

    It is all rather suspect and everyone knows how obsessed Israel are about intel and military tech so I wouldn’t be suprised

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  267. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    The reason “Conspiracy Theories” are ridiculed is because Jews hate the Truth, especially when it is told about their crimes.

    9/11… JFK… etc.

  268. @Seraphim

    All philosophy begins in wonder.”

    Does it look like this…?

  269. Franz says:
    @Daniel Rich

    …pocketed a cool $150,000 because of it and had haydays heydays for the rest of his life.

    That was just a down payment. Current heirs had a better lawyer:

    $16 Million For Zapruder Film

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-million-for-zapruder-film

    Arbitrators declared Tuesday the government must pay the heirs of Abraham Zapruder $16 million for film he took of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Justice Department said.

    A three-member arbitration board was established when lawyers on both sides failed to agree on the level of compensation for the film, which was owned by the Zapruder family but held in storage by the National Archives. The Zapruder family had asked for $30 million; the government offered $1 million.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  270. Living the rest of their lives with lie and dying with a lie.
    What is the worth of few thousand insignificant American lives, when it did serve the higher purpose.

  271. Emslander says:

    “When the government commits a lie, it’s stuck with it!”, which of course resonates with the failure of the government to change its position (about the 19 Islamic hijackers on 9/11 or Lee Oswald as the lone, demented gunman on 22 November 1963). Which means, in turn, that the government is not operating on the basis of principles of science or of rationality, where the discovery of new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require that we reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected and leave others in suspense. The government operates as an authoritarian source of (politically infallible) knowledge, where to admit mistakes would weaken its grip on the body politic that it governs.

    Apply this to the massively incorrect response to a novel flu virus. Every event after a global shutdown has to fit the narrative or it is dismissed.

  272. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    Jews are the World’s Foremost Problem

    Zionism is the Real Racism

    Judaism is Satanism

    Communism is Jew Control of Gentiles

    Any questions?

  273. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, I agree with you that a real plane ‘would have crumbled* exterior to the buildings with bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail falling to the ground’ (or at least the fuselage component of it), in NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

    The wings are much more robust in construction and because of the speed (over 500 knots in the case of UA175 that impacted with the Sth Tower), it’s easily imaginable that they would’ve punched a hole in the facade because of the tremendous kinetic energy coupled to their strength relative to the far flimsier fuselage.

    So, you’re thinking, what do I mean by ‘Normal Circumstances’ ?

    The impact of the two aircraft (YES, there most definitely were two aircraft involved), and the FORWARD FIRING ORDNANCE that was employed on the day by BOTH planes striking each tower to PUNCH A HOLE in the facade of each tower just prior to impact, was anything but normal.

    Stay with me readers and watch the few minutes from 1:17:50 – 1:21:00 of the following video titled ‘Christopher Bollyn “The Dual-Deception of 9/11 and the Fraudulent War on Terror” :

    The video above is worth watching in its entirety but these few minutes are crucial.

    Please readers, watch these few minutes over an over until it sinks in because this is VERY IMPORTANT and is a far more plausible explanation than the No Planes/CGI theory. (That’s not just my opinion but the opinion of experts that I will refer to in my coming posts – so stay tuned).

    Jim [Fetzer], I really have to ask you. WHY no mention of that ‘Living Treasure’ (Christopher Bollyn) and (arguably) foremost researcher of 9/11 on planet Earth ?

    Doesn’t his exhaustively researched output deserve mention ?

    NOW, let’s get back to the planes that struck the Twin Towers that day and how NOBODY DIED IN EITHER AIRCRAFT.

    Yes, you read right. NO ONE DIED aboard those planes because no one was in them.

    The planes that impacted were not AA11 and UA175. These aforementioned commercial aircraft were likely commandeered by the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP) and diverted/landed somewhere :

    https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/

    The article above states that the patent for the BUAP was granted in 2006.

    NOT TRUE.

    BUAP was functional and operational AT LEAST A DECADE before 9/11.

    The aircraft that struck the Twin Towers were drones – remotely flown.

    It is evident from the flight path of UA175 in the seconds before it struck the Sth Tower (banking to the left at PRECISELY the right moment in a fluid arc travelling at over 500 knots, that human hands were NOT in control – any skilled commercial pilot will tell you that there is no evidence of ‘check turns’ as would be evident if said plane was under manual control in the seconds leading up to impact).

    OK, enough for one post. Watch my follow up comments below and I will show what type of aircraft were remotely flown into the towers that day.

    • Troll: ivegotrythm
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  274. Polemos says:
    @Vojkan

    Got it, thanks. I like your take on the questions! 🙂

    • Thanks: Vojkan
  275. TKK says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Sorry- but you don’t make any sense.

    I was there 4 months later and said the site resembled a crater in the earth.

    Said it was not done by airplanes- not possible.

    Go back to Crazy town. Have a side of fries.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  276. Mefobills says:
    @Mefobills

    This is why I stick to building 7, so I don’t have to argue what should be obvious.

    What should be obvious is when first principles of physics and engineering are abrogated.

    If all of a sudden gravity is suspended and you go flying through the air upside down, that should get your full attention.

    Yet, we have scientists and laymen alike arguing over first principles. This is alarming, but so much about humanity is alarming.

    Buildings don’t fall into their own footprint. It is a first principle, like gravity. I used the analogy of an electron randomly jumping out of a wire earlier, which would violate first principles. Electrons travel the path of least resistance. Magnetic fields travel the path of least resistance. Falling objects travel the path of least resistance. OK? This stuff is axiomatic.

    That a significant portion of the population can be duped with narrative, brings up another axiom.

    Clownworld is a function of average humans being ready to receive and accept narrative out of variance with reality.

    Our (((friends))) who are masters of propaganda and maneuvering the sheeple, are privy to first principles of population control.

    Everything else about 911, which includes concrete dust, plumes, beams blown sideways, and impossible energy disparities is downstream from the original first principle in that buildings don’t fall into resistance. Pigs don’t fly.

    The human animal (us goys) have been conditioned by Teevee and controlled demolition since it was invented, to think that is the normal case for buildings. Gravity magically makes buildings fall straight down – because I have seen it on Teevee.

    I’m sure the planners of 911 are laughing into their sleeves that so many of the worlds people were so easy to condition, and maybe they are right – that the average person is an animal unable to perceive reality. Reality is what they make.

    Even the term “conspiracy theory” is a programmed term to make rational people appear as nutters. “Conspiracy theory” has negative emotional connotations because it was programmed into you since birth. People who state the obvious are now nutters, so we have entered into Orwell’s world.

  277. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Loup-Bouc

    WOW! You draw inferences that appear (to me) to go far beyond what Thomas Dalton has written to imply that he is calling for the extermination of the Jewish race, which (so far as I have been able to ascertain) is not the case, then conclude by “regret(ting) Professor Fetzer’s existence”? Lest some may think that I have misquoted you, here is the concluding paragraph of your critique verbatim:

    “The troublous question is why Professor Fetzer published Thomas Dalton’s article. I have not perused much of Professor Fetzer’s website. But if he published much such toxic dross or agrees expressly with the gravely dangerous propaganda Dalton pushes, then I shall regret Professor Fetzer’s existence as I regret the existence of all humans who “think” like Thomas Dalton or are characterologically susceptible to thinking such way.”

    I agree that something is seriously wrong, but you may have to look in the mirror. While I may not agree with everything he has to say (and I intermittently publish pieces that are thought-provoking, even if I disagree, such as a defense of Trump’s endorsement of vaccinations, which I regard as being completely indefensible), I published this because I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, values which, from what you have written here, are not ones that you personally share. Or, at least, so one might easily infer from what you have written here. But your stance toward me seems to contradict the rationale you advance for deploring Dalton’s research, which is rather striking.

    Dalton has published one of the more important books, DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A NEW LOOK AT BOTH SIDES (2nd ed., 2015), https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Debating-Holocaust-New-Look-Both/Thomas-Dalton/9781591482345which I regard as a valuable contribution to the analysis of one of the greatest deceptions of modern history. The Holocaust has become a taboo subject, yet it demands our consideration, because Jewish political power is rooted in the Western sense of guilt for an historical narrative that appears to be propaganda rather than history.

    My own research on the subject, “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, is the preface to Nicholas Kollerstom’s BREAKING THE SPELL: THE HOLOCAUST MYTH & REALITY (2014), where Goodreads has 14 reviews, expressing a wide range of reactions but reflecting a profound appreciation therefore: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23629458-breaking-the-spell and has been published elsewhere: https://www.thegovernmentrag.com/the-holocaust-narrative-politics-trumps-science.html I, too, cannot abide trading in stereotypes and deplore racism in all its varieties–including the wave of anti-white racism currently endorsed by the new (and un-) Democratic Party.

    Scientific conclusions, of course, are tentative and fallible, which means that, if you disagree with the findings of Dalton, Kollerstrom or me about the Holocaust, then by all means engage us with your own research and argument. And you might also argue (against Dalton) that the group he seems (to you) to vilify actually appears to have the highest average IQ of the world’s various racial groups, as I explain in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE: ARE HUMANS THE ONLY ANIMALS WITH MINDS? (2005), https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Intelligence-Humans-Animals-Minds/dp/0812694597, which you might or might not find useful in debating him.

  278. Now, to address the ACTUAL AIRCRAFT that impacted with the Twin Towers on 9/11 :

    I posted a Christopher Bollyn video earlier on that showed the underside of the alleged UA175 aircraft (it wasn’t UA175 – it was a drone) that the corrupt MSM and U.S government claim impacted with the Sth tower on 9/11.

    The photo in the video was a bit grainy so I’ve posted a photo below that is a bit clearer :

    An enlarged picture appears below (I’ve seen much clearer photos before which may require some leg work to find for those of you that have the time to do it, but on short notice this is the best I could find):

    Let me begin by stating that ALL commercial Boeing 767-400 series aircraft (as AA11 and UA175 were claimed to be), have an underside FLAT FUSELAGE.
    ie: flat belly.

    The aircraft that impacted with the Sth Tower was NOT a commercial 767-400.

    Upon close inpection you will notice a TUBULAR APPENDAGE on the underside and located slightly to the right side, of the fuselage.
    ie: something like this aircraft in the photo below.

    The photo above is of a Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A, which is a modified Boeing 767-400 that is used in a military application.

    These are the aircraft (two E-10’s) that impacted with the Twin Towers on 9/11.
    They were flown remotely.

    Now, to the question of the Bunker Buster ordnance that was launched from the tubular appendages that day to punch a hole so that the fuselage could enter into said cavity like a hot knife through butter (thus rendering the highly speculative No Planes/CGI theory redundant).

    USMC fighter pilot Lt-Col (retired) Field McConnell, 37 yrs experience in military and commercial aviation (having flown F4 and F16 fighter aircraft and the whole spectrum of wide body commercial Boeing and Airbus), says that the forward firing ordnance that was launched by an A3 Skywarrior (a supermodified version owned by Raytheon) to punch a hole in the C, D and E rings of the Pentagon, may well have been an AGM-65 Maverick bunker buster air-to-ground missile:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick

    In relation to the Twin Towers, others have suggested that it may have been a Lockheed Martin Rocket-boosted hard target penetrator bunker buster air-to-ground missile :

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US6276277

    Said missile above would have been easily capable of punching a hole sufficiently large for the fuselage section of the plane to enter WITHOUT LOSS OF MOMENTUM (and consistent with counting frames of its entry into the facade of the building without retardation in its speed).

    Inspection of the patent (right hand side bar) will reveal that the patent was granted three weeks before 9/11 (2001-08-21), although Field McConnell claims that it was operational well in advance of that date.

    The readers of Unz Review are are an exceptionally intelligent bunch and many of you will be aware of what I have written (and intimately familiar with Field McConnell), so my apologies for the repetition in my posts above.

    That said, I’d read most of the comments here in this thread and there was NO MENTION of Field McConnell/Christopher Bollyn at all and an obsession with the No Planes/CGI theory which, I strongly believe, is not plausible.

    That said, I’ve read articles and research from various individuals stating that there is no CGI technology that could’ve simulated the appearance of said aircraft on 9/11.

    One individual in particular (named Jason Goodman who worked with special effects/CGI in the movie industry), says there’s no way CGI could have done what it was claimed to do on 9/11.

    Many of you will be familiar with Goodman who had a Crowdsource the Truth website or You Tube channel (at least he did at one point – one or both may have been taken down by the cabal in the interim for revealing too many truths).

    My next post is not to be missed. I will feature an interview with Field McConnell and for those not familiar with him, this is a MUST WATCH.

    For some of you, it will increase your background into what really happened on 9/11, and the disappearance of MH370 (from recollection) etc, by perhaps tenfold.

    • Troll: ivegotrythm
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Iris
  279. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    Nice you make an argument but I am concerned that it appears to be seriously flawed. We know what happens when a commercial carrier in flight impacts with a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces: it causes tremendous damage and the planes require extensive repair. Now imagine encountering an acre of concrete on a steel truss: the plane would be obliterated! Yet you suggest that, on 9/11, two planes could overcome (in the case of the North Tower) encountering seven (7) acres of concrete on steel trusses and (in the case of the South Tower) eight (8). Your position is physically simply absurd.

    You appear to be yet another in a long list of contributors here who have never bothered to watch “9/11: Who was responsible and why”. Because there you would learn that the external steel support columns surrounding both buildings were massive in-and-of-themselves. No real plane could have passed through them, even had they not been connected to the massive core columns by those steel trusses filled with an acre of concrete apiece. I am sorry to say but, while I like your style in writing and your aplomb in presenting your position, from the point of view of physics, it’s preposterous.

    References:

    https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

    https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @Anon
  280. @utu

    There is no missing debris.

    This is the most ridiculous post ever. Anyone who looked can plainly see massive amounts of building converted into fine dust that covered the city. The people who were there on the day and the people at Fresh Kills confirm that there were ZERO chairs, desks, computers, doors, doorknobs, HVAC, Electrical wiring, paintings, filing cabinets, and everything else that would exist in a building of this type.

    I didn’t look at the link, but if a physicist actually stated what you claim s/he is just plain stupid, or a paid troll.

    For those interested below is a video I’ve never seen before, shot from the Hudson River. You can see the WTC2 building disintegrate and turn into dust, but what is interesting is what you do and don’t hear. No sound of explosions, or of floors hitting one another. Instead simply a constant “wooshing” sound.

    This was NOT an explosion as we know it. I don’t know what happened, but whatever it was it remains a technology that is hidden from us.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
    , @Iris
  281. @Jim Fetzer

    Vanity!
    Jews were and are in every country. Jews did prosper in every country because they concentrated on financial gain. By that fact they were able to multiply like rabbits. So now it is impossible to pact them all in Israel. There are already too many of them there. Also it is impossible to identify all of them.
    In US and western countries the Governments are democratically elected but the representatives were bought by Jews even before they were elected. So all decision if all representatives must be in line with wishes of the Jews.
    Any violent solution like Hitler was attempting is inhuman and simply unexceptionable.

    So only solution could be a true democracy. Government representatives should be changed into only
    administrators, and decisions should be done by voting of the peoples.
    In present computer age it could be made quite easy.

  282. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, I hope you’re reading this.

    I’m aware that you and Field McConnell had a ‘run in’ the last time you met and didn’t see eye to eye (to put it mildly).

    For those not familiar with the history, it is my understanding that McConnell was less than pleased with Jim’s remarks (perhaps concerning the ‘No Planes/CGI theory ?), and called you ‘Uncle Fester’ – implying that you were somewhat of a fruit loop.

    For the record Jim, I like you a lot and have been following your output for many, many years, be that on JFK, Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon etc (loved hearing your podcasts with Kevin Barrett on False Flag Weekly News).

    I also loved reading your ‘America Nuked on 9/11’ book that you co-authored with Mike Palecek and concur totally with pretty much everything in it (especially the mini-nukes used in the control demolition of the Twin Towers hypothesis).

    That said, I absolutely DO NOT agree with the No Planes/CGI explanation (for reasons as outlined in my previous comments).

    Anyway, for readers not familiar with Field McConnell. here is a must watch video from 2017 titled: ‘Serco’s stranglehold on the US military – CTM #712​ – Field McConnell’:

    It’s over 2 hours long but well worth it. It contains a veritable treasure trove of information on 9/11 and a variety of other topics.

    Please be patient and persevere through all the slow bits of the video above (there aren’t too many), and watch the whole video – you’ll be glad you did.

    For example, if you want to know what really happened to Navy Seal Aaron Vaughan (and the other Seals that were part of Extortion 17 – the team that allegedly killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 but actually didn’t, and were threatening to tell the truth about it so the Obama administration had them silenced), watch the 7 mins from 2:00:50 – 2:08:00 from the video above and prepare for a real treat.

    This is just one example. The video contains a literal deluge of pearls like that so be sure to watch it.

    Lastly, for those of you not familiar with USMC Lt-Col (retired) Field McConnell, Fighter pilot, FEARLESS TRUTH TELLER and AMERICAN HERO, you may be asking yourself how come he knows so much about these things.

    Because he is the personification of courage on steroids and greatly respected amongst white hats within the military and intel agencies (both active duty and former), I’ve been told that said individuals have supplied him with copious quantities of info over the years that exposed the malfeasance of the U.S government/military/three letter agencies.

    The cabal that runs the U.S and owns the key players in the U.S government/military/Intel and the bureaucracy, are none too pleased with what McConnell has exposed during this period.

    As payback (last I heard), he was incarcerated on some bogus charge and has been locked up these last 2 years or so.

    This is the fate of someone, that posterity will refer to as one of the bravest whistle-blowers America has ever seen.

    It’s gut wrenching.

  283. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    As it happens, I am a huge fan of Christopher Bollyn, who is excellent on the politics but weak on the science of 9/11. Of the hundreds of contributors to advancing 9/11 Truth, I give him high marks. But my non-mention of him has nothing to do with the hopeless inadequacy of your attempt to defend the idea that real planes really penetrated the Twin Towers, which is physically and scientifically impossible.

    It bothers me that you do not draw the obvious inference. NO PLANE COULD HAVE ENTERED A TWIN TOWER ON 9/11. Which means no large plane, no small plane, no commercial plane, and no military plane. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE. So (again) while I like your style, the specific type of plane you alleged to have entered the Twin Towers makes no difference. It was impossible!

    We all know about the Flight Management System beneath the plane in videos. And I certainly agree that the original plan was to fly remotely-controlled aircraft into the buildings. It was only when they discovered it was physically impossible to do that they had to revise their plan. And, as I have now explained several times, it cannot have been done using either (h1) CGI or (h2) video compositing.

    That is because there were hundreds of witnesses who saw (what they took to be) a real plane in real time approaching the South Tower. That would have been impossible on either (h1) CFI or (h2) video compositing, where the images of planes would only show up during the broadcast and not in real time. The only alternative that can explain the data is (h2) the projection of holograms.

    If you can refute (h3), then by all means, “Lay on!” But for you to instead insist that real planes were really used in spite of the physical impossibility of real planes really entering a Twin Tower is simply insulting. UNZ REVIEW has many intelligent readers and you are clearly discrediting yourself by repeating an argument that I have already defeated. Give yourself a break, Stop making a fool of yourself!

  284. @Mefobills

    In addition to turning concrete into dust, consider that WTC 1&2 each had 8 electrical substations, each with a 35,000 lb Dry Type transformer. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar, these are essentially large chucks or iron and copper.

    You could drop the moon onto these things and not covert them into dust. Yet on 911, all 16 of these massive transformers disintegrated into dust.

    “Collapse” my arse.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  285. @Jim Fetzer

    Agreed Jim.

    No plane could withstand an impact with ‘ seven (7) acres of concrete on steel trusses’.

    But on 9/11, the two Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A drones encountered nothing but an EMPTY CAVITY.

    Because moments before, depleted uranium (DU) BUNKER BUSTER missiles had punched massive holes into the facades of each of the towers fractionally before ‘impact’.

    Watch those four (4) minutes from the Christopher Bollyn video that I posted earlier Jim and see for yourself.

    A bunker buster missile easily penetrated the C, D, and E rings of the western facade of the Pentagon on 9/11.
    This feat is all the more remarkable in light of the fact that the western side (and NO OTHER side), of the Pentagon had been reinforced for added strength just prior to 9/11.

    Said Bunker Buster missiles could, and DID, punch a hole in each face of the Twin Towers that day.

    You’ve purposefully obfuscated the issue Jim by mentioning ‘7 acres of concrete’. Said Bunker Buster missile needed ONLY to punch a hole sufficiently large, say no more than 25 feet in diameter, to enable the fuselage of the plane to disappear into this cavity.
    To do so, it needed ONLY to punch a hole in the exoskeleton of each tower (NO 7 acres of concrete there my friend, as you well know – perhaps only a few dozen cubic yards of concrete and one or two steel trusses at most to overcome), and this it did with absolute EAAAAAASE.

  286. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, I’ll leave it up to the readers of Unz Review to decide which one of us is making a fool of ourselves.
    (You’re not doing your cause any favours be resorting to acts of desperation in ad hominem attacks – a sure sign that you’re well on the way to losing this argument).

    Meanwhile, readers will probably like the following video featuring mulit-decade experienced commercial pilot Captain Dan Hanley whose life was completely destroyed (career terminated, first wife divorced him and much more), because he was a whistleblower :

    He’s very diplomatic and doesn’t come right out and pooh-pooh the No Planes/CGI hypothesis (so as not to embarrass his hosts on this podcast), but I can assure you he VERY MUCH believes that two drone aircraft did indeed impact with the Twin Towers that day.

    As for PROOF that independent and uncompromised sources did indeed take photos of the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A as it was about to impact with the Sth Tower, watch the 3 mins of the video above from approx. 38:00 – 41:00.

    Once again, I strongly recommend that you watch the entirety of this clip as Dan Hanley is a true American hero and has suffered much in pursuit of the truth.

    I can’t believe that there are less than 400 views for this superb video.

    Stop watching the cat videos people and get behind this great man.

    His You Tube channel is here : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmccFLj0_5XNZfzxc8vfhqA

    And his website here: https://911pilots.org/

    Scroll down to the bottom of his webpage and watch Dan Henley’s interview with Jason Goodman as well – you won’t be disappointed.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  287. @Genrick Yagoda

    Fine dust.
    The floors were made with 60% stones and 40% asbestos The Engineer underestimated the volume of cement needed. This was such a catastrophic mistake that lateral movement of buildings due to winds did release asbestos fibers into air and people were breathing it in. Silverstain would have eventually become the victim of enormous Law suits. That is why Silverstain went along with idea to bring them down.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  288. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    That is because there were hundreds of witnesses who saw (what they took to be) a real plane in real time approaching the South Tower. That would have been impossible on either (h1) CFI or (h2) video compositing, where the images of planes would only show up during the broadcast and not in real time. The only alternative that can explain the data is (h2) the projection of holograms.

    Well, I don’t think there were “hundreds of witnesses” at all. Rather, I think there were a few liars on the scene who claimed to see an airplane crash into the building, so I suggest this is a fatal flaw in your argument – overlooking the liars, or accepting their lies.

    The presence of 9/11 liars on the scene has already been established by the likes of Stanley Praimnath at the WTC, and Lloyde England at the Pentagon, so it should not come as a surprise that the 9/11 conspirators had plenty of liars in their bag of tricks, including prominent and/or influential ones.

    How many liars? Well, we shall see.

    You know, the first WTC “eyewitness” interviewed by CNN – as it broke the news about WTC 1 – was himself an employee of CNN, Mr. Sean Murtagh, who was introduced as a “CNN Producer,” but as the segment went on, he became “CNN”s Vice President of Finance.”

    Anyway, Murtagh was in mid-town Manhattan, and claimed to CNN’s anchor Carol Lin to have seen a passenger jet fly past his window on the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza “teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip” before crashing into the WTC.

    Next, CNN went to its affiliates for “man in the street” interviews from the WTC. Note that the first two eye-witnesses/interviewees didn’t see any plane.

    JIM RYAN (ph), WNYW REPORTER: Did you see what happened, sir? Did you see what happened? What happened?

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was in the PATH train, and there was a huge explosion sound; everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around the 80th floor.

    RYAN: Was it hit by something, or was it something inside.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was inside.

    LIN: Jeanne, we are continuing to look at pictures of this devastating scene, according to Sean Murtagh, vice president of finance, who witnessed what he described as a twin-engine plane, possibly a 737. [H]e was almost absolutely sure it was a large passenger jet that went into that.

    Jeanne, you are saying you didn’t see anything initially. You didn’t see a plane approach the building?

    YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

    But of course Sean Murtagh was “almost absolutely sure” – in the words of Carol Lin – that he saw a “large passenger jet” smash into the WTC, so I think this episode provides a nice vignette of how things worked, with the networks in the thick of it.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  289. I have been told chemtrails are a conspiracy theory, but yet almost everyday they have sprayed here in Montana and the white trails of nano particles of aluminum and barium and strontium are seen in the skies with the white X’s and assorted spray patterns, it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a deep state fact.

    See geoengineeringwatch.org, chemtrailplanet.com ,globalskywatch.com and enter mike morales on youtube.

  290. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Truth is easy to find…

    Take $3 Billion, and build exact replicas of WTC1 & WTC2 & WTC7,

    Build them outside of Moscow, where the Jews can’t mess with this experiment.

    Televise all of the following free to the world…

    Then, on 9/11 anniversary, crash fully loaded 767’s into WTC1 and WTC2.

    Set fire to a fully paper loaded WTC7.

    Do it again the next day.

    Do it again the day after that.

    Do it again on the next 9/11 anniversary… and again, seven years in a row.

    Wait 7 years, and see if they collapse.

    No? They haven’t?

    Then…

    Round up every Jew in the World, confiscate their assets as claw-back from Centuries of Theft and Murder, and deposit them behind 10 rings of electrified razor wire surrounding 640 square kilometers of Birobidzhan.

    Truth.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it was universally loved?

    Jews hate Truth.

    Jews hate Those that Tell the Truth.

    Jews hate Us.

  291. @Sparkon

    I couldn’t help but notice the ‘doctored’ photo of a bird’s head in Comment # 67 (an eagle ?), supposedly after a bird strike with an aircraft wing.

    For readers not familiar with ‘Sparkon’, he’s been peddling disinfo in a previous thread (YES, he’s one of those mask wearing servile non-critical thinkers that believes the Covid hoax is legitimate – because Rachel Maddow and the wise overlords in the MSM told him so).

    Having read (under duress), some of the comments he’s made here, it’s obvious he’s doing his master’s bidding on this thread as well (that master located in Herzliya, Israel).

  292. @Jim Fetzer

    One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L. [House of Lords]

    Conspiracies are much easier to follow as long as you don’t confuse the object with the means.

    If you can keep those two things straight, most genuine conspiracies become pretty obvious because the plausible denial or deniability is built in to it and managed as such from the outset.

  293. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    Andrew Johnson and I did a show about some 500 witness reports of seeing planes on 9/11, where the witnesses were all over the place: some saw a large plane, some saw a small; some saw military plane, some saw a commercial. The point is not just their numbers but that they included some hundreds of firefighters, who are not know to be gullible or irresponsible. I am certainly willing to be proven to be wrong, but I don’t think this line of argument is going to do it. I agree, however, that there were even larger numbers who claimed to have seen no plane, including some footage broadcast on television.

  294. sally says:
    @GRB

    Evidence suggest that Fetzer has confused lies supported by the advance of long and strange false assumptions, hypothesis and scenarios with evidence based logic that develops theory?

    One hypothesis is that people are endowed with one of two types of brains. A vast majority of people process information to develop from it a belief which they will stick to until death does their belief part, other people will extract from information facts and develop a set of hypothesis based on prior still standing hypotheses, and on understandings extracted from the subject information.. these theories are tentative, they stands until one of the hypothesis is proven wrong, and required modification or trash binning depending on the nature of the update.

    The key characteristic of theory is that it renders null hypothesizes designed as a matter of course to be proven wrong.

    In other words, if evidence that makes the theory wrong does not surface; the theory stands as
    a tentative explanation capable to explain a question raised by the subject of the theory.

    Not sure how conspiracy defines a type or class of theory? I presume by conspiracy theory you mean those
    hypothesis that attempt to explain main stream events or scenarios [MsEoS] known to the public?

    Limiting theory to those that explain MsEoS does not change long established scientific method:
    basically all legitimate science begins with a theory, a person invents a scenario [a theory] to explain
    something=> why the room lights up when the switch on the wall is moved from “off” to “on”.
    Ants on the floor have not seen electrons and are not familiar with electricity, yet they are
    interested to discover why does the light come on when the switch is moved from off to on?

    So one little ant suggest God lives in the “on” side of the switch and the devil lives in the
    “off” side of the switch. No ant comes forward, and no fact surfaces, with evidence to prove
    the theory wrong?

    So great religions develop among the ants. The ants divide into two groups. those who believe the
    theory, divide into God worshipers or Devil worshipers (the basis for the oligarch strategy of
    divide and conquer, such division of belief keeps the oligarchy hidden, powerful, and wealthy
    and politicians in their jobs for lifetimes).

    Great wars over false beliefs develop by and between the ants; such wars, keep ant populations to minimum.

    But Ants that develop theories based on hypotheses and amend them as the hypothesis are discredited and as new hypothesis appear, extract evidence from information (they ignore faith and belief) and use the extracted objects to support the development of a theory that fits the event or circumstance to be explained are called scientist. It is likely conspiracy theorist ants adopt a wait and see attitudes about religion.

    I believe the Jew world is a square and equal in L,W, and Depth to the diameter of the Goy Sphere made of dust, don’t you? One can easily see, that belief is subject to divide and conquer strategy and that facts lead to a singularly correct solution. This suggest that lies adopted into official narratives are designed to do a lot more than just avoid the truth, they are the substance of divide and conquer strategies.

    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  295. profnasty says:
    @onebornfree

    Nice tidy little chat.
    Much ado about nothing.
    We all know the buildings were bombed.
    The ‘How’ is less important than the ‘Who’.
    Justice will only be served from Above.
    You brainiacs are barking at the moon.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  296. @Che Guava

    Hey Guava, you do know that Joe Vialls (real name Ari ben Menashe), was a Mossad operative ?

  297. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    BUNKER BUSTER MISSILES HITTING TOWERS AS THE PLANES APPROACHED? Surely, you are jesting. Interestingly, Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong actually discovered that the explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers (one in each tower), which were designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water, took place 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the alleged impact to the planes (according to the radar data and official reports). But those were in the SUBBASEMENTS, not on their facades:

    Let me apologize if anything I have said came across as ad hominem. I am simply baffled that one as obviously intelligent, articulate and (generally) well-informed should persist in promoting a position that is physically impossible. I just don’t get it. And all your efforts are going to be unavailing. Unless you appeal to miracles, you aren’t going to get those planes into those buildings. But I would agree that it won’t be for lack of trying. Let’s see if anyone else out there buys what you are selling.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  298. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Both Mussolini and Hitler were impressed by how well FDR established fascism in the US. The 1930’s on saw the construction of the basic framework that enables the supposedly regulated industries to control (and in some cases directly own) the bodies that supposedly regulate them.
    The CDC, now the major marking arm of big Pharma, grew out of FDR’s 1939 Federal Security Agency.

  299. @The Old Philosopher

    Good stuff Old Philanderer (referencing your comment # 199 from earlier).

    Feel free to check out my posts subsequent to yours for verification that you’re telling the truth (not that you need to be assured you’re being honest as you know what you saw, but for the benefit of the No Planes/CGI people who have backed a losing pony).

  300. @Zarathustra

    Quote Silverstain would have eventually become the victim of enormous Law suits. That is why Silverstain went along with idea to bring them down. End Quote

    I don’t believe for a second Silverstein agreed to anything after the fact. I am as certain as is possible that he was brought into the scheme at the beginning to lease the towers, and increase the insurance on the buildings.

    It was after all a Mossad operation. They wouldn’t leave such an important aspect up to chance.

    And it wasn’t just the cement, everything in the buildings disintegrated. Whatever the cement mix was compose of, it doesn’t cause metal to disintegrate.

    Speaking of which, that video I posted contains a great shot of the Spire. After the building disintegrated there was a section of around 700 feet tall of structural steel. It was still standing, and the load was removed. But if you look carefully, this too disintegrated and the dust fell straight down, not falling over in one direction, as would normally occur if the steel was in one piece.

    How does a gigantic steel structure collapse straight downward on itself with no load above?

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
    , @Jiminy
  301. @Steve Naidamast

    17,000 people walked out when the first warning blasts went off at the Twin Towers. There were none, or almost no, human remains found. The Twin Towers were 60 % empty and redundant. That is why so little office equipment was found, because there wasn’t any. The Towers were empty because they were economically un-necessary. That is why they were sold to Silverstein who, with his colleagues, had a plan to make money out of them. The present “Freedom Tower” (and the Empire State Building) are only 40% occupied and that with discount pricing. You, “9/11 survivor” are a troll, and ask yourself in which circle of hell that puts you.

  302. @Truth Vigilante

    It takes one to know one.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  303. @niceland

    Mr Iceland, I strongly disagree with your statement in Comment # 216 when you said : ‘While very strong and durable when intact [the Twin Towers], when damaged to the point of collapse, they were just [a] “house of cards”.

    I have a hard sciences background myself, and in consultation with several structural engineers, have been informed that a DOZEN Boeing 767’s could have impacted each building at the exact same spot, and the buildings still would not have collapsed.

    Yes, there might have been localised collapse in that scenario at the point of impact.

    But the bulk of the building below the impact point would have stood intact – for years if not decades and beyond.

    That’s because the each tower below the impact point was UNAFFECTED. They were as robust as the day the were built.

    The smoking gun is the symmetrical collapse and the near free fall rate at which it collapsed.

    Let’s address the former first.

    We’re all agreed that the planes impacted one side of the building in each case and, to the extent that something came out the other side (witness the explosion of the Sth tower), that side was also affected to a much lesser extent.

    So, the side with the impact had the most structural damage and hence the load bearing beams in that vicinity would have given up first – meaning the section of the building above would have started to LEAN towards that side and then broken off and fallen to the pavement below.

    That didn’t happen. Whilst we did see a lean at first, this upper section just ‘dustified’ (more or less), in mid air.

    The important thing to note was that as one floor collapsed on to the next, the undamaged floor below would have (in accordance with Newton’s Third Law), offered some resistance (an absolute minimum of many seconds or minutes each time – I personally would’ve thought something more like hours or even DAYS of resistance before giving way), and so forth for each floor until collapse to the bottom.

    You see, the Twin Towers were designed with thicker gauge structural steel the further one went down to the lower floors.

    For example, floors 80 – 90 were designed to hold up only the 20 or 30 floors above them in these 110 storey structures.

    Meanwhile, floor 60 was designed to carry the 50 floors above it, while the ground floor has to withstand all 109 levels above it.

    There’s more to it than that. A building of 110 floors is not actually designed whereby the ground floor has to hold up 109 floors above .
    That’s because, for safety purposes, a REDUNDANCY factor is incorporated.

    In actuality, a building is designed in a such a way that any particular floor (and the Twin Towers were CERTAINLY no exception), is designed to hold up FOUR or perhaps even FIVE times as much load as the weight of the floors above it.

    At the end of the day, the only way for the towers to have collapsed at near free fall speed (and symmetrically as well), is for the load bearing columns below the point of impact on each floor to have buckled/given way SYNCHRONOUSLY and INSTANTLY as one floor fell onto the one below.

    This is IMPOSSIBLE – unless said load bearing columns were cut/blown up synchronously (as per a controlled demolition).

    Whether it was mini nukes or thermite/thermate charges (or a combination), is not important at this stage.
    Al that matters is that the official U.S government explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers (a fire induced gravity collapse), is laughable and positively juvenile.

  304. I generally believe that planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

    The tensile strength of the airplane is somewhat immaterial. It’s the mass and the speed that causes the damage.

    Also, the air frame of a large airliner isn’t same kind of aluminum as in a soda can. It is very thick and extremely strong and hard. It could easily rival lower grade construction steel. Also, the fuel containment system is robust. It would likely have maintained cohesion for the time needed to punch a hole in the building.

    Essentially, the airplane was a multi-ton hammer/hatchet smashing into the building at over 500 mph.

    Maybe we should get Prof. Hulsey from Alaska University to model it us?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  305. @Defender

    Always a good idea to ask cui bono but you might like to consider the simple answer. It was Osama bin Laden who got America embroiled in Afghanistan as it had been in Vietnam and as the Soviet Union had been. The attack on Iraq was a bonus care of the idiot Bush.

    Could you explain your reference to Rothschild and patents, especially given the fact that patents last for no more than 20 years?

  306. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, in relation to your comment # 298, where you say ‘Let’s see of anyone else out there buys what you’re selling’, I am not trying to sell anything.

    I just want to determine the truth and thereafter for the malfeasant entities that perpetrated 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train and Bali Bombing etc False Flags to be apprehended and prosecuted.

    No more, no less.

    I am merely the messenger simply relaying the findings of the likes of Christopher Bollyn and Lt-Col Field McConnell (either of whom are significantly better informed and researched than you are on the validity or not of the No Planes/CGI fantasy theory).

    It’s only FOUR (4) minutes of the Christopher Bollyn video that you have to watch that demonstrates the likelihood of the depleted uranium (DU) missile punching through the facade of the South Tower.

    Let me repeat – Christopher Bollyn is making that claim in his video. Field McConnell does likewise in countless posts he’s made over the years.

    Yes Jim, it’s one thing for you to attack me but when Bollyn says the same thing, YOU WON’T GO THERE because of Bollyn’s impeccable pedigree and history of truth telling.

    What are you afraid of Jim ?

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  307. EV = (OP + I) / L

    Where EV = entertainment value, OP = how interesting the original post is, I = the increasing irritation of the original poster as he continues to engage with commenters, and L = the length of the comments section

    At about L/3, EV attained a higher value than OP. Promising. Unfortunately L seems to be reaching a value that prohibitively overwhelms any further increase in I, rendering the overall EV increasingly <1.

    I suspect a conspiracy between the author and those who he calls irrelevant in order to unduly boost EV. But like most conspiracies, the sheer scale of the operation brought too many opportunities for minor bungling. But feel free to check my calculations.

  308. @si1ver1ock

    And you haven’t even mentioned that each plane was delivering four nine ton missiles: their engines! Each one could take out a steel upright member.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Sparkon
  309. @ivegotrythm

    Well Out-of-rhythm, I urge readers to cross check and verify for themselves everything I’ve posted today over the coming weeks and months – if it takes that long.

    They will see that one of us is indeed a troll (and it won’t be me).

  310. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    An author who intervenes repeatedly in the discussion of his piece has evidently failed to carry conviction.

    However the continual introduction of irrelevant information, images, and videos is undoubtedly an effective way of keeping attention distracted from the critical facts.

    Most critical is the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall speed for several seconds (a fact acknowledged by NIST), which could only have been possible if all building support columns were severed simultaneously, i.e., with explosives in a pre-planned controlled demolition.

    Once that well-established fact is generally understood all else is a matter of detail.

    Nine eleven is a crime that will never be acknowledged short of a revolution since it would mean sending dozens of politicians, generals, and heads of the security services to the gallows.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
    , @Wizard of Oz
  311. @TKK

    I merely drew the inference from your description of what you saw. I believed it and it seemed quite incompatible with those who write of the buildings collapsing into their own foottprints. (Equally it is incompatible with the current author’s trollish reference to millions of cubic yards of dust.

  312. @ivegotrythm

    “… no real people saw a real plane…”
    Unfortunately, even real witnesses and real planes (ships, trains, etc.) can’t guarantee
    the absence of diabolical plots – just narrow the scope of variables available for lying.
    Good thing is that when the perpetrators belong to “the illuminated” part of society,
    the presence of numerous “shining” details in the case in question is guaranteed.
    It’s not enough for arresting the perpetrators, but enough for ignoring everything that
    doesn’t address those “shining” details.

  313. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    This is silly. Commentators are asking questions and raising issues that were not covered by my post, which of course would be expected since (a) I am addressing a large topic (conspiracy theories), (b) 9/11 and JFK are involved (where 9/11 continues to invite controversy) and (c) I am simply replying with proof that demonstrates the points I am making. You appear to be complaining that I am doing what I can to explain my position about matters that were not covered by the original. I suppose that I should not be surprised, but what you are saying appears to be attempting to manufacture criticism.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
  314. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    And of course I make the point that the engines, which are not only massive but virtually indestructible, would have penetrated the towers (but of course, like most of the others commenting here, you haven’t taken the time to watch the video where I lay this out in detail). So if you were correct, then we ought to have found the engines somewhere on a trajectory consistent with the hit. But instead we find (at Church & Murray) a planted engine under a canopy that appears to have been placed there by several FBI agents using a dolly, which they left behind. Notice that the sidewalk remains intact, even though something as massive at high velocity would have gouged a huge furrow in the concrete. Had the crash been real, it would not have been necessary to fabricate evidence using an antiquated engine no longer in service. As with JFK, had Oswald done it, it would not have been necessary to frame him. Fake evidence is real evidence of fakery.

    • Replies: @Stephane
  315. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    But the Twin Towers did not collapse. They were blown apart in every direction by some powerful source of energy (which cannot have been nano-thermite, which has only 1/13 the explosive force of TNT. The US Geological Survey examined dust samples at 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event. And the effects have been profound, where as many as 70,000 first responders and nearby residents have suffered from the kinds of physical maladies that occurred following the meltdown the the reactor at Chernobyl. Similar causes / similar effects.

  316. @Genrick Yagoda

    I do agree with you that Silverstein was notified long before the event.
    Concerning the floors I was referring to unusual amount of the dust.
    If you did watch the collapse it was one floor falling on the floor below practically the all floor in perfectly intact and in horizontal position. That could be achieved only by disengaging the trusses from girders or disengaging of girders from columns. In both cases this could happen only by several explosions going off the same time. This simply could have been achieved by random heating of bolted or welded connections.
    ………………………..
    There were many other considerations indicating foul play but this one I mentioned is the most important one.
    ………………………………
    It does not matter if any logical analyses is presented, the government will simply ignore it.
    So what’s the use.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  317. @Zarathustra

    Sorry
    This simply could NOT have been achieved by random heating of bolted or welded connections.

    • Replies: @si1ver1ock
  318. Anonymous[193] • Disclaimer says:

    Nah

    Conspiracy obsessions are the curse of the American Right wing .

    This leads to American conservatives believing everything is controlled and nothing is possible .

    Lots of good things are possible .

    J Ryan
    Left behind in Chicago

  319. Anonymous[193] • Disclaimer says:

    And just why was Muhammad ATA and his crew being monitored by Israeli intelligence?

    Answer:

    Because Israeli intelligence has intelligent Israeli and other Jews working for them

    It s just smart to monitor Arab and other Islamic extremist terrorists

    Like duhhhhh

    Think we could ever do something simple like that .

    J Ryan
    Left behind in Chicago

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  320. I’m not convinced the engines would have come out the other side. While it is certainly possible, they could have tangled in the central cage of the structure.

    There is one piece of evidence that supports the no planes theory, which is that ALL of the so-called Black Boxes were allegedly destroyed. Which should be pretty much impossible.

    Jesse Ventura did an episode on it in his series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.

    On the show, one of the First Responders claimed he saw one of the “Black Boxes” recovered and heard tell of two more being recovered.

    So, I’m still with the two planes theory.

    Good old Jesse

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  321. @Zarathustra

    Also, we have first hand testimony from pretty reliable sources.

    William Rodriguez:

    Rudy Dent:

  322. Iris says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Now, to address the ACTUAL AIRCRAFT that impacted with the Twin Towers on 9/11 :

    No aircraft impacted the Twin Towers, and there is no need for a Physics training to understand it.
    The video frames of the “planes” penetrating the Towers are ludicrous, and an insult to common sense:

    These videos are Wiley E.-style cartoon physics, not a reflection of any reality.

    The films of the (real) explosions and fireball that occurred atop each Tower were modified by CGI, and computer generated planes added to them.

    There is plenty evidence available to prove the fakery regarding the South Tower:
    – the botched real-time footage where the “plane’” pops out its nose on the opposite side of building
    – the uncontrolled Chopper 4 footage aired live in the morning of the false flag without any plane, then re-broadcast in the afternoon, this time with a plane.

    No plane whatsoever was involved in the 9/11 attacks, neither at the Pentagon, nor at the WTC.

  323. @Franz

    “That was just a down payment. Current heirs had a better lawyer: $16 Million For Zapruder Film

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-million-for-zapruder-film&#8221;

    Sir, I stand corrected.

    When death pays, eh…?

  324. @Iris

    Sorry. That’s a logical fallacy. Even if you could prove the video(s) are fake that doesn’t prove no airplanes hit the building.

    It would just mean the video(s) are provably fake. There is also eyewitness testimony that planes hit the building and probably radar data too.

    And, I don’t accept that all the videos are fake.

    Definition of contrapositive

    : a proposition or theorem formed by contradicting both the subject and predicate or both the hypothesis and conclusion of a given proposition or theorem and interchanging them “if not-B then not-A ” is the contrapositive of “if A then B ”

    • Replies: @Iris
  325. Iris says:
    @si1ver1ock

    Even if you could prove the video(s) are fake that doesn’t prove no airplanes hit the building.

    This is perfectly understandable.

    The job of Hasbara trolls is not to uphold common sense and intelligence.
    On the contrary, it is to destroy the evidence for truth by using any possible Z-rate sophistry, including “ the evidence of fakery and staging does not exist even if one’s sees it with one’s eyes” .

  326. @Truth Vigilante

    One more time.

    Here’ the official story: All this reported by “respectable” mainstream media or reported in the 9/11 commission report

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

    …Meanwhile down in Washington…

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…
    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…
    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…
    …all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…

    …Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana…

    …Further south in Florida…

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…

    …In New York…

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…

    And if you don’t believe that, you’re a “conspiracy theorist”

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
  327. Ron Unz says:

    Since this thread is generating lots of interest, I should mention that many of my own American Pravda articles deal with somewhat related issues:

    https://www.unz.com/page/american-pravda-series/

    In particular, this very long article summarizes my own perspective on the the particular matters that seem to be the main focus of this discussion:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

  328. @sally

    One hypothesis is that people are endowed with one of two types of brains.

    I’d argue that to fully function, mankind needs to believe in thing that are not there.

    Things like [as you mentioned as well] god/s, freedom and democracy.

    Do we see a 100,000 North Dakota chimps go on a holiday in Mexico…?

    Do we see a 100,000 bonobos live in harmony in ‘The Angels’…?

    Do we see a 100,000 gorillas tear down statues in Oxnard…?

    We do see animals that migrate [back and forth].

    We used to do it ourselves.

    Then we got stuck and had to figure out a way to be happy.

    Que in all the crap we’ve surrounded ourselves with today.

    Que in all the crap the chosen ones provide us with so most stare at an idiot box, watch games and reality shows so they can feel better about themselves.

    Que in all the ‘medication‘ needed to stay afloat and not be depressed…

    We’ve come a long way.

    Just wondering where the future leads us to…

  329. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    This was NOT an explosion as we know it. I don’t know what happened, but whatever it was it remains a technology that is hidden from us.

    This demolition technology is not “hidden” from us per se; it is just completely obsolete, and stopped being used in the 1960’s when many of us were not yet around.

    The technique involved is called “underground nuclear detonation”. It was very popular in the 1950-60’s, as the tremendous power produced by nuclear explosions gave hope to realise large civil works projects in much reduced time frames.

    Over 150 nuclear detonations for peaceful purposes were carried out by the US, USSR and France, to dig dams, water reserves, and other civil works applications. In Sep 1963, a proposal was made to President Kennedy to dig a second Panama Canal with nuclear detonations. This technology was abandoned as scientists slowly realised that they could never contain radioactive fallout on the long term.

    https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/peaceful-nuclear-explosions.aspx#:~:text=%20Possible%20applications%20for%20peaceful%20nuclear%20explosions%20include%3A,7%20Recovering%20oil%20from%20oil%20shale.%20More%20

    An underground nuclear detonation produces a supersonic pressure wave, what is called a “blast” in layman terms. Except that this blast is thousand times more powerful than anything we know, and is therefore able to disintegrate and dustify even the hardest materials: structural steel, concrete, rock, event the hardest fitting present at the WTC such as porcelain sinks.

    A similar explosion can be seen in this old video which much resembles the collapse of the Twin Towers. The disintegrated/dustified rock, reduced to powder, flows in a way resembling that of a liquid:

    The Twin Towers and WTC7 were demolished by underground nuclear detonations, which characteristics well match what was witnessed on 9/11.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  330. @Mefobills

    Even the term “conspiracy theory” is a programmed term to make rational people appear as nutters. “Conspiracy theory” has negative emotional connotations because it was programmed into you since birth. People who state the obvious are now nutters, so we have entered into Orwell’s world.

    Exactly why the official definition of Anti-Termite, most recently restated here

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/what-just-happened-in-the-ukraine/#comment-4623225

    begins as follows:

    I oppose proactively hateful ethno-supremacist Jews behaving as termites gnawing often latently but ever unceasingly in instinctive concert

    Much of the destructive evil Jews commit is tacitly synergistic. Because they know what to do then when done know the group effort was accomplished without intra-group communication, they mockingly flaunt the “conspiracy theory” ridicule often even before the goyim develop or express said theory because they have complete confidence knowing no prior planning occurred and therefore no prior conspiratorial communications will be discovered.

    Obviously the 9/11 diabolical Jew group evil required massive pre-planning, communication and prepatory action. But all the other group evil Jews do that’s tacit enables them to magnify the power of the “conspiracy theory” hammer to pound the goyim down from proving non-tacit staged events even of 9/11 magnitude and obviousness as you describe.

  331. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Much, this comment strays off the topic of your article. I shall endeavor to constrain the straying part near-brutally as Dalton would eliminate “Jews” from society.

    I type badly. I have not spare time enough to proofread this comment. I apologize now for any typing/editing error(s), the chance of which [error(s)] is enhanced by my rather poor eyesight that does not read well a text shown on a computer screen.

    (1)

    You misread Dalton’s article. Its premises and “reasoning” would deprive Jews of even a nanometer’s societal space. As my earlier comment suggested, Dalton’s premises and “reasoning” would require that the “Jewish” population be (a) exterminated or (b) herded for their whole lives into inescapable prisons or (c) otherwise segregated utterly and permanently from society or (d) at least somehow rendered socially, politically, and economically thoroughly impotent, as if by consigning them to the most abject slavery without hope of manumission.

    Dalton does not express advocacy of such measures, except a strategy that would produce a regime close to measure (d). But Dalton’s “Jew”-contemning surely encourages and supports the worst wishes of the growing number of rabid anti-Semites. Dalton’s Jew-contemning would banish even Ron Unz, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon from American and European society.

    As I observed in my earlier comment, often Dalton uses the Nazi term “the Jewish Question.” I note that in the bio attached to his article, Dalton included the fact that he “authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf….” I sense that Dalton would have been joyous in the SS that “managed” the “final solution.”

    [MORE]

    I acknowledge that the Holocaust took not 6 million Jewish lives, but a number of the range 1.9 million to 2 million (as if such a “small number” does not deserve horror). And, as my earlier comment observed, Yahweh’s religion is fiendishly evil and its followers deserving of much suspicion. But near-all major religions teach evil. Even putatively-pacifist Buddhism and Hinduism harm their devoted followers by teaching them self-denial, especially denial of pleasure, and such denial produces character-warpages that eventually manifest anti-socially.

    (2)

    You wrote:

    While I may not agree with everything he.[Dalton] has to say (and I intermittently publish pieces that are thought-provoking, even if I disagree, such as a defense of Trump’s endorsement of vaccinations, which I regard as being completely indefensible), I published this because I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, values which, from what you [Loup-Bouc] have written here, are not ones that you personally share.

    Laudably, the first amendment’s speech and press provisions’ appear to assure that Congress (now, any “government entity”) shall not abridge the privilege (privilege, not right) of speaking, writing, or publishing anything. [“Government entity” includes otherwise-private entities that are substantially entangled with government, e.g., by receiving substantial government funding or by being submitted to a substantial degree of any of certain kinds of government regulation.]

    But no constitutional-provision or other law requires that any private (non-government-entangled) human or other private entity permit or publish any certain kind of speech, or any speech.

    Because of the infamous Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    47 U.S.C. § 230, Google, Twitter, Facebook and other such speech “platforms” are required to publish all speech except speech that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” (Section 230 renders such “platforms” government-entangled and imposes risk of civil suit liability for denying speech.)

    The § 230 term “otherwise objectionable” is patently problematic, as we witness in the censoring behavior of Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I contemn such speech “platform” entity’s censoring of “otherwise objectionable” speech, or any speech, except speech that incites crime that is malum in se, https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1201 . Those speech “platforms” are in the business of providing “free” speech “paltforms.” But YOU AND YOUR WEBSITE are NOT.

    So, you chose, freely, to permit Dalton to air his horrendous anti-Semitic tract at your website. And if a reader infers that your permission implies you concur with Dalton’s evil politics, you took that risk, freely, hence responsibly.

    I support free speech untrammeled by “government” action or the censoring of speech “platforms.” But accordingly I exercise my free speech privilege to decry dangerous bigotry like Dalton’s article.

    Ron Unz has provided a priceless service with Unz Review — its very-free-speech policy. But I feel hot sadness when I encounter articles of Eric Striker. Striker’s articles deserve condemnation NOT because they question “Jewish” behavior, but because they do NOT question it. To Striker, “Jew” equals evil. NO QUESTION.

    Compare, e.g., Laurent Guyénot, who presents scrupulous accounts of irrefutable details of the evil tenants of Orthodox Judaism and, hence (at least implicitly) the behaviors of humans who adhere to Orthodox Judaism or whose character-structures have been warped dangerously by influence of the essential evil notions of Yahweh’s religion. See, e.g., Laurent Guyénot, The Devil’s Trick: Unmasking the God of Israel, https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/?highlight=Laurent+Guyénot

    I was saddened by encountering the Dalton article at your website, because I had found pleasure in happening upon your article under which this comment appears. See, on this “thread,”
    my comment # 203, https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4627678
    and my comment # 213, https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4627718
    and my comment # 218, https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4627816

    I am saddened also by discovering that Unz Review, too, published Dalton’s same article, https://www.unz.com/article/confronting-the-judeocracy-the-six-stages-of-enlightenment/

    (3)

    Your article makes an irresistible case that “9/11” was a GW Bush administration false flag event likely “engineered” by Dick Cheney. But you posted comments that prove too much. The nuclear explosion theory is foolish because it is (a) utterly unnecessary and (b) likely unprovable (at least per evidence-destruction/evidene-coverup). Your article proved quite enough by showing (a) the impossibility that “9/11” was a series of plane crashes and (b) that massive compelling evidence indicates “9/11” was a false flag event attributable to some member(s) of the GW Bush administration.

    Dimples, comment # 256 — https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4628356 — wrote:

    I confess I’m not really up with all the ins and outs of the nuke theory. How does a nuke blow the building apart from the top down without breaking the windows underneath the collapse zone? Please explain in detail or point me to a reference and don’t just say ‘It’s obvious’.

    You did not reply. Have you examined, substantially, matters like whether valid reliable evidence indicated presence of radiation critically consistent with detonation of a nuclear device — a radiation-presence found in dust collected in the craters and in or on survivors’ bodies, corpses, or first responders or in a surrounding near geographic area?

    (4)

    Suggesting that I debate Dalton, you wrote:

    And you might also argue (against Dalton) that the group he seems (to you) to vilify actually appears to have the highest average IQ of the world’s various racial groups, as I explain in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE: ARE HUMANS THE ONLY ANIMALS WITH MINDS? (2005)

    Decades ago, I became familiar with the works of Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, J. Philippe Rushton, and Charles Alan Murray. I found their works worthy of substantial credit. But, having been a law-professor 51 years and a physician 25 years and having statistics expertise, I have wondered whether Jensen and his colleagues constructed their IQ testing method to account adequately environmental considerations.

    Surely, such method was, and is, eminently possible. If the subject is utterly uneducated and speaks a language fairly lacking a logical, analytic grammar, still the subject’s IQ can be established with, e.g., a test that requires comparisons of shapes. And other measures can render environment an insignificant influence. No competent intelligence-testing entity would determine IQ & g solely on the basis of a single IQ-test-score, but would run multivariate regression(s) that account(s) ten or more other variables — e.g., these:
    (1) IQ test score malleability
    (2) “culture-loaded” versus g-loaded” test data
    (3) sundry reaction-time measures
    (4) “within-race heritability
    (5) “between-race heritability”
    (6) trans-racial brain-size differences
    (7) inter-sex brain-size differences
    (8) trans-racial adoption study data/indicators
    (9) racial admixture study data/indicators
    (10) certain life-history variables that are cross-race or inter-race quantifiable

    Largely-non-quantifiable data would be accounted, too — e.g., certain kinds of life-history traits.

    But one huge trouble infests the assertion that Jews “have the highest average IQ.” The trouble is the meaning of “Jew.”

    Through millennia, Hebraic (Judea’s) Jews have mixed with other ethnicities. Ethnic non-Jews (like some Khazar Empire people and some ancient Persians) adopted Judaism and migrated westward.

    Literature suggests that the supposed ancient “Jewish” tribes — Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh (and arguably Samaritan) — may have been ethnically (genetically) somewhat distinct from each other, just as were myriad “Jews” who, eventually, constituted much of Sephardic or Ashkenazi Jewish populations, which populations, in turn, mixed in medieval and renaissance Italy.

    I do not argue that “Jews” are not smarter than others. I argue only that “Jew” is ambiguous.

    (5)

    I shall not debate Dalton. The encounter could not be a debate, because Dalton’s anti-Semitism is fixed as if a dominant genetic trait.

  332. @Bill Jones

    And if you don’t believe that, you’re a “conspiracy theorist””

    Even though it is a very sad story in and on itself [all the lies and BS about 9/11], I couldn’t help myself and LOL reading your comment.

    Thanks for that. Appreciated.

  333. @CanSpeccy

    Unless I accept your authority as expert witness on WTC’s collapse I have a view tha tends to t put me on the other side . The plotters evidently want to make people believe in a terrorist attack by flying Arabs so why would they undermine their own story by planning to blow up WTC7?

    Indeed one needs an explanation for why the plotters needed to have a four plane attack which did a he’ll of a lot of damage including killing people AND demolished the buildings to set off the war against terror. To plant explosives was to multiply the riks of discovery many fold.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @CanSpeccy
  334. @si1ver1ock

    Without any relevant expertise I nonetheless was about to agree with your scepticism about the black boxes. I could understand their destruction in the WTC buildings (I thought) but then I searched a little and discovered we were both BSing!
    See
    Answer to Were the black boxes found from 911 in the WTC? by Elizabeth Woodworth https://www.quora.com/Were-the-black-boxes-found-from-911-in-the-WTC/answer/Elizabeth-Woodworth-1?ch=8&share=2ce4d6bc&srid=uI876 

  335. Iris says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The plotters evidently want to make people believe in a terrorist attack by flying Arabs so why would they undermine their own story by planning to blow up WTC7?

    This question can be very satisfactorily answered, thanks to the testimony of eye-witness Barry Jennings, and thanks to reporters who filmed inside WTC7 just after the demolition of the South Tower.

    WTC7 bore glaringly obvious signs of explosion collateral damage: glass cladding blown out outwards, lobby destroyed, internal staircase entirely collapsed. After the staircase disappeared, the firemen had to rescue Barry Jennings and his colleague Michael Hess by extracting them from an 8th floor window.

    WTC7 was damaged because it was linked by tunnels to the Twin Towers.
    These tunnels acted as paths of less resistance and carried over the underground explosion shockwave under WTC1&2 inside WTC7 as well.

    Completely unexpectedly to the perpetrators, WTC7 became the standing proof and smoking gun for nearby explosions, hence for controlled demolition. It had to be demolished to cover up the crime, but its demolition unwillingly set in motion a process by which the false flag was indisputably proven by science.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  336. @Iris

    What sort of nuclear detonation makes a sound that goes “wwwoooooooossshh” rather than boom?

    What sort of nuclear detonation removes concrete and steel staircases from under the feet of the 22 people in stairwell B but does not disintegrate the people?

    What sort of nuclear detonation causes people to choose to drop out of an 80 story building onto the ground before it detonates?

    What sort of nuclear detonation causes cars to light on fire just before the “smoke” from Bldg 7 roll over then, when the cars are 3 blocks away and 7 hours after the nuke supposedly goes off?

    What sort of nuclear explosion causes The Spire to disintegrate after the rest of the building had turned into dust?

    I’m sorry, I simply don’t believe that nukes are the only answer. I appreciate that by 911 it had been 40 years of working on new generation nukes since the Davy Crocket battlefield nuke , and that it is possible that nukes played some sort of role, but it is not possible for nukes alone to explain all of weird phenomena surrounding 911.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Iris
  337. I look to David Chandler from AE911Truth.org for most stuff on 911 these days. He was able not only to spot the BS, but also prove it.

    The 20 year anniversary is coming up in September, so that may explain the renewed push for 911 Truth.

    Physics – WTC7 Freefall by David Chandler – AE911Truth.org

    The truth seeps out eventually. James Files is coming out with a book about JFK soon.

  338. @Iris

    9/11 researchers that are much wiser than I am (and evidently a quantum leap more so than you Iris judging by your uninformed comments), would disagree with your No Planes/CGI theory.

    In the opinion of many (myself included), Christopher Bollyn and Lt-Col Field McConnell are the two foremost experts* in the world on 9/11.

    They unequivocally state that drone aircraft impacted with the towers on 9/11 – with copious amounts of evidence to support it.

    (*Note: When I say Bollyn and McConnell are the two leading experts on 9/11, I’m not claiming they are the two most knowledgeable individuals on the matter.
    Of course, those that planned and perpetrated 9/11 know more than anyone about it.
    Unfortunately, said individuals are not talking to me and are not forthcoming with the particulars of this egregious crime.
    So, we then have to refer to courageous truth tellers with decades long histories of unimpeachable integrity who are OUTSPOKEN in revealing the facts of 9/11.
    And, there is no one that fits the bill better than Bollyn and McConnell as far as that goes.
    These are the best of the best and it’s blue sky to third place.)

    I don’t know where you’re getting your info from Iris but whoever they are, they PALE INTO INSIGNIFICANCE in comparison to Bollyn and McConnell.

  339. Many of those that subscribe to the No Planes/CGI theory state that a Boeing 767 would be unable to fly at those alleged speeds (over 500 knots in the case of UA175 and slightly less for AA11) at sea level, or at the very least, be unable to execute precise manoeuvres like that late banking to the left of UA175 prior to impact with the South Tower.

    The fact is, they would have a very strong case for making said claim IF indeed actual commercial 767’s were claimed to have impacted.

    BUT they WERE NOT commercial 767’s. They were Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A drone aircraft (a military version of the 767-400 series of planes).

    Now, let’s focus on the design of a commercial wide bodied aircraft like the 767.
    It is basically one BIG BUS, designed to cram as many 300 pound obese Americans, each with 100 pounds of luggage (those oversized clothes and G-strings weigh quite a bit you know).

    Because of this added weight, a commercial aircraft would need to fill up the tanks with a huge payload of jet fuel for the cross country trip (I recall that AA11 and UA175 were destined for the west coast of the U.S).
    The E-10 drones needed only the minimal fuel required to reach downtown Manhattan and no more.
    Of course, a commercial 767 would need the seating capacity for hundreds of passengers, several lavatories and galley to feed said obese Americans, as well as carry tons of water for the passengers in the washrooms/lavatories, all of which would add many tons of additional weight to the plane.

    A military spec E-10 might well be stripped of all this excessive weight, enabling it to be much more agile with vastly improved handling dynamics.
    Most of all, a far lighter aircraft in the form of the E-10, coupled with tweaked and more powerful military spec engines (which would not be so focused on fuel economy like the penny pinching commercial airlines would stipulate), would have a far better power-to-weight ratio than the commercial equivalent and could achieve speed and acceleration far superior to its civilian use cousin.

    Bottom Line: E-10 drones could, and indeed did , achieve the speeds attributed to them on that fateful day.
    This puts to rest the claim by the proponents of CGI that it was impossible to fly at those velocities in level flight at sea level.*

    (*Note: In the case of the faster flying UA175, in its approach to the South Tower, it had actually been in a steep diving descent for some time and was easily able to accelerate to the speed it attained. It only pulled out of this steep dive in the last 20 or 30 seconds or so before impact and levelled off for the last few miles of its journey).

    • Replies: @Vojkan
    , @Stephane
  340. Sparkon says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    And you haven’t even mentioned that each plane was delivering four nine ton missiles: their engines! Each one could take out a steel upright member.

    I‘m surprised Dr. Fetzer didn’t point out your error, and even more surprised that almost 20 years after 9/11, and all the impact diagrams and everything else, you think a 767 has four engines.

    Other than that, of course, your usual attempts to make everyone woozy with Wiz are much appreciated, as it’s getting late here…

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  341. This dude is a total loon. I know full blown meth heads that talk more sense than this guy after they’ve been up for two weeks straight, and are more believable too.

    Aside from the Star Wars death star laser beams stuff, which only a total lunatic could take seriously. He’s also one of the poor dudes thats still wetting the bed over cold war propaganda.

    Anyone who seriously believes the US, UK or Israel is secretly run by communists is not to be taken seriously. So I guess he’ll fit right in at Unz. Hahahaha. The Rockefeller’s are actually communists! As are the Rothschild’s! The privately owned banks? Communists! Everything I don’t like is Marxist! Hahahahaha

    This guy can come up with every excuse in the book to not have to ever blame capitalism. I don’t know if he’s auditioning for the CIA or if he is one of their low wage workers they keep in the basement just to occasionally laugh at, but he is clearly a terrible propagandist and disinfo peddler.

    Throw Fetzer in with Miles Mathis, David Icke, Henry Makow, Alex Jones. All the hallmarks of CIA disinfo. He probably hasn’t even heard of the Dong of the 21st Century. Booooring! Pretty sure he is a Qtard and Trumptard as well. Lame!

    • Troll: Genrick Yagoda
  342. @Iris

    So you are saying that it wasn’t part of the original plot but it was rigged up with explosives on 9/11 and demolished! Pul the other one.

    • Replies: @Iris
  343. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Unless I accept your authority as expert witness on WTC’s collapse

    It’s not my authority. It’s the authority of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Read the revised, i.e., final, version of their report on the collapse of WTC 7. It explicitly acknowledges that the roofline of WTC 7 initially fell at free-fall speed for several seconds.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  344. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    “A key sponsor of the Stargate Project (a remote viewing project) at Fort Meade, Maryland, Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his battalion commanders learn how to bend spoons in the manner of celebrity psychic Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, in addition to walking through walls, such as levitation and dispersing distant clouds with his mind. Stubblebine was a key leader in the U.S. military invasion of Grenada (1983). After some controversy involving the experiments with psychic phenomena, Stubblebine took “early retirement” from the Army in 1984.”

    We should petition Ron Unz to offer Stubblebine his own column at UR. He’d fit right in here.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  345. Jiminy says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    I don’t know if you have read the article on the levinlaw.com website, owned by a law firm from Florida. In it they fully cover Silverstein purchasing the lease for the buildings, insurance and the fortune that he made from the incident. In 2007 the winnings amounted to over $4.6 billion. For a return of a $14 million investment.
    As for a plane being swallowed by a plane eating building, it looks unbelievable and dodgy because we don’t see it occur every day, fortunately. Doesn’t mean it never happened.
    If one looks at the attachment of the outside supporting wall pieces to each other, we see a staggered pattern for strength. You’ll notice that here the plane enters the building at an angle that nearly matches that staggered line, the join line. The plane for a reason does not enter the building horizontally.
    I know that a lot of people who don’t work with their hands using bolts and rivets wouldn’t realise how easy it is to break the head from a bolt. It can be quite frustrating at times. That is why sometimes a torque wrench is advised. To long a spanner and you can feel the bolt yield. Some of those outside supporting columns need not be severed but bent over by the breaking of bolt heads or tearing of the bolt hole.
    To think that instead of seeing a plane enter a building designed to absorb a large plane crash. we are seeing something akin to the bat signal in the sky is hard to fathom.

  346. @CanSpeccy

    I know what’s in the NIST reports. It was your expert authority to say conclusively what was to be inferred from it that I reserved judgement on.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  347. Anon[309] • Disclaimer says:

    Believing conspiracy theories is a distraction from far more important things. Democrats love it when conservatives obsesses over moon landings and who was responsible for 9/11, instead of getting their act together and throwing Democrats out of power and taking back America.

    People who can’t figure out what’s really important in life are fools. Too many conservatives have been successfully distracted, deflected, and put out to pasture.

  348. @Ron Unz

    I think I must have skipped most of your second link last year and I haven’t quite finished it now but will. Surely one of your best pieces. It brings together very well the cumulative evidence of Israeli ruthlessness though I can still see alternatives consistent with my original view that killing the president of their necessary ally wouldn’t seem sensible to an Israeli cabinet when Suez was only 7 years behind them. (Also, it was France that was to supply Dimona and avoiding registrations as foreign agents was always just a matter of fancy legal footwork).

    When I got to 9/11 I remained more sceptical of all popular versions including what appears to be yours. Your Aha moment when you heard ObL deny responsibility was even more telling because you expressly put so much emphasis on it. I remain surprised that you haven’t even acknowledged that you just might have had a false intuition. For example ObL may well have been responding to pressure from Mullah Omar who faced demands from the US to hand over ObL or suffer invasion. Furthermore it could have been a clever tactical move by ObL if he was believed, even by some, because that would involve many people looking for other guilty parties and throwing accusations about. Moreover I don’t know why you have a problem with thinking that flying four aircraft into skyscrapers was a likely Al Qaeda project which was entirely consistent with previous efforts and plans. Why Mossad, a a small, lean organisation even when assisted by sayanim, should take the huge risks involved in making sure WTC 1 and 2 (let alone 7) were more than massively damaged with hundreds killed I simply cannot see given the aim to make America willing to go to war against Muslims. I have no problem believing Mossad went so far as to help the 19 fulfill their mission. OK there are loose ends like passopts

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  349. Anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Leander Starr

    Oliver Cromwell is likely the last honest leader in the Anglo Saxon world

    Really? Or was he a Jewish puppet meant to kill Charles I in return for his 30 pieces of silver?

    Winston Churchill is a good example. War monger and serial incompetent extraordinaire.

    Winston Churchill may be traced back directly to Cromwell. John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough, was paid a sum of 6,000 pounds sterling per year by Jewish banker Solomon Medina. This was during the Cromwell era and run by the same rootless bankers that ran Cromwell.

    What began as moneychangers luring dim “leadership” into debt traps in the 17th century ended up with Winston Churchill being deeply indebted to his financiers and willing to do whatever heinous things they asked of him in order to retain his opulent/corpulent lifestyle.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @GeeBee
  350. Vojkan says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I confess that that I have been so far largely agnostic with regards to what really happened on 9/11/2001. The idea that a bunch of desert dwellers with cutters who have learnt to pilot on Flight Simulator could nail not one but two jumbo jets of the same model in the Twin Towers just minutes apart was absurd on its face but I hadn’t seen any plausible alternative explanation until this thread.

    In the light of evidence that even if true they couldn’t possibly cause the damage leading to the collapse of the WTC, the debate over whether planes did or did not hit the towers becomes, at best, of secondary importance, if not outright futile, at worst means of diversion to sterilise the debate.

    My sentiment is that your assertion that planes did hit the Twin Towers and that they were remotely piloted military planes is made to solicit ridicule. The sustainability of a conspiracy is directly proportional to the solidity of the bounds uniting the conspirators and inversely proportional to its diffusion. Your theory requires a conspiracy too widespread with actors too disparate to be sustainable.

    On the other hand, the argument made by Iris that the records of the impact are CGI fakery is essential because it would be irrefutable evidence of conspiracy.

    The question arises, are you really on the side of Truth?

  351. profnasty says:
    @Mehen

    No.
    And you’re wrong.

  352. Biff says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    What sort of nuclear detonation makes a sound that goes “wwwoooooooossshh” rather than boom?

    A sound lock vortex can disguise a series of booms into one flowing whoosh sound.

  353. @Anonymous

    Because Israeli intelligence has intelligent Israeli and other Jews working for them

    So intelligent, in fact, that they knew exactly when the towers would be attacked and posed for pictures in front of their burning edifice as if attending a rock concert, lighters lifted and aflame.

    Intelligent, but not much of an ally.

  354. @dfordoom

    Are you being what Ron might term “unkind”?

  355. Iris says:
    @Vojkan

    In the light of evidence that even if true they couldn’t possibly cause the damage leading to the collapse of the WTC, the debate over whether planes did or did not hit the towers becomes, at best, of secondary importance,

    Indeed. You see it that way and you say it that way because you are a real and decent persona who is only interested in keeping an open mind and informing themselves about what was arguably the most important geopolitical event of the 21st Century.

    While those who desperately insist in making grotesque adherence claims about the WTC “planes” video ludicrous crackpottery do so because, without planes, there could be no Arabs, Saudis, Afghans, Muslims or OBL left in the mix.

    The “WTC planes” cock-and-bull story is absolutely necessary as the core pretext to kick off the so-called “War on Terror” and justify a new campaign of false flag terror attacks throughout the world. This is why the Zionist ideological side can never let go of it, even when faced with obvious evidence of forgery.

    The “plane’s nose” allegedly poking out the other side of the South Tower, knowing that such a nose, actually a radar dome, is made of fiberglass composite.

  356. @ThreeCranes

    You seem not to be aware that force is determined by mass times the square of the speed of an object in motion, so an arrow moving at 225 mph does not have half of the force of (a theoretical) one moving at 550 mph (close to the speed the airliners that hit the WTC) but much less than half as much force. If you are aware of that, then I can’t imagine why you would make the comparison.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Vojkan
  357. @Iris

    Your claims are plainly false, and quite frankly stupid. High-speed lead projectiles can penetrate steel, including, in some cases, tank armor, and lead is much softer than steel:

    What’s more, water can cut through solid steel. Is water, in your conception, harder than steel?

    The problem with militant troofers like you isn’t just that you’re dumb. It’s that you’re dumb and you have an attitude. You have about as much of an open mind as the members of the 9/11 Commission.

    • Disagree: Polemos
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @durd
  358. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Did you miss the memo that a half-dozen or more of these “suicide hijackers” turned up alive and well:

    “The government, however, has not been disposed to revise its “official narrative”, even though a half-dozen or more of the 19 “suicide hijackers” turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with media in the UK, as David Ray Griffin observes by making his first argument in his magisterial study, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004). Even though we know the theory advanced by the commission therefore cannot be true, the government has remained unmoved.”

    Osama was our man in Afghanistan. He was instrumental in getting Stinger missiles into the hands of the muhajideen, which they used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes. He was an officer in the CIA, Col. Tim Osman, where an official of the agency visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death from his medical maladies in Afghanistan. (It’s tough getting dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan. He died on 15 December 2001 and was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance with Muslim tradition. On 26 December 2001, both CNN and Fox reported his death. https://jamesfetzer.org/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-1957-2001/

    Barack Obama, however, found it politically expedient to resurrect Osama and have him die again during a phony raid on a compound in Pakistan, which was said to have been based upon a “tip” from Guantanamo (“Gee, I guess it’s good it’s still there!”) using troops stationed in Pakistan (“So maybe we need them there, after all!”) They staged a photo at the White House supposed to be the highest ranking officials following the raid in real time, but Leon Panetta, then Director of the CIA, blew their cover by explaining there was no live coverage for the first 20-25 minutes, which was the entire duration. Obama thereby positioned himself for a triumphal reelection by having taken out “the most wanted man in the world”. https://jamesfetzer.org/2013/01/zero-dark-thirty-the-deeper-darker-truths/

    David Ray Griffin even has a book about it” OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? ( 2009). They even tried to smear him by claiming that they had found one of his books in Osama’s library, to which Griffin replied, “Only one? I am disappointed.” That anyone should have bought into this hooey is beyond belief–but it was marketed 24/7 by the mainstream and most Americans don’t have a clue when it comes to research to figure out whether what they are being told is true or false. Even some sophisticated thinkers can be played by accepting narratives that entail violations of the laws of physics. of engineering, and of aerodynamics (in the case of 9/11) or of ballistics, anatomy and radiology (in the case of JFK).

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  359. Iris says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    but it was rigged up with explosives on 9/11 and demolished!

    No, this is not what I am saying.

    What was “rigged up with explosives” specifically in preparation for 9/11 was the top of the Twin Towers. The Gelatine Israeli “Art Students” planted explosives, most likely nanothermite, in a shape that would simulate the cross-section of an airliner.

    They did such a ludicrous and cartoonish job that they even simulated the most fragile, tip end of the wing, something that is another blatant evidence of deliberate fakery.

    Wiley Coyote cartoon Physics for the gullible Goyim:

    All three Towers were fitted with built-in demolition systems, designed as part of the planning application as required by building regulations, and embedded in the buildings early during the construction phase in the 1960’s.

    This demolition facility was a simple borehole, dug up into the bedrock in addition to the dozens of other boreholes made to anchor the buildings’ structural piles.
    Below is a picture of how such boreholes were used to anchor the Petronas Towers. The WTC Towers were similarly anchored, just shorter thus requiring shorter piles.

    There was no need to rig up any of the three Towers for demolition; the explosives were always there, under WTC7. Nuclear charges were permanently stored under WTC7 , for centralised maintenance and for security, but two of them were dedicated to the North and South Tower.

    When the demolition order came, they were dispatched under each Twin Tower through underground rail track delivery tunnels, which is the standard way of delivering land-based weapons, as it reduces dangerous shocks and vibrations.

    When Silverstein had to make the decision to demolish WTC7 as well, all he had to do was to order triggering a time-delayed nuclear switch and evacuate the building. It was that easy.

    • Replies: @si1ver1ock
  360. @Vojkan

    You wrote: ‘Your theory requires a conspiracy too widespread with actors too disparate to be sustainable’.

    It appears from that statement that you haven’t grasped the scale of the deception involved and the incalculable wealth, resources and political clout of the cabal behind the 9/11 False Flag.

    9/11 was a no expense spared intricate scheme, prepared over a long period of time (at least a decade and likely even two decades).

    If you have the financial backing of the controllers of the entirety of the western financial system (the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel), then no amount of actors, no matter how widespread, would’ve presented an obstacle to sustainability of said project.

    That said, I’ve read reports that claimed perhaps something of the order of a 100 or so ‘actors’ in key positions within the U.S government, military and Intel agencies would’ve been sufficient to pull this off.

    There would no doubt have been numerous more ‘compartmentalised’ underlings operating on a ‘need to know basis’ who were unaware of their role until after it happened.

    Those that chose to be whistleblowers would likely have been targeted and snuffed out. (Like the aftermath of the JFK assassination, apparently there are scores of unexplained 9/11 related deaths).
    Having witnessed what happened to certain colleagues, the remainder would’ve been intimidated into keeping their mouths shut or risk a similar fate.

    As for your ‘am I on the side of the truth’ question, I’ll put to you what I put to Jim Fetzer.

    In the end, I am just the messenger relaying the theories (after conducting due diligence and critical analysis of my own), of those of the calibre of Christopher Bollyn and Field McConnell.

    If you question my statements then, by default, you are questioning the integrity of these two world leaders of the 9/11 truth movement.

    The fact that you even brought up this question suggests to me that you have no idea of the gravitas and respect held for Bollyn and McConnell amongst researchers in the know.

    I urge you to check them out and satisfy for yourself that said individuals are the ‘shining lights on the hill’ that I characterise them to be.
    Then, I’m sure you’ll come to the realisation, as I have long ago, that they (and others like them that make similar assertions), are the real deal.

    • Thanks: ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @S
  361. Iris says:
    @Ray Caruso

    More crackpottery and gaslighting from the Hasbara militants.

    This is Frank DeMartini, the WTC construction manager, explaining how the Twin Towers were designed to withstand multiple aircrafts crashes without any damage to their structure.

    The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

    Since the alleged 9/11 plane attack did not lead to any noticeable change in civil engineering structural design rules, I am satisfied that I am correct and that the actual “stupid troofer” is you. Good day.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  362. @Jim Fetzer

    Hijackers turning up alive and well (or me with the same names?)??

    BS equal to your millions of cubic yards of dust! They haven’t committed serious crimes for which they could be extradited to the US so why isn’t even one of them making a fortune as a celebrity on radio, TV or internet? But you are kidding of course.

    • Replies: @Spender_CGB
  363. @Jim Fetzer

    Yes of course Jim, observation of the disintegration of the towers shows unambiguously that they were being blown up.
    ie: clearly NOT a case of a ‘fire induced gravity collapse’ leading to ‘pancaking’ of one floor onto the one below as NIST and the official U.S government report would have us believe.

    What I was pointing out, in my comment # 304, was that, IF for the sake of argument I went along with the official government narrative of a pancake collapse (as evidently the commenter called ‘niceland’ is in agreement with), even if I went along with that theory, it could be shown that considerable resistance (at a minimum), would be exhibited on EACH floor as the pancaking structure above collapsed down on it – as opposed to an instantaneous relinquishment of all load bearing capability by all structural members and support columns, which is the only way each floor could’ve collapsed one after the other in quick succession.

    Simply put, even if were to go along with the ‘pancaking’ theory, it could readily have been shown that such collapse of undamaged floor after floor BELOW the point of impact, would have violated Newton’s Third Law of Motion (and a pretty airtight case could also have been made for violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy and Law of Conservation of Momentum).

    Basically, simple high school physics tells us the official U.S government/NIST explanation for the collapses is untenable.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  364. Sparkon says:
    @Iris

    James Files has even less credibility than Dmitri Khalezov, and that takes some doing.

    Files claims he bit into the cartridge of the bullet he had shot at Pres. Kennedy from the grassy knoll, and left that dented cartridge sitting on the picket fence above the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

    But magically, fantastically, somehow, this chewed-on bullet manged to avoid being spotted or picked up by the many dozens of citizens and police who swarmed over the grassy knoll area immediately after the assassination.

    Heck, a dented cartridge…we don’t need that do we?

    Fortunately for BS artist James Files, Iris, and everyone else peddling this nonsense, all those people and the cops who rushed up the grassy knoll after the assassination must have been completely blind to have missed seeing, picking up, or presenting to authorities the claimed dented cartridge with James Files’s tooth marks.

    Nobody saw it because it wasn’t there.

    This bullcrap story from the liar James Files has been debunked from every angle, yet Iris will not give it up, nor will she give up the Khalezov’s busted nukes in the basement theory.

    Let the reader beware.

    • LOL: Iris
  365. @Jim Fetzer

    Dear Professor Fetzer!

    Speaking respectfully and with gratitude, I have this question.

    Did you miss the article’s comments about your exclusion of the work of Michael Collins Piper? 🤔

    I doubt you missed the comments, and assume you know that he did not turn up “alive and well.”

  366. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    What sort of nuclear detonation makes a sound that goes “wwwoooooooossshh” rather than boom

    One that happens inside an explosion chamber at circa 100 metres depth underground, where the rock and ground above dampens the explosion noise.
    This is standard nuclear engineering, all nuclear tests are carried out that way.
    The nuclear device was placed inside a dedicated borehole dug up at construction, undetectable among dozens of other boreholes prepared for anchoring the future Twin Towers into the bedrock.

    This is extremely easy to understand: the WTC was demolished by criminals who opportunistically utilised a pre-existing demolition facility, one that was designed as part of the planning application’s requirements, and dug up during the construction phase in the late 1960’s.

    What sort of nuclear detonation removes concrete and steel staircases from under the feet of the 22 people in stairwell B but does not disintegrate the people?

    There is very little factual information available about this “miracle”.
    The location of Pasquale Buzelli, the firefighter who allegedly “surfed” 22 floors, is contradicted by the testimony of another survivor from the same group, Genelle Guzman McMillan, who was at the 13rd floor and stated that he was below her.

    Guzman was found buried underneath rubble, while Buzelli and his fellow claimants were found hours later atop a pile of rubble. Gullibility warning is required.

    It is not impossible that some people survived the collapse because they got buried within a protective pocket of debris:
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/josephine-harris-dead-911-survivor_n_810018

    A tiny number of people survive even the most powerful earthquake. No shockwave can be homogenously transmitted in heterogenous milieus, not even Hiroshima’s. A tiny number of recognisable pieces have survived the WTC nuclear shockwave, either because they were too far away (the North Tower antenna), or in a lateral position (the Survivors’ Staircase), so the pressure wave wasn’t so efficiently transmitted to them.

    Is the Hiroshima Dome still standing evidence that the nuclear bombing never took place?

    What sort of nuclear detonation causes people to choose to drop out of an 80 story building onto the ground before it detonates?

    The explosives (likely nanothermite) planted by the Israeli Art students to simulate the plane attack exploded and burnt long before (almost one hour) the Twin Towers nuclear demolition was triggered.

    Many firemen have reported localised explosions throughout the Towers before the final nuclear detonations actually occurred. It is possible that these smaller explosions were planned to sabotage the sprinkler system, which never functioned on the day for unexplained reasons.

    What sort of nuclear detonation causes cars to light on fire just before the “smoke” from Bldg 7 roll over then, when the cars are 3 blocks away and 7 hours after the nuke supposedly goes off?

    You forgot the hot dust and fumes that had been emanating from the Twin Towers footprints’ for hours, in practice open air nuclear cauldrons.

    Combustion does not necessitate flames; it also happens when a material (the cars bodies) gets in contact with a hot enough other material (the dust or smokes).
    https://www.atex.info/hazardex.com/define/hot-surface

    What sort of nuclear explosion causes The Spire to disintegrate after the rest of the building had turned into dust?

    It is the contrary: the Spire (the North Tower antenna) collapsed before the building, and the reason is very obvious. its supporting pole was made of a less solid material than the building structural steel, so it was destroyed much faster by the nuclear shockwave.

  367. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    It was your expert authority to say conclusively what was to be inferred from it that I reserved judgement on.

    There’s no question of expert authority, merely an awareness of elementary physics. If a building collapses with an acceleration of 9.8 m s-1 sec-1, then all mechanical support has been simultaneously destroyed. If you think a low level fire in a limited part of the building was responsible, let that be the measure of your understanding of physical reality.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @niceland
  368. @Sparkon

    The gold was not “stolen.” It was removed, in advance of 9/11 by the government agencies who knew what was going to happen. And of course, they removed all of it. Since they could not admit that they knew in advance, they had to stage a phony hunt for the gold, which in the end, was 100 % successful down to every coin. Your government in action.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  369. All this discussion is worthless
    Fetzer phd should have brought at lest a video of of first collapsing skyscraper (second hit).
    There we could see that part of the tower above the hit was actually bending when pancaking started.
    All other arguing is only crap.

  370. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to proliferate. And by doing so, obscure the true conspiracy.

    • Agree: Iris, Vojkan, ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @Vojkan
  371. Iris says:
    @Ray Caruso

    You seem not to be aware that force is determined by mass times the square of the speed of an object in motion

    No it is not.

    A force is determined by mass timed by acceleration. The unit of force is the Newton (N), with one Newton defined as being equivalent to 1 kg*m/s^2 (kilogram timed by metre divided by squared seconds).

    What you wrongly believe to be a force is actually twice the kinetic energy: Kinetic Energy (KE) = ½ M* V^2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

  372. Sparkon says:
    @ivegotrythm

    And of course, they removed all of it.

    Here we go again. I already addressed this once. There was a publicized gold recovery operation that began on Oct. 15, 2001, led by Mayor Giuliani, so all of the gold could not have been removed from the WTC underground vaults beforehand.

    Additionally, gold was recovered from a 10-wheel truck that was crushed, apparently while trying to make its getaway during the destruction of the Twin Towers. Beyond that, there was some kind of armored car break-in and/or theft that occurred in an underground level during that time frame, when reportedly $1 million in diamonds was stolen from the armored vehicle.

    But so far neither you nor Dr. Fetzer nor anyone else has presented even one scintilla of evidence or documentation of any kind to support this conjecture, so until I see something…

    Nullius in verba

    • Replies: @ivegotrythm
  373. Vojkan says:
    @HallParvey

    Their proliferation may even be supported by the conspirators themselves.

  374. @the grand wazoo

    Pommer may have done the most definitive work on exactly how the Twin Towers were destroyed–and I cite him in #50 above. Thanks for inviting more about him. A highly-accessible introduction to his work was submitted to VT by Hans Pommer and Jeff Prager, which I (once again) recommend to one and all (including those who favor Judy Wood): https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/12/30/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/

    Remember the Twin Towers were designed as a tube-within-a-tube, where the inner tube included the massive 47 core columns and the outer the 230 supporting steel columns. Pommer’s account has the nuclear device beneath ground level and destroying the inner tube from the bottom up and then the outer tube from the top down, which is a more adequate explanation of the data than the arrangement of micro or mini-nukes in my earlier work. Some key images:

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @dimples
  375. Vojkan says:
    @Ray Caruso

    The self-assurance with which ignorants say silly things shouldn’t surprise me anymore, yet it does, every time. Revise your physics.

  376. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @geokat62

    Glad that you cited Ron Unz piece in Pravda, where he and I agree that the key player–whom Phil Nelson calls “the mastermind”–was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was in the position to guarantee that no one would ever be punished for participating in the assassination of his predecessor.

    I don’t discuss Piper’s excellent book because (through collaborative research) we have established the presence of eight (8) shooters, each of which represented one of the sponsors of the assassination, where Israel was only one among them. Perhaps I should mention it more often.

    The Warren Commission, like the 9/11, was simply a whitewash. It WAS “All the Way with LBJ! Here’s one of my more recent presentations, in this case for high school students: What happened to JFK? Did The Warren Commission get it right? (2 October 2018).

  377. @Iris

    The people in Stairwell B had more than 220 concrete and steel staircase fall on their heads or disintegrate under their feet. Your answer is deflection, and doesn’t even approach explaining how this is possible in any way, shape or form.

    And that’s pretty much the same with the rest of your post. You are far, far too eager to defend your theory about nukes that in many instances you don’t make sense. I’ll admit or agree that it is possible some version of modern nukes were used as a part of the destruction of the towers. But it doesn’t explain everything, and you do yourself no credit by making ridiculous arguments.

    • Replies: @Iris
  378. @Iris

    I’ve considered this theory a number of times (sans the nuclear part). The idea that the buildings were built to be taken down in an emergency seems likely enough.

    Everyone keeps denying it though. It would would have to be a Top Secret annex of the building code.

    But that would actually be a feature not a bug in terms of the conspiracy. They can then hide their crime behind the shroud of National Security.

    There would be a big political problem with this in terms of the people who were in the building and not given a chance to leave before the demolition was initiated.

    There are some problems. WTC Building 7 actually looks like a controlled demolition. And the nano thermite found in the dust was invented after the buildings went up.

    • Replies: @Iris
  379. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    I have already shown at least twice in this discussion (my #s 41 & 51) that more than a few steel columns from the central core survived the demolitions mostly intact, with no sign – as in zero – of any exposure to any nuclear blast or torrent of plasma.

    Those intact columns from the central core were examined as they lay on West street by Donald Friedman, a privately contracted engineer from LZA Technology who had access to “Ground Zero.”

    ” I had misgivings about the core columns I was seeing … I was unhappy that the columns I saw lying on West Street seemed to be in too-good condition.

    These huge columns—the largest weighed more than one ton per running foot—were almost all straight, with clean edges at both ends. There were some dents here and there, but I expected a piece of steel that had been wrenched out of a building to be bent. I examined the ends of the columns every chance I got. Every welded splice at the column ends I saw had failed the same way: by ripping out of the steel.”


    Those intact steel columns rule out the central core being used as any kind of “magic chimney” to channel the nuclear blast or a torrent of plasma upward.

    So no, Pommer’s conjecture doesn’t work.

  380. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    You didn’t address even one of my arguments by a contradictory argument; I am therefore entitled to conclude that it is because you don’t have any. Good day.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  381. If anyone wants to see how the destruction of the WTC on 911 was done , go the drjudywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com, no planes etc., just the truth.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  382. @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    Sorry, this is off-topic, but did you know the writer Robert Locke? Some of his articles are on site, but the vast majority were on FrontPage.com, and they’ve all since vanished. Furthermore, his Wikipedia page has since been deleted. An archived version is here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201120180044/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Locke

    That is from November 2019, so it appears the canceling happened rather recently.

    He used to write for the American Conserative. Did you know him? Is he even alive still?

  383. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    Here’s my most recent on 9/11: What Happened, Who was Responsible and Why (6 September 2020), which doesn’t leave much room for any kind of collapse (prepared in advance or not) or nanothermite (which I shall soon unpdate with Pommer’s more exact analysis of the way that it was done using nukes):

    • Thanks: ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  384. @Wizard of Oz

    From BBC 23rd Sept 2001.

    Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

    The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

    Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  385. @Iris

    Explaining for the second time that nukes do NOT disintegrate 220 concrete and steel staircases without disintegrating the people standing in the stairwell is in fact addressing your argument. I would have thought that to be obvious.

    As I said before, you do yourself no credit with such ridiculous argument.

    • LOL: Iris
  386. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Should we not infer that the stories about survivors were therefore cover for how it was really done? Because the use of nukes would make survival of living things miraculous.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  387. S says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    …you haven’t grasped the scale of the deception involved and the incalculable wealth, resources and political clout of the cabal behind the 9/11 False Flag…9/11 was a no expense spared intricate scheme, prepared over a long period of time (at least a decade and likely even two decades).

    Yes, hypothetically, if an organized group going back hundreds (thousands?) of years has had ready access to the equivalent of hundreds of billions in today’s dollars, they could do a whole lot of manipulating of events, even perhaps shape or mold history (as it takes place) to a certain degree.

    [MORE]

    As for 911, I agree, the preparation seems to have gone back quite a number of years prior to 2001, easily ten to twenty years, though perhaps as much as almost four decades prior, if one accepts the idea of predictive programming, which I lean towards being real.

    Upthread I commented upon a Route 66 television series episode entitled ‘I’m Here to Kill a King’ and filmed in October, 1963, which closely parallels the actual events surrounding the Kennedy assassination.

    A clear subtheme of this episode, very plain to see when watched on YouTube where a pristine copy is freely available, is Arabs, New York, and ‘Ground Zero’. [See bottom ‘comment’ link below for more on Route 66 and the Kennedy assassination.]

    It’s well known that dual US /Israeli citizen, former Israeli intelligence operative, and major film producer Arnon Milchan produced Fight Club in 1999, which has quite a few parallels with 911. [See YouTube for clips of the film.]

    Less known is that in 1978 Milchan had produced The Medusa Touch which starred Richard Burton and Lee Remeck. The film features, amongst other mayhem, the destruction of an office tower by passenger jet, as in 911, and, the ruination of an important ancient Gothic cathedral in the capital city which is undergoing renovation work, much like Notra Dame. [See pics below from The Medusa Touch]

    However, even if a group had access to hundreds of billions of dollars, some of these events, and the intricate coordination involved, seem a tad beyond human capability alone.

    Perhaps, then, as Burton’s character reveals in The Medusa Touch, they have been getting some ‘help’ in these calamitous endeavors that is neither human, nor, of God.



    https://www.unz.com/article/whats-wrong-with-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4627424

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  388. skrik says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    GIVE THIS MORE THOUGHT

    I have done, it’s coming up to 20 years! I started countering Khalezov’s ‘dustification’ rubbish over at ICH, many years ago. I’m supposing that you know the form of WTCs 1 & 2, namely soda-cans with crowbars as central elements. The cores were truly massive, the (comparatively) less-massive perimeter wall-panels almost unconnected except by an extremely lightweight steel truss/metal sheet/10cm concrete topping floor construction [det-cord threaded into the concrete produced the billowing *white* dust clouds]. The outer ‘connection’ of each of the floor-trusses were 2 5/8inch bolts in a sliding arrangement, such that the perimeter walls could move ‘with the wind’ relative to the core [until the ‘hat-trusses’ bonded the cans to the crowbars at the very top.]

    Now, we do know that some/many of the perimeter wall-panels were ejected outwards, at high-speeds and covered quite some distance from the towers. See your own cited photos.

    OK; let’s assume nukes in the basements. Without an ‘air-burst,’ the nukes would have to be below the containment depth [= a looong way ‘down under’], and if there was any upward ‘force-field’ projection, you have to explain how such an essentially upwards force was translated into horizontal acceleration of the perimeter wall-panels? [Recall conservation laws, here momentum.] I’ll try to save you some effort: Can’t be done. IF WTC7 was control-demolished [it was] THEN Occam’s razor says WTCs 1 & 2 were also control-demolished [they were, see a representative video]. Since pre-loading [conventional = chemical, *NOT* nukular] explosives into WTCs needed ‘privileged’ [= US-internal] access, it pins the whodunnit quite precisely. Those who argue against 3 * control-demolition are arguing in support of the actual, traitorous perpetrators. rgds

  389. @Jim Fetzer

    Actually, here’s a more recent (15 November 2020) in which I do talk about Michael Collins Piper and about twice as long (with far more detailed discussion about the assassins and the sequence of shots). So this is for those who want more on Piper:

  390. @Jim Fetzer

    That would be more plausible then an argument about magical nukes that disintegrate 220 staircases but leave people alive, certainly.

    I thought the communications between the firefighters and their ladder were recorded contemporaneously, though?

    And how do you fake a bunch of firefighters? Wouldn’t they be inclined to refuse to go along?

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  391. Anon[287] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    “…and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.”

    interesting contradiction, isn’t it. So he’s admitting a plane could enter…telling you upfront…

  392. Anon[287] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    It looks like what he is saying is that a plane strike could enter the building, without taking the building down. Is that not the meaning? He says puncture.

    He does not say, that the plane cannot penetrate. He says that such an event would not bring the building(s) down.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  393. @Sparkon

    Don’t get too picky about the number of engines. A 100% error rate is well within the Wiz’s normal operating margin.

    • Replies: @WIzard of Oz
  394. durd says:
    @Ray Caruso

    Uhh, the bullets fired from the pistols in the video are going around 1200 fps or 800 miles per hour were bouncing off the first beam. The first bullet to go through the first beam is traveling approximately 2300 fps or 1500 miles per hour. From this alone I can extrapolate that a plane flying 500 mph isn’t going to go through dozens of beams upon impact. What is going to happen is what happened to the pistol bullets. The plane is going to pancake like a beer can in a can crusher.

    The waterjet is 900 mph, it would take awhile to go through one beam so that would not be useful in this scenario.

    Perhaps if the plane had a full metal jacket of few inches and the wings were solid metal and the plane was travelling 4000 mph then a plane might make it into that building a bit.

  395. niceland says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Thanks for the reply.

    As you can see in the video each tower has two load bearing structures. The outer shell, and the core. After being hit by airplane the outer shell is damaged and it’s load bearing capacity reduced considerably, resulting in more load on the core section. The core section also suffered some damage but probably not much.

    The core section has 47 vertical beams, carrying the load. The rest of the core is support system for these beams – mainly to keep them straight and tie them together. With out such support each beam would buckle under it’s own weight. The trick to get these beams to carry such enormous loads is to keep them straight, well supported (horizontally), and the load must be axial along the length of the beam. Also critical is the load has to be evenly distributed (more or less) between the vertical beams.

    At the point when the top of the building tilts, even slightly, the load isn’t evenly distributed and some beams come overloaded and start to buckle. To make matters worse none axial loads appear and start pushing the beams sideways (at the impact site) these loads are so enormous the supporting structure connecting the beams together fails and more beams loose support and thereby load capacity and they start to buckle as well….. and the rest is history.

    It’s very hard to imagine a scenario where localized collapse could happen in such structure, because any collapse, will disrupt loads in the core, leading to none-axial forces and uneven distribution of loads. When the big vertical beams start to buckle, the effect goes down the structure, rupturing connections between them below, ripping the core apart as the collapse moves down. Resulting in very little resistance.

    This is what I mean when I say; when damaged to the point of collapse, they were just “house of cards”.

    The question I have been asking past 20 years is, what happened between the impact of the airplanes and the collapse. Was there enough heat, bombs? I still don’t find any reason to question how the collapse happened. I understand that. There is no need for controlled demolition, or exotic explosives. This is just what it looks like when complex steel structure fails. Thankfully we had never seen it on such scale.

    But then – the engineering aspect of the tower collapse seems to be endless distraction regarding who was really responsible. Perhaps someone, even many, have already found the smoking gun. But would the rest of us recognize it? Would it matter in the bigger picture? I seriously doubt it.

    • LOL: Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  396. @Jim Fetzer

    I obviously wasn’t clear in my comment.
    I do not know what happened on 9/11.
    I do know that the Govt story is clearly bullshit.
    I do know that the “little green men from Mars / Elon Musk did it” type stories are bullshit, and some of those are I assume deep state planted straw men to enable the “look at all the silly conspiracy theorists” mantra to be peddled.
    I don’t know enough about directed beam weapons to have an opinion.
    I quite like your mini nuke explanation and will look at it more closely, it explains to a very large degree the lack of the rubble pile and the creation of so much dust. This was a niggle with my initial favorite of pre-planted thermite.
    If you put one of the towers in a huge vacu-seal bag and pumped all the air out, assuming air pressure compacted it perfectly there should have been what? a 60-70-80? foot high of solid mass. Where did it go?

    Still, no matter how ludicrous, the Govt story served its purpose.

  397. @Genrick Yagoda

    Yes, after the report of a couple of modest fires in the South Tower that could be extinguished with a couple of lines, the destruction of the building begins, with the oddity of the top 30 floors tilting to the side before being converted into dust. It was a stunning development that deserves far more attention. Even Steven Jones was baffled.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  398. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Anon

    Yes, that’s what he says during the interview. But he had to be speaking in some broad, global sense, because it was not the case that even a small plane could have entered those buildings. He said that it would have been easy to enter but would not have affected the integrity of the structure. The first point appears to be false but the second to be true. In retrospect, I find that interview more than puzzling. It was nothing like a porch screen.

    • Replies: @Anon
  399. @CanSpeccy

    I studied enough physics to know when to doubt certainties expressed on UR. Try this for a counter intuition. A structure starts falling for lack of support but it’s fall is slowed by a vertical member which is still so connected that it’s effect on the falling structure is observed as a slowing of the rate if fall. Suddenly the connection of the critical vertical structure is broken and free fall can begin or resume.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  400. @Spender_CGB

    Thank you but this only confirms that the FBI was still running well behind on 23 September 20o1. As that report concludes:

    “FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.”

  401. @Truth Vigilante

    Why can’t just one or a group of the thousands of BSing truthers who claim high school physics disproves the NIST version construct and demolish models which would illustrate the truth of their assertions?

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  402. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    The Mother of all Conspiracy Theories is the Holocaust.

  403. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Try this for a counter intuition.

    Balls. We’re talking physics not intuitions.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  404. @Jim Fetzer

    You must be very old!
    It was me who did mention that!!!!
    I do have to see the video again!
    My take on it is that was nod to set of the explosives! (critical last moment)
    Otherwise the all tower would fell on the side and it would damage the surrounding buildings.

  405. @Jim Fetzer

    bUT THE THINGS THAT DID OCCUR THAT Ai ITNESSED WITH MY OWN EYES AND EARS CONTRADCIT ANDFALSIFY ENTIRELY YOUR ILLUSORY NOTUIIN THE EVENT DID NIOT OCCUR ZND WAS AN ILLUSION.

    THE ONLY ILLUON IS THE VIEDO OF THE EVENT THAT YOU ARE REFRRING TO. NOW PROVIDE THE PROOF THAT THE VIDEO ON WHICH YOU BASE YOU CONCLUSIONS IN FACT IS AN AUTHENTIC AND REAL RECORDING OF THE ACTYUAL CRRASH I WITNESSED RATHER THAN SOMETHINGCREAGTED IN A HOLLYWOOD STUDIO THAT WOULD FULLY EXPLAIN WHY THE ILLUSUION DOES NOT CONGORM TO PHYSICAL LAWS OPEARING ON EARTH.

    A faked video can be made to prove anything, which is exactly the purpose of the Zapruder video in the JFK case that everybody for ages imagined was a genuine, authentic recording of the scene.

    It’s the same wine just in a different bottle, but you imagine the repackaged rot gut product is a fine wine.

    .

  406. dimples says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    The only evidence that has ‘settled down’ is that Mr Fetzer is a complete loon. Congratulations to the various CIA psy-ops teams that initiated these nutjob theories are in order! Surely they deserve large bonuses! This thread, like all 911 threads on Unz Review, is a mess of loons out-competing each other to produce the most nut-job theories out there. Not content with the merely rational which is enough for the purpose, they insist on going the full retard! They must be laughing their heads off.

    What purpose is served by insisting that there were no planes and the explosion was caused by nukes? Who cares? Not the target audience of normal people, only the retards.

  407. niceland says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The support is destroyed along with the collapse.

    If any collapse starts to begin with, let’s leave aside how it starts, well, then the vertical core beams are failing at the point of said collapse. Bent out of shape where it’s happening.

    This means the load on the structure below isn’t nicely and evenly distributed anymore. Around the collapse the core structure is total mess. Bent core beams in the damaged area can’t supply pure axial loads on what remains below. And what is below is also damaged several floors down because these large beams are buckling both upwards and downwards from the damaged area. The load bearing capacity is almost completely gone. The big axial forces the beams can handle are no longer axial, far from it. And the beams aren’t straight anymore. It’s a mess and tens of thousands of tons of building material come down in freefall, while ripping the core apart.

    It’s amazing how many “experts” with seemingly good grapsp of physics and great many other things fail to take into account the structural details. Like the phrase – since the building structure below the collision point is supposed to carry what is above it x5 it must not fail, or create big resistance slowing the fall. It’s just bullshit when all the forces have gone haywire in the core structure.

  408. dimples says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    “Remember the Twin Towers were designed as a tube-within-a-tube, where the inner tube included the massive 47 core columns and the outer the 230 supporting steel columns. Pommer’s account has the nuclear device beneath ground level and destroying the inner tube from the bottom up and then the outer tube from the top down, which is a more adequate explanation of the data than the arrangement of micro or mini-nukes in my earlier work.”

    If the inner tube (core of building) is destroyed from ground level up to point of initial collapse, then the building, having no core, would collapse from the ground up FIRST. Also the core beams would be massively melted, it is supposed to be a plasma needle after all. This theory is written by a loon for other loons.

    • Agree: niceland, utu
  409. @Jim Fetzer

    So let’s get some facts into the discussions about what planes struck what building or where they crashed.

    At the time, the DOT published real time data on commercial flight take off and landings times that they compiled to establish the on time performance of scheduled flights. If I recall correctly the times they published for each flight was gate departure, on runway, lift off, with the opposite times for landing that ended with arriving at gate.

    As it happens, a Simpson news group participant Dick Wagner) noticed a defense attorney in civil case raised questions about the landing time of Karpf’s flight who was one of witnesses who allegedly saw the barking dog the set the murder timeline, with the attorney questioning the times the witness claimed for his arrival. He got curious because the attorney seemed to sure of his point to have been making it up.

    So Wagner checked the DOT data on flight arrivals for the airline the witness purportedly took from San Jose to Los Angeles on June 12, 1994. And wouldn’t you know it, the arrival times in the DOT published data proved it was impossible for the witness to have flown any flight from San Jose at the times he claimed that thereby sertiousl;y compromised his claims, but of course years after the trials.
    So Wagner’s effort raised my curiosity and I went to the DOT site for flights taking off from the relevant airports ports.

    And wouldn’t you know it, no departure flight data was recorded for, if I remember. at least two of the flights that allegedly crashed. Now, if the particular scheduled flight never took off, the aircraft assigned to make that flight couldn’t possibly have crashed. That’s a physical impossibility that no amount of Fetzer mysticism can dispel.

    So go ahead, check the records about flight departure times the DOT recorded for all flights taking off from US airports. See if you can get the departure flight date for the four scheduled flights that allegedly crashed on 911.

    This should all be a piece of cake.

    Except, of course, when this issue was raised soon after 911, the DOT suddenly removed ll data about these flights from their departure time data. If the flights took off as claimed, that data should be there as clearly as for every other flight that took off that day.

    If it isn’t, that by itself tells the real story of what happened that day.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  410. Jim Fetzer says: • Website

    No. The outer tube would stand–at least temporarily. And what alternative to do you have to the mass of evidence that it was a nuclear event? Intuition, perhaps? Crystal Ball Gazing? Tarot Car Reading? How much proof do you need? Go back to post #316. If you are serious, you have an alternative. If not, then you don’t. One of us may be a loon, but that would not be me.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @dimples
  411. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, in your comment # 378, you write : ‘we have established the presence of eight (8) shooters, each of which represented one of the sponsors of the assassination’.

    Who exactly (other than yourself) is ‘WE’, that has established this ?

    I put it to you, that ALL eight shooters, were subservient to the Zio-cabal (the Apartheid Israeli state and top echelon Zionists in the U.S/UK/Rothschild controlled City of London financial systems).

    Case in point 1: One of the eight shooters was Malcolm (Mac) Wallace, LBJ’s personal hit man (the guy LBJ sent to murder the bloke who was sodomising LBJ’s sister).

    Well, Wallace was acting under instructions of LBJ.

    But, WHO controlled LBJ ? It could easily be demonstrated that LBJ was bought and paid for by the Zionist cabal from the very first day he entered politics.

    Case in Point 2: The mafia’s involvement in JFK’s murder. YES, I freely acknowledge that they had a hand in it. But contrary to propaganda being put out by the Zio-owned Hollywood movie industry, with the demise of Lucky Luciano and his subsequent deportation (courtesy of the handiwork of one Meyer Lansky), the mafia became the fiefdom of the Jewish Lansky.

    Yes Jim, from that point onwards, the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate WAS the mafia.

    To the extent that individuals like Carlos Marcello and Trafficante and the rest were involved in JFK’s demise, they were no more than upper middle management (as were all these other high profile Sicilians and Italians within the Mob), and ALL OF THEM were subservient to Lansky.
    Lansky called ALL THE SHOTS.

    And Jack Rubinstein (aka Ruby) worked for Lansky and did what he did under Lansky’s orders.

    William Kunstler (himself a Jew), one of the attorney’s representing Ruby asked him why he killed Oswald.
    Ruby replied (slightly paraphrased as going from memory): ‘I wanted to prevent a pogrom of the Jews’.

    Similarly, the shooters who were there on behalf of the CIA (the French Corsicans or whoever it was). WHO do you think the CIA is accountable to and his been since day 1 of its creation ?

    The CIA is TOTALLY subservient to the Zio-puppet masters – then and NOW.

    WHY do you think CIA kingpin (at the time of the JFK assassination and instrumental in JFK’s demise), James Jesus Angelton, has TWO STATUES dedicated to him in Israel for ‘services rendered’ in pursuit of Israeli hegemony and the realisation of the Oded Yinon plan ??

    Jim, I’ve liked your output on JFK over the years but it irks me that you place NEXT TO NO EMPHASIS ON THE ISRAELI/MOSSAD angle in facilitating JFK’s murder.

    For the record, the Israeli angle, as Michael Collins Piper’s research amply demonstrates, is EVERYTHING whereas the sum total and input of ALL the other non-Zio aligned players that stood to gain from JFK’s death (eg: Texas Oilmen, anti-Castro Cubans etc*) does not amount to a hill of beans, in relative terms.

    (*I’ll readily admit that the Military Industrial Complex gained from JFK’s demise but WHO owned a disproportionate share of the MIC then, and owns an even greater share of it today ?
    No prizes for guessing it’s the Zio cabal).

    Rabid foaming-at-the-mouth Zionist Henry Crown, for example, owned General Dynamics and once LBJ came into office, a deluge of money was thrown his way.
    His (at that time), struggling and strapped for cash organisation went on to make untold billions and the F-11 AAardvark tactical attack aircraft.

    The defence rests.

    • Agree: The Old Philosopher
    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  412. @Jim Fetzer

    While listening to your first hour, where I have stopped, I began reformulating my paired attempts to construct scenarios for Arab, plus Mossad (and some neocon) evil and the same with Silverstein. (If one assumes a few neocons plus Mossad link up with Al Qaeda fanatics you don’t need the complete collapse of the Towers but there could be bonuses from bringing Silverstein in on it: (i) money for Zionist causes; (ii) help in preventing proper searc and analysis if something went wrong; (iii) total collapse at least of one tower would be more certain to achieve the geopolitical aim).

    Now I pause in the renewed belief that you are elaborately taking the mickey out of us. Not just millions of cubic yards of fine dust this time. Your point, close to 59min that the planes had to have hit at an angle that cut across 7 or 8 floors makes it 99.9% improbable that planes didn’t strike the Towers. You also make much of the declining thickness of steel as the floors are ascended. That also confirms the penetrability of the Towers. On top of that no one has ever,on UR, addressed my point about the Tower struck lower down collapsing much quicker because it had more weight above the strike zone. That last consideration pretty well rules out Silverstein and intentional demolition.

  413. @The Old Philosopher

    You seem to be making two inconsistent claims.

    1. The DOT removed all data about those four flights.

    2. If you look for those flights but find from the data that they didn’t take off you know they didn’t crash.

    Help us out please.

  414. Jiminy says:

    When you look at the close-up photo of the plane entrance point, none of the steel members are blown out. If the Israeli art students blew holes in the outside structure then why aren’t the columns showing that, being blown out? And if a plane never entered the building, then that cannot be the fibreglass nosecone projecting from the other side of the building.
    I read where the tritium levels recorded several days after the demolition were not overly high. When the sources of tritium were taken into account such as exit signs, illuminated gun sights, watch faces and safety signs onboard the aircraft, then the levels were said to be acceptable. As well the old wooden ship wreck found in the foundations of the area were never pulverised by a nuclear blast.
    And cancers have to be promoted by the amount of asbestos that was used in the buildings. It was projected to cost scores of millions of dollars to remove safely.
    But as we all realise, the truth can never come out about the JFK shooting or the towers demolition because the truth is so damning it would probably blow the minds of a lot of yanks. I was going to say tear apart the fabric of their society, but I am sure that there would still be people who could not accept or process the reality of it all.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  415. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Watch all the way through. I answer the questions you are raising because you haven’t watched it all. This is infantile. Watching part of a presentation and then guessing about the rest? Give me a break! Yes, two of the flights–11 and 77–were not even in the air that day. The others–93 and 175–did not crash. Egad! I lay it out in detail. Just watch the rest and then get back. Two of the 9/11 aircraft were not in the air that day. And the other two were still in the air four (4) years later! That means none of the passengers aboard any of those planes died in crashes that did not take place. The “War on Terror” is a total fraud.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  416. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    So who, according to me, were the shooters? Where were they located? What shots did they take? What were their effects? Surely you have to know, if you are going to claim they were all under the control of Israel. So lay it out. What is my scenario? And why do you question whether or not my conclusions were mine alone? Jim Marrs and I agree on some of them. Ole Dammegard and I agree on others. Where do you come from on this? Do you know whom I identify as shooters and why? If you did, you’d know you’re wrong.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  417. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @dimples

    Because the whole “official narrative” of 9/11 hinges on 19 Islamic terrorists hijacking four commercial carriers and perpetrating these atrocities under the control of a guy in Afghanistan, where we are told that fires from the jet fuel causes the steel to weaken and the buildings came down as a consequence.

    It would appear you are so ignorant about 9/11 that you don’t even know what makes a difference to the “official narrative”, where Muslim hijackers would not have had access to nuclear devices and, if none of those planes actually crashed, then there was no good reason for the US to enter into the Middle East.

    It’s a bit embarrassing for someone who knows so little to be participating in a discussion about how it was done and who would benefit. This was an elaborate operation carried out by the CIA, Neocons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad to draw the US into taking out Israel’s enemies. We were played.

  418. @Desert Fox

    Any explanation for 9/11 that involves Dr Judy Wood will take you on a path divergent from the truth.
    She is (and I’m being kind here), controlled opposition – at best.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  419. @Genrick Yagoda

    Agreed Genrick, nukes did not disintegrate the concrete staircases and the people in the stairwell (on THOSE floors).

    For the record, I absolutely believe that mini-nukes were employed in the demolition of the towers BUT am not on board with the Pommer hypothesis.

    We all saw the video footage of the towers being blown up, floor by floor, from the top down.
    We’ve all seen the NY firemen with the …. ‘boom, boom, boom, boom, boom’ video :

    My contention is that nukes were employed for the demolition of the top 80 or 90 floors and none thereafter – thereby sparing the lives of those trapped in the stairwell.

    My guess is that prepositioned ‘smaller charge’ mini nukes were placed on each floor (say something of the order of 0.1 kT, give or take).
    ie: sufficient to demolish that floor (and give the appearance of a pancake floor by floor collapse as the next floor was synchronously blown up a fraction of a second later), but NOT so explosive so as to give the impression of a nuclear event. *

    (*In this regard the perpetrators of 9/11 failed and there was clearly a case of overkill as witnessed by the huge pyroclastic explosive clouds and debris fields emitted):

    The prepositioned mini-nukes could easily have been placed in the core columns surrounding the elevator shafts by the Ace Elevator company people that were supposedly said to be working on the elevator maintenance.

    For comparison, the tactical nuke that the Israeli criminals delivered on Beirut last August was said to be of the order of around 0.4 – 0.6 kT of TNT equivalent.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Genrick Yagoda
  420. @S

    Beautifully put ‘S’.

    Although I dispute your assessment that the cabal behind 9/11 had hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal to perpetrate said heinous crimes.

    My contention is that the cabal that did this (let’s call a spade a spade and call them out for who they are), the Zio cabal that did 9/11, the JFK assassination, 7/7, the 2004 Madrid train bombing, the Bali Bombing and much, MUCH more, have MULTIPLES OF U.S GDP at their disposal.

    That’s right – scores of trillions (at a minimum). And, seeing as the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel owns the U.S Federal Reserve, the ECB and the Bank of England, they can digitally create trillions more (and have done so in recent years), ex nihilo with the a single keystroke on their central bank computer keyboards.

    Said money being doled out (we’re told), is supposedly to bail out key industries to prevent a systemic collapse and save the country.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is doled out to fellow Zio-cronies (ie: the way those ‘Sachs-of-Sh*t’ Goldman Sachs were bailed out to prevent collapse from their reckless financial chicanery in the 2008/09 GFC).

    Yes ‘S’, I’m familiar with the Meduas Touch movie and have watched it.

    There you have it. That film from the late 70’s tells us 9/11 was over 40 years in the planning.

    Meanwhile, for those of you that dispute the net worth of the Zio-cabal, take the time to read this:

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/08/the-rothschilds-global-crime-syndicate-and-how-it-works/

    Whilst the numbers above are (in my opinion) exaggerated by perhaps an order of magnitude, the info regarding how said wealth was accumulated is sound and should be noted.

    Let’s be clear, when I write ‘Zio-cabal’, I am NOT referencing just the Rothschild dynasty, although they are an integral component of it.

    I reference ALL the Zionist dynasties that collectively wield this enormous power.

    Many of you will be aware of the Zionist financiers that were instrumental in the formation of the U.S Federal Reserve in 1913 like Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff.

    Well, the Zio-cabal consists of the descendants of Schiff and Warburg, the Sassoon family dynasty, the modern day equivalents like the Bronfmans of Canada, the Sheldon Adelson family dynasty, George Soros, Ronald Lauder (President of the World Jewish Congress and heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetic fortune), the Pritzker family (billionaire J.B. Pritzker is Governor of Illinois), the Crown family dynasty (Henry Crown was the owner of defence contractor General Dynamics and recipient of untold billions in lucrative defence contracts from LBJ’s administration), and countless more.

    Bottom Line: The collective net worth of this cabal is of obscene proportions.

    In comparison, the man who is allegedly the richest man in the world (Amazon’s Jeff Bezos), has a collective net worth that. relative to the Zio-cabal, would be classified as a ROUNDING ERROR.

    That’s the state of the world we live in and until people wake up to the reality of that SOUL ENTITY that is calling ALL the shots, no progress is ever going to be made in unravelling any of these False Flags.

    • Replies: @S
  421. @niceland

    ‘Niceland’, I don’t know where you got your info from and the professionally produced graphics in your video certainly appear ‘scientific’ and capable of sucking in the average Joe (the Zio-cabal’s trillions and know how from the Zio-owned movie industry can sure produce some pretty convincing stuff), but you can bet London to a brick that what you’ve been told is pure Zio-funded/NIST assisted obfuscation and trickery.

    You wrote that : ‘After being hit by an airplane the outer shell is damaged and it’s load bearing capacity reduced considerably, resulting in more load on the core section’.

    That statement is DEAD WRONG.

    What you should’ve written is : After being hit by the plane the outer shell ON THAT FACE of the building (the other three sides are absolutely intact and as robust as the day the were made), is marginally affected – only affected in the vicinity of impact.
    The overall load bearing capacity is NEGLIGIBLY impacted ON THAT FACE of the tower where impact occurred.
    The other three sides of the tower are absolutely intact (in the case of the Nth Tower) and in the case of the Sth Tower, two sides are perfect with a third side very slightly impaired.

    HOW do I know these things, you might be asking yourself.

    The following video titled ‘Frank A. De Martini. Construction Manager. World Trade Center (January 2001)’ is only 37 seconds long but packs one hell of a punch.

    Watch it again and again until it sinks in. This comes straight from the horses mouth (video made in Jan 2001 so there’s no post 9/11 spin involved):

    You heard right Mt Niceland.

    The building was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (or several of them as De Martini states), and this would have no more effect than the equivalent of a pencil being thrust into the mosquito netting of your screen door.

    ie: localised damage to that EXTREMELY ROBUST exoskeleton lattice on each face of the twin towers but ABSOLUTELY INTACT around it with load bearing capacity infinitesimally impaired at most.

    You also write: ‘ There is no need for controlled demolition, or exotic explosives. This is just what it looks like when complex steel structure fails’.

    On that score you are DOUBLY WRONG.

    The Twin Towers were OVER-ENGINEERED. By that I mean, when any building is designed, it is built in such a way so as to be able to withstand MULTIPLES of the loads (weight loads from the floors above) and possible seismic activity, wind loads ( a typical 80-100 km/h gale can generate one hell of a load on the structure), that it is likely to encounter during its serviceable life.

    I wrote in a comment the other day that skyscrapers are designed to withstand four of five times as much load as they are likely to ever encounter and that the Twin Towers were built that way also.

    In fact, after a re-check, and factoring in that the Twin Towers were a ‘tube within a tube’ construction (ie: load bearing support from the core columns surrounding the elevators AND load bearing capacity from the EXTREMELY ROBUST lattice exo-skeleton, the Twin Towers were DOUBLY stronger than any conventional skyscraper ever built that relied on an inner core to do most of the load bearing (either before and perhaps even since).

    Make no mistake. There was EVERY NEED to instigate a controlled demolition and because of their unprecedented robustness in strength, NUKES was the ONLY way it was going to get done.

    Niceland, and what I’m about to say goes for everyone posting stuff here, before you get sucked in by a clever video ask yourself these questions:

    1) WHO made the video ?
    2) WHAT is the track record and history of integrity of said individual/entity that produced said video/article etc.
    3) Was the video made or funded by an entity that is affiliated with the known malfeasant actors in recent decades (Zio-cabal, Bill Gates, Rachel Mad-cow etc)

    ‘Niceland’, you seem like a decent enough bloke/lady/indeterminant gender but I have had some disputes with you in a previous thread here on Unz (an article on the Covid Deception) and you seemed to have swallowed the official Zio-cabal dictated narrative (like Ron Unz) that Covid is an apocalyptic disaster when it is no worse than a typical flu season (if one factors out the chicanery of recording deaths with Covid as deaths FROM Covid).

    In the case of Covid, listen to the likes Robert F Kennedy Jr, the Great Barrington Declaration signatories etc.
    In the case of 9/11, you could do a lot worse than listen to Christopher Bollyn or look up the output of USMC Lt Col (ret) Field McConnell.
    On JFK, Michael Collins Piper’s ‘Final Judgement’ has ALL the answers (that’s why it’s rumoured the Zio cabal killed him – MCP was 55 yrs old when he died after decades of being hounded by the Zio-cabal and having had his life made intolerable).

    The list above is by no means complete. There are countless others of course but these are some of the stand outs I’ve come across.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  422. @Wizard of Oz

    Wizard, I can’t speak on behalf of the B.Sh*tting truthers but I believe I can speak on behalf of the honest truthers that have a basic knowledge of high school physics.

    Said individuals with the rudimentary physics knowledge have repeatedly disproved the NIST versions but to no avail.
    The people in power (pretty much everyone in the U.S Congress these days), just ignores it.
    The Zio-cabal has told them to STFU – or risk the consequences.

    In addition, countless accredited physicians, and scientists and academics and controlled demolition experts have made submissions to Congressmen (not to mention the fine work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth), and gotten the same result.
    People like Professor Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks have done great work (having received over $300,000 in funding to do so from ae911Truth),and forwarded it to the authorities:

    https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

    And … the powers that be, the Zio-owned MSM, the entirety of western academia and anyone of any prominence in the western world just ignore it.

    Senator Paul Wellstone understood that the official NIST/U.S government narrative of 9/11 was B.S and was going to do something about it.

    So they killed him, his wife and daughters in 2002 (with a few dead staffers thrown in).

    (Jim Fetzer has a great video investigating the mysterious circumstances surrounding Wellstone’s demise – an excellent view).

    It is rumoured that Congressman Dennis Kucinich was looking into it also, so they killed his sister. Then they killed his brother for good measure.

    I’m not saying that everyone in the U.S Congress are worthless. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are good people but at the end of the day they have families and don’t want to risk losing some progeny.

    And, for all her economic and Green New Deal shortcomings, Ilhan Omar had the guts to provoke the Zio-cabal by saying that on 9/11 ‘some people did something’ because she knows full well that the ones that were alleged to have hijacked the four planes, did no such thing.

    • Replies: @Jim Fetzer
  423. @The Old Philosopher

    ‘Philosopher’, you haven’t posted a lot of commentary here on Unz but what you have put up is ‘A grade’.

    I’ll be your wing man anytime my friend.

    The No Planes crowd are claiming that CGI was involved. Similarly, the entities behind the JFK conspiracy produced a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the experts in the field EASILY proved it was photoshopped. ie: Oswalds facial features on another man’s body / different chin etc.

    So, CGI propagaters, since YOU are claiming that holograms and computer chicanery was involved, the onus is on you to PROVE it.

    We’re all waiting.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  424. Iris says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    My contention is that nukes were employed for the demolition of the top 80 or 90 floors and none thereafter – thereby sparing the lives of those trapped in the stairwell.
    My guess is that prepositioned ‘smaller charge’ mini nukes were placed on each floor (say something of the order of 0.1 kT, give or take).

    I will be very charitable: comments like that, yours and others’, are so deeply retarded that they immediately give away, either the profound imbecile, or the Hasbara brigade concerted diversion effort. Entirely your choice.😃

    Any aerial explosion, no matter the explosive used, always produces a supersonic pressure shockwave, which in turns causes a sonic boom, a big “Bang” noise. Not most of the time, but 100% of the time.

    A sonic boom is a sound associated with shock waves created when the explosion compresses the air faster than the speed of sound. No sonic boom , no explosion.

    Furthermore, any aerial nuclear explosion (your 80th floor nukes or mini-nukes) ALWAYS produces a fireball, not most of the time, but 100% of the time. No fireballs, no aerial nukes.
    https://nuclearweaponsedproj.mit.edu/fireball-size-effects

    This is a photo of a suspected nuclear bombing in Yemen; the fireball is unmissable.

    If aerial nukes at the upper floor, or even surface nukes at ground level, had been used at the WTC, the sonic boom noises would have been heard and the fireballs would have been seen and filmed. They are impossible to miss.

    No fireballs and no sonic boom implies no aerial “mini-nukes”. Period. Anybody who still contends this option is either retarded or paid to muddy the waters.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  425. @dimples

    Dimples, you may have noticed that I have had some disagreements with Jim Fetzer here in the Unz comments over recent days.
    But said disagreements are narrowly focused and centre on his premise that there were no planes that impacted with the towers on 9/11 and his claim that CGI was involved – both of which I vehemently dispute.

    That said, I’ve read his excellent book ‘America Nuked on 9/11’ (refer below) and I suggest you do likewise :

    Dimples, you will recall that their was a massive amount of fine dust all over lower Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of this False Flag (remnants of the dustified-in-mid-air Twin towers).

    Well that dust was analysed and there were exponentially elevated levels of strontium and barium and other elements that escape me at the moment (just going off memory as I read the book some years ago).
    When I say ‘elevated’ I mean by factors of hundreds or more and these elevated levels ONLY OCCUR DURING A NUCLEAR EVENT.

    Secondly, I suggest you look closely at the photo below:

    That is a 5-6 ton I-beam structural load bearing piece of steel that was ejected out of one of the towers as they were being blown up and hurled hundreds of feet and then embedded into the American Express building.

    Researchers have analysed the video of said I-beams being hurled laterally and estimated that this structural member was ejected at a velocity of between 60 and 70 metres per second (ie: between 125 and 155 mph).

    Do you have any idea how much EXPLOSIVE FORCE it takes to propel a 5-6 ton I-beam at that speed and hurl it such a long distance ?

    NO conventional explosive has even a FRACTION of that capability (unless you had thousands of tons of said explosive – and that can be discounted because of the LOGISTICS of transporting these huge stockpiles and strategically placing them in the buildings and not getting detected.

    This can ONLY have been a nuclear event.

    There is NO OTHER feasible explanation.

    So my friend, I suggest you do more research before dismissing the nuke aspect of 9/11 out of hand.

    • Agree: The Old Philosopher
    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @dimples
    , @dimples
  426. @CanSpeccy

    Well disprove that intuition with irrefutable physics.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  427. @Truth Vigilante

    DEW’s which are presented by Judy Woods as the way the WTC was destroyed are the true explanation of the way it was done and John Lear and others agree and this brings in Israel and the ZUS as the perpetratiors.

  428. Can someone give me a plausible scenario for the planning of the use of nukes on 9/11 having regard to

    1. A very good chance that the use of nukes will be discovered and proved;

    2. The plan to blame the whole 9/11 disaster on Al Qaeda or other even less likely deployers of nukes;

    3. The fact that nukes weren’t the only means to achieving great damage or total demolition;

    4. The greater difficulty of using nukes rather than other methods of causing great damage or demolition and the many specialist personnel that would have to be recruited whose politics or ideology would need special investigation, where the investigation of their Zionist or other sympathies could raise suspicion?

  429. Iris says:
    @si1ver1ock

    I’ve considered this theory a number of times (sans the nuclear part). The idea that the buildings were built to be taken down in an emergency seems likely enough.

    It is always good to remember that there is a hierarchy in the value of arguments used to establish a fact; not all arguments are worth the same.

    Category 1: At the top, there is science, and Physics in particular since it is its real-life manifestations which have been so obviously violated and so largely disputed with regard to 9/11.

    Category 2: Second, there is engineering, which is only applied science, with a compromise made on the balance of safety, cost and reliability.

    Category 3: In third position, there are field experts’ opinions, which deserve respect but can be bought by the PTB’s, as often seen.

    Category 4: Finally, there are non-specialist opinions, ranking last. This includes mine and yours, since we are posting anonymously and nobody can verify our real credentials.

    Let’s rank what we know about 9/11 following this classification;

    – Destruction of the WTC involved nuclear energy:

    Physics academic Pr Francois Roby has used Physics (Laws of thermal decay, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics) to calculate a low estimate of the thermal energy released by the WTC after the catastrophe.
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696

    The result he obtained, 10^15 Joules, is stratospheric. It is in the order of the monthly production of a 900 MW nuclear reactor. Ergo, the energy at play in the destruction of the WTC was mandatorily of nuclear nature.
    This argument was obtained using Physics laws; it is a superlative argument that can be challenged only by another, equivalent scientific argument, such as an error in his calculation, which nobody could find.

    – WTC7 came down by controlled demolition:

    Using state-of-the-art Civil Engineering software, Pr Lewis Hulsey from UAF produced a study that demonstrated that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition. All the calculations and methodology have been made public for peer scrutiny.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/656-wtc-7-not-destroyed-by-fire-concludes-final-university-of-alaska-fairbanks-report

    “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.” — Professor Leroy Hulsey

    This is a Category 2 argument, that can only be defeated by an equivalent (engineering) or superior argument (Physics).

    One can object that the official NIST report is also, in theory, a Category 2/Engineering argument. Except that engineering calculations have to be transparent and peer-reviewed, but NIST refuses to the day to make their calculation model public. Hence, their “argument” is worthless.

    So this is the core, undeniable truth we can be certain regarding the destruction of the WTC:

    – The energy at play in the destruction of the WTC was of nuclear nature.

    – WTC7 came down by controlled demolition.

    Anybody who still challenges these findings brought about by Physics and Engineering is actually telling us that his personal, anonymous opinion, “pancaking” and the like, is worth more than Physics and Engineering laws.

    The phrase “raving delusion” comes to mind.

  430. @Jiminy

    Hey Jiminy, I’m glad you mentioned the asbestos that was in the buildings and the alleged increased mortality rate that the corrupt Zio-owned MSM claims was a by product of the asbestos.

    Now, I’m not alleging that the increased mortality amongst first responders isn’t true because it surely is. My contention is that the BULK OF THE MORTALITY is not due to asbestosis (from breathing in asbestos fibres).

    I have seen no evidence that even a small fraction of those first responders that have died and are currently dying are/were afflicted with asbestosis.

    There is a disproportionate amount of first responders coming down with cancers but specifically thyroid cancer and cancers of the throat and oesophagus:

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-08-biomarkers-higher-incidence-thyroid-cancer.html

    Hmmm, now let me see what other world events resulted in these type of cancers.

    It turns out they occurred disproportionately at Chernobyl and …… in Fallujah in Iraq (as the U.S saturated the city with Depleted Uranium munitions), not to mention the Bikini Atoll islands and elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean where nuclear testing was conducted in close proximity to native populations.

    And we’re not talking a factor of two or three more cases of thyroid cancer among 9/11 first responders in comparison to the general population, but off the charts elevated levels.

    Make no mistake, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers can ONLY have been a nuclear event.

    • Replies: @Jiminy
  431. @Jim Fetzer

    Give me a break! You are meant to use words with the precision of a professional philosopher yet you choose not to advert to the fact that I was merely pointing to an inconsistency in what another person on this thread wrote. BUT since you have raised the issue of whether the planes ever flew and what happened in consequence to passengers I offer you this expert advice on how to achieve legally certified proof.

    For each plane find at least one alleged widow, widower, orphaned child or parent claiming to have been bereaved by 9/11 crashes who will respond to your offer to get the truth certified by court procedures. You then mildly defame them for falsely claiming that they had lost a loved one and, having guaranteed that it will cost them nothing and will be followed up by a generous well publicised apology if their loved one is found on a relevant passenger list you, or your collaborators, can then go to town with discovery, sub poenas for airline and DOT records and perhaps depositions.

    It should cost you nothing to prove a point as strong as anything truthers have ever relied on. After all there are tens of thousands of readers and listeners to you on the internet and on UR threads who would surely finance you via GoFundMe. I will contribute $50 towards the initial fund to provide the $50,000 which should, through fee reduction by pro bono or activist lawyers get you most of the way to consent judgements.

  432. @Jim Fetzer

    Jim, what I’m getting at (in responding to your comment # 418) is that NO world changing event (whether that be the JFK assassination or 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq – both the 1991 Gulf War and in 2003 etc), can happen without the EXPRESS AUTHORISATION of the ruling cabal.

    And my contention is that the cabal that authorised these events (and pre-planned WWI and WWII and … so forth), is that cabal that has the FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL to undertake such grandiose deceptions, conspiracies, heinous and egregious acts.

    And there is only one cabal that has a net worth that EXCEEDS the net worth of all the other cabals PUT TOGETHER (and then some).

    Of course, that cabal is none other than the Zio-cabal.

    I don’t know the names of all the individual shooters that were in Dealey Plazz that day and will never make an effort to find out because, at the end of the day, they were just hired hands.

    Jim, if you can’t see that 9/11 was orchestrated OF, BY and FOR the benefit of the Israeli Apartheid state, in a manner so as to traumatise the unsuspecting goyim and get them to send their sons and daughters to spill gentile blood and treasure in pursuit of Israeli hegemonic ambitions, then there’s nothing I can do for you.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  433. profnasty says:

    Fetzer and Barrett are both well-heads of words, who somehow have never affected real politik.
    Chance of prosecution of the kingpins of the WTC are slim to none.
    Why not appreciate this event as entertainment?
    On BitChute there’s a movie, 911 Octopus, which is a music video of the ((Hollywood)) 911 production.
    It was one of the first vids. I believe it came from Deep State. They tried to tell you. All to no avail.

  434. @Wizard of Oz

    Ah, you have to think out of the box. If the planes took off, the departure flight data should be in their records because those records were created automatically as the events occurred. That means legally they are business records that would be admissible as evidence as exception to the hearsay rule. If that data is not in the records, that can be explained in one of only two ways. The data was never recorded because the planes making those flight never took off. The other explanation, the one DOT provided if memory serves correctly after the contradiction was pointed out was that oh, yeah, they were there but we removed them because the flights never landed. Sure they did. Anyone dumb or ignorant enough to believe that one is more intellectually challenged than a brain dead imbecile.

    So go check and see what the records that do exist say. It’s called research. Try and find the originals. I believe I downloaded the batch, but god knows where it is now.

    Your starting point is the departure data should be in the records DOT has, or there should be an explanation for why it isn’t there.

    As David Irving would then say, it’ a key gap in the records. He calls himself a “gapper” always looking in the records for what should be there but isn’t that then tells its own real story that invariably point in the right direction because such gap are created solely for the purpose of covering up the truth they would reveal that those who created the gap sought to conceal
    Arthur Conan Doyle identified it as the key clue told by the dog that didn’t bark. It’s also in Homer’s poem where his dog’s don’t bark when Ulysses returns to his estate with all of his wife’s suiters living there who notice not, but his servant does.

    See, it’s elementary to anyone who can think.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  435. Well. To your argument that it had to be nukes, one could reply that buildings are demolished all the time without nukes. So, it doesn’t have to be nukes or at least conventional nukes.

    There is some evidence of exotic technologies being used. Cars being toasted a mile away. Dustification of concrete and steel, etc.

    But there is also evidence of more conventional things like thermite and explosives.

    William Rodriguez speaks of a large explosion in the B-2, B-3 sub-basements prior to the plane hitting. Molten iron is seen pouring out of the buildings. Iron micro-spheres are a significant percentage of the dust. Rudy Dent tells of hearing an explosion just before building 7 comes down. So we have real evidence of chicanery and fraud.

    Getting angry and badgering people over unproven theories is a bit extreme. As is calling everyone who disagrees with you a Hasbara Troll.

    For example, if you call me a Hasbara Troll with no evidence, (and I know I’m not one) what am I supposed to make of your other assertions?

  436. Jim Fetzer says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    Thanks on the Wellstone video. It was the third of a 3-parter, an hour on JFK, an hour on 9/11 and an hour on Wellstone, which I presented 16 November 2005 prior to my retirement the following June. All at https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jim_fetzer/


  437. @Truth Vigilante

    What you should’ve written is : After being hit by the plane the outer shell ON THAT FACE of the building (the other three sides are absolutely intact and as robust as the day the were made), is marginally affected – only affected in the vicinity of impact.
    The overall load bearing capacity is NEGLIGIBLY impacted ON THAT FACE of the tower where impact occurred.

    The other three sides of the tower are absolutely intact (in the case of the Nth Tower) and in the case of the the Tower, two sides are perfect with a third side very slightly impaired.

    Exactly. Now couple that to the fact that the concrete floor and steel floor beams would combine to transfer the load cantilever fashion to the remaining load bearing walls, and the entire notion that the support for the building would vanish and cause it to collapse crumbles.

    I mean the architect (Johnson) who designed the building noted it could take more than one airliner crashing into it to bring it down. They indeed took this issue into account in the dsign given the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building during WWII. It didn’t collapse, either.

    Niceland, and what I’m about to say goes for everyone posting stuff here, before you get sucked in by a clever video ask yourself these questions:

    1) WHO made the video ?
    2) WHAT is the track record and history of integrity of said individual/entity that produced said video/article etc.
    3) Was the video made or funded by an entity that is affiliated with the known malfeasant actors in recent decades (Zio-cabal, Bill Gates, Rachel Mad-cow etc)

    Yeah, these are the steps Fetzer ignores when it comes to using those videos as proof no planes hit the building. I already pointed that out to him, but he has obviously ignores unanswerable questions to keep his illusions alive.

  438. @paranoid goy

    Isn’t the trouble with insurance fraud being the basic explanation that there would be more than a few people who could respond, almost in good conscience, with very expensive blackmail?

  439. GMC says:
    @noname27

    And who maintains the records of seismic events – The USG and their puppet Governments- As an Alaskan looking at the Fukushima videos – they did NOT have any where near a 9,0 earthquake, yet all your newsies reported it – 9.0 – PS just the buildings alone coming down on 9/11 would register a Jolt. Wake up.

    • Replies: @noname27
  440. Sparkon says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Jim,

    Pommer’s plan would require/result in melting the central core or blowing it to dust, but at least some central core columns survived the demolition, were photographed and inspected, and several are pictured over at Metabunk.

    I’ve given the link to Metabunk twice, and made this point several times, as have others, so I have little hope that your eyes (and brain) are even working, or at least open.

    You complain about people not watching your video, while you give no evidence you’ve even looked at the images of the surviving core columns, else you wouldn’t be carrying on with Pommer’s nonsense. For goodness sake, Jim, your credibility is about to go over the falls.

    Meanwhile, you’re wasting a lot of time and bandwidth now engaging with numbskulls, and even responding to “anon” posters, but my points about the surviving central core columns stand unanswered by you.

    Photo: ASCE, taken on September 13, 2001

    https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/463-asce-and-ethical-risks-to-the-engineering-profession

    The surviving central core columns bust Pommer’s conjecture, and blow it out of the water.

    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
  441. @The Old Philosopher

    Now that you have elaborated what you are asserting I can see that what is needed is to set up some litigation (a friendly libel action is what I have suggested to our author) which will allow compelled legal access to the records. Would you subscribe to GoFundMe assistance as I would?

  442. @Iris

    Iris, anyone having to resort to responding to others with ‘retard’ and ímbecile’, is on their last legs and displaying utter desperation.

    The fact that you’ve made more than your share of juvenile assertions in the past here on Unz hasn’t gone unnoticed and you’re embarrassing yourself with every off the cuff unthoughtful remark you post here.

    I’ve stated in other posts that perhaps 0.1 kT mini-nukes were employed per floor. Now, they may well have been half that at 0.05 kT or something in that range.
    Suffice to say, they only have to be large enough to destroy the load bearing columns on that floor – no more, no less.
    As I mentioned in another post in this thread, said mini nukes may have been secured in the vicinity of the core columns surrounding the elevator shaft (and in my opinion, likely were).

    You say yourself that any AERIAL explosion produces a supersonic shock wave and no doubt all the video footage you’ve seen of nukes exploding were aerial explosions (Little Boy above Hiroshima was detonated around 1500 feet above the city) etc.

    ie: detonated in the open air.

    How many videos have you seen of nukes detonated INSIDE the bowels of extremely robustly built skyscrapers (let alone arguably the most robustly built tube within a tube’ skyscrapers on the planet’ – which the Twin Towers most assuredly were).

    Iris, you’re talking out of your arse when you make your assertions about HOW a mini-nuke demolished skyscraper would look and what said shock waves would look like because there has been NO PRECEDENT for such an explosion WITHIN a building in human history.

    But mini-nukes, by definition are MINI, and one secured in the elevator shafts DEEP INSIDE THE CORE of the building, would have exploded in such a way that said shock wave energy was dissipated in taking out the core columns and the remaining energy utilised in blowing out the external exoskeleton of the building and collapsing that floor.

    And YES, the blowing up of each floor did indeed generate tremendous big ‘Bang’noises – as the firefighters testified that witnessed it.

    Now, for the unfortunate occupants of the towers that were in the vicinity of the elevator shafts when the mini nukes were detonated, they no doubt experienced said supersonic shockwaves first hand as it blew off their heads.
    Needless to say, a shock wave from a mini nuke would be correspondingly much smaller than the multi-Gigaton Hydrogen bomb explosions you’ve seen on You Tube.

    A 1 Gt nuke = 1 million times more powerful than a 1 kT nuke.

    Well, I suggested that 0.1 kT mini nukes may have been used so that’s a factor of ten smaller still.

    Said shock waves from smaller devices may have visually manifested themselves as ‘squibs’- these are the puffs of compressed air and particulate matter that are ejected from the floors of a building subject to controlled demolition. (Look up some videos of actual controlled demolitions yourself and compare the squibs to those evident in the floors of the Twin towers just below the point of collapse and you’ll see the similarity).

    Of course, most of us know you won’t take the time to do that Iris because you have a bee in your bonnet seeing as I’ve once again easily eviscerated your nonsensical arguments.

  443. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    You said: “…you may have noticed that I have had some disagreements with Jim Fetzer here in the Unz comments over recent days.
    But said disagreements are narrowly focused and centre on his premise that there were no planes that impacted with the towers on 9/11 and his claim that CGI was involved

    You have completely misread. Mr Fetzer does not at all believe that CGI was employed. 😎

    Of course it was, [for example, all of the original “live” broadcast US MSM footage of plane hits, and tower “collapses”was/is 100% CGI], but he refuses to acknowledge that to this day, as do you, apparently .

    You also said: “, I suggest you look closely at the photo below:”

    Sorry, but the dramatic, allegedly genuine”photo” you posted of the i- beam lodged in the exterior of the American Express building is a 100% CGI fake , as anyone with a keen eye and experience can clearly see if they really bother to look closely. That “photo” “proves”nothing concerning the supposed use of nukes on 9/11.

    As I said earlier in this thread : “Reminder: The Burden of Proof :

    “Any serious researcher, when confronted with video “evidence” of any alleged event, is , as with all other alleged evidence [eg “eye witness” statements, photos, documents etc] obliged/supposed to first establish the authenticity of that video “evidence” _before_ elevating such alleged “evidence” to to the level of trustworthy, genuine evidence from which reasonable theories about what did/did not happen can be put forward.”

    “With regard to _all_ of the video and photographic “evidence” of the alleged events os 9/11, this simple, essential step was completely bypassed by 99% of 9/11 researchers, including yourself, Mr Fetzer.”

    And that same observation applies to yourself, Mr “Truth” Vigilante 😎

    See: “Fl. 175’s Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/10/fl-175s-speed-fairbanks-327-mph-or-fox.html

    Also see: “9/11 Video Fakery: So Exactly Where Did Fl.175 Hit WTC2 ?”:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/01/911-video-fakery-so-exactly-where-did.html

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  444. Anon[633] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Fetzer

    Also, there are several published engineering studies that indicate that the 767s could penetrate under the purported conditions.

    As always with published studies however, there is the caveat of editorial control. Editors have agendas.

    So it looks like the hypothesis of high speed 767 penetration has to remain open, since the construction engineering and subsequent studies support that hypothesis, and there is not enough data to reject that hypothesis.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  445. @Truth Vigilante

    And I’ll gladly fly with you in either position.

    The name you picked tells me we are finely tuned to the same wavelength.

  446. onebornfree says: • Website
    @The Old Philosopher

    A faked video can be made to prove anything, which is exactly the purpose of the Zapruder video in the JFK case that everybody for ages imagined was a genuine, authentic recording of the scene.
    It’s the same wine just in a different bottle, but you imagine the repackaged rot gut product is a fine wine.”

    Exactly. And the same applies to photos, too, of course.

    Although it predated 9/11 , before the advent of CGI technology, the Zapruder movie is, if not wholly faked, at the very least, a very heavily edited and manipulated piece of footage, and is, as such, therefor completely untrustworthy as an example of genuine evidence.

    And wayback in 2007-8, Simon Shack conclusively proved via his “September Clues” series of videos that all of the original “live” MSM footag