Tuesday, January 26, 2010

9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation

Below is Chapter 3 of The 9/11 Conspiracy : The Scamming of America (2007). Jack White has a BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him. As a professional photographer for over half a century, Jack White is skilled in all aspects of photography, but his speciality is photo analysis. Indeed, Jack White is an expert on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and has served as photographic consultant to the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during the hearings. White has published two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination and was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film "JFK". The political collections archive of The W. R. Poage Legislative Library at Baylor University, which is emerging as one of the foremost research facilities for political materials, has partnered with White to duplicate JFK materials from their personal collections. He has also created a website devoted to 9/11, which includes many important observations regarding the 9/11 attacks. The pdf version is found here.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
The most surreal scene in history was witnessed by millions of people worldwide on television as it happened. Yet the plumes of smoke and the incredible dust clouds from the the pulverization of two of the world’s tallest buildings within minutes of each other could not adequately portray the horror of thousands of people dying and the total destruction of many buildings. This photo shows Building 7 amid the dust clouds, serenely waiting its turn to fall about seven hours later for no apparent reason. Two five-hundred-thousand ton buildings were converted to dust in approxiately ten seconds each. According to The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), the buildings were destroyed by the combination of jetplane impacts and jet-fuel based fires which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a “pancake collapse.” The photographic record makes that very difficult to believe.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
Left to right, top to bottom: Demolition starts badly; the top 300 feet of WTC-2 tilted as much as 23 degrees before being “blown to Kingdom come.” No one had ever attempted to demolish a building the size of a twin tower, and the dust cloud from WTC-1 helped to distract and cover up problems in destroying WTC-2. As the buildings disintegrated, huge steel columns many feet long were scattered like matchsticks for hundreds of feet. The tower peeled downward as dark explosions shot up, while white ones exploded outward. Above the white explosions, the tower is turning to dust as the lower part awaits its fate. At lower right, as explosions destroy WTC-2, huge sections of disintegrating steel “wheatchex” showered down on WTC-3, the Marriott Hotel. According to the “official account,” fires that caused a collapse due to gravity brought down these buildings.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
Along Vesey Street were WTC buildings 5, 6, and 7. Lower photo shows two huge cavities in eight-story WTC-6 at center and a smaller but striking gash on the side of Building 5 just above. Neither building was struck by significant debris from either of the Twin Towers, right. Across Vesey Street, at left, is a neat pile that was the 47-story Building 7, which imploded and fell at the speed of gravity into its own footprint. Top photo shows a gash on the side of Building 3, with walls of WTC-1 reeling oddly nearby. Other photos of the hole in Building 6 show little debris of any kind within, which is very difficult, even impossible, for the government to explain. How could a collapse of the towers possibly account for this?
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level. Below right, WTC-7 (on the right) still appears in no distress long after both towers had fallen. Frames (above) from video of the collapse of WTC Building 7 shows a perfectly controlled demolition of WTC-7, which was two blocks away from WTC-1 and 2 and only superficially hit by debris from 1 and 2. At 5:20 PM, over six hours after WTC-1 and WTC-2 fell, WTC-7 came down in free fall into its own footprint, a sure sign of controlled demolition, which causes a “kink” in the center of the building. The official story claims that diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded, resulting in fires that brought the building down, even though there is no recorded case of the fire-induced collapse of a large steel-protected building; and only very small fires were burning when WTC-7 “collapsed.” Diesel fuel does not explode, and it burns at low temperatures.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
The World Trade Center was built on bedrock, protected by an underground “bathtub” or foundation ring (top, left, and diagram) down seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan to prevent flooding by the Hudson River, only a block away. On September 11 the bathtub mysteriously remained without significant damage despite two huge towers collapsing on it. It was not built to withstand such colossal impact. No foundation structure could remain unscathed after a mountain of quarter-mile high material was dropped on it twice. The intact bathtub appears to contradict the official theory of gravity-driven collapse in which virtually the entire weight of the Twin Towers would crash into the bathtub. Even subway cars within the bathtub were not crushed, lower right.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
At bottom, a mysterious explosion shot by an “unknown” photographer before any fire trucks arrived purports to show the explosion of Flight 77 within the building. Researchers wonder how a photographer happened to be directly under the incoming flight with a camera and capture such a remarkable image; some suspect the image was faked and others that it was a later occurrence. At top are official “before and after” photos of the alleged impact point; upper right shows where the wall collapsed directly over the “impact point” but upper left shows the same area before the wall collapsed, and unbroken windows and undamaged wall are seen at the “impact point” of the “plane,” which was 125 feet wide and 44 feet tall. Hard to believe.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
At top, fire trucks from National Airport arrived at the Pentagon within ten minutes and had all fires out within seven minutes. They saw no aircraft wreckage or damage to the lawn. They did not know there had been a “plane crash” because the main fire they found was a burning trailer. The stream of water at left had been a “plane crash” because the main fire they found was a burning trailer. The stream of water at left is being sprayed at the alleged impact point, yet the wall is not visibly breeched. At bottom, a Pentagon security camera captures an image said to be an “incoming plane” (red rectangle), yet it is much too small to be a Boeing 757 (inset) like American Airlines Flight 77, plus it is emitting a trail of smoke like a missile.
9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation
United Airlines Flight 93, a huge Boeing 767, allegedly crashed at high speed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving virtually no crash debris and little damage to grass or trees. Witnesses described and photos confirm only a small trench in the grassy field. The official story says the soft ground “swallowed” the entire plane and its occupants. A lady named Val McClatchy allegedly took the photo at top of a small puff of smoke claimed to be the plane exploding near her home, yet pieces of the plane were found up to eight miles away. A coroner called to the scene saw not a single body, but the official story said DNA identified all victims.
The Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Photo analyst Jack White demonstrates that the famous 8mm film of the JFK assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder was altered and parts of it fabricated.


  1. These photos were gathered by Dr Judy Wood - posted by her over 3 years ago. They indicate the use of "Hutchision Effect-like" technology in the destruction. Why is this blog posting them in relation to Jack White (another photo researcher who has not been involved in this investigation?

  2. This bizarre comment from Andrew Johnson has the hallmarks distinctive of the members of a cult. That Judy Wood has collated photographs about 9/11 in New York does not mean that she controls them. That Jack White included some of the same photographs in his color-photo chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY was entirely appropriate. That book, by the way, was published in 2007, which suggests that Andrew Johnson literally does not know what he is talking about. Morever, I dare say that Jack White has been studying 9/11 at least as long as Judy Wood. Jack's site, by the way, can be found at http://www.911studies.com/.

    Whether or not "Hutchison effects" even exist remains a matter of contention, as even Andrew Johnson has to understand. His zeal to defend Judy would be admirable apart from its excess. When I organized the Madison conference, "What's Controversial, What's Not", I featured Judy and gave her a three-hour session, unparalled in the history of the study of these events. And anyone can verify what I am saying in relation to the DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", where the entire conference proceedings appears. When Andrew Johnson has something worth saying, I hope he will come back for a return engagement. But this is not it.


  4. As a student of the history and philosophy of science, you must forgive me if I am not entirely persuaded of your claims. Let me enumerate a few of the reasons why.

    (1) Scientific claims are typically advanced in the form of studies authored by those who propose them. Since you mention published "papers", do they explain what you have discovered and, if so, where can they be accessed by the public?

    (2) What are the principles that define them? Galileo, for example, formulated a law for falling bodies, d = 1/2 Gt2, Newton his inverse square law of universal gravitational attraction and so forth. What are the laws for Hutchison Effects?

    (3) While you appear to lack a scientific background, that does not rule out the possibility that you may have made remarkable, if unlikely, discoveries. Such claims as you advance require support in the form of empirical experiments:

    (a) Early on, you offered a video as documentation of your discoveries, but Ace Baker was able to reproduce what was seen in your video, which appeared to be a form of fakery. What are the conditions required to test "Hutchison Effects"?

    (b) Ace Baker offered a substantial sum of money, $50,000, as I recall, if you would invite him and me to visit your lab to observe the replication of your "effects", but you declined to accept the offer. Could you please explain why?

    (c) Since the military shows interest even in the work of crackpots that it not overlook some development of potential military significance, why should we take your assertions that the military has shown interest in yours to be significant?

    If you are able to offer appropriate replies to these questions, it would no doubt reduce skepticism about your claims, which, of course, require proof.

  5. Hi. I must say I have not read the full blog posting, but I must intervene in defense of Andrew Johnson. Jim Fetzer's classing his arguments as "cult"-like reeks of psy-ops. The word "cult", like "conspiracy theory", is a deliberately killed word designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction of instant, reflex discredit of the person or ideas labeled with such a word. Putting credit where it's due and highlighting the flagrant despise of Judy Wood's research re the Hutchison effect and hurricane Erin connection is the proper scientific response, not an act of cultish fervor. Mr. Fetzer, I have strong suspicions that you are an agent paid to silence the free energy implications of 9/11, thereby performing a sort of "damage control" since the massive public realization that 9/11 was an inside job is sort of inevitable in the long run. With regard to John Hutchison, he has offered plenty of evidence for those who bother to study it. The burden of proof is not on the claimant, sorry. That's another misconception floated as a discrediting, intimidating tactic by the "Skeptics". John has already done enough in telling us about his findings: YOU are the one who can look for more evidence and scientific explanations if you feel curious. This posting heeds no purpose anymore other than exacting further energy and time from people like me. This conversation belongs in a spoken forum, not a written one, and with CNN cameras. .- Conrado Salas Cano, http://conrado.50gigs.net

  6. Hello, for those that want to get "inside the cult" that Mr Fetzer describes, please download my free e-book (now also available as a free audio book).


    It should explain why this bizarre blog does not link the WTC part of the photo study to Dr Judy Wood.

    All the best


  7. Part I: On the Nature of Cults

    As I use the word "cult", it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. Examples that come to mind include the Branch Davidians (David Koresh) and, even more appropriately, Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard), with its pretensions toward science.

    Among their characteristics are their members' excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as Jonestown (Jim Jones) exemplifies.

    In fashioning these definitions, I have reviewed sources on the internet and even had the benefit of discussions with a social psychologist. The series of comments from Andrew Johnson, John Hutchison, and (now) Conrado Salas Cano afford appropriate illustrations in the present instance, especially by their rejection of rational criticism, dedication to the core beliefs of the group, and placing loyalty before logic, which are common cult practices.

    That Andrew Johnson attacked the use of photographs simply because they had appeared on Judy Wood's site is a nice case of zealotry overwhelming rationality. Not only does her use of those photographs not give her control over them but he was oblivious of the fact that they had appeared in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), along with a chapter by none other than Judy Wood! In his eagerness to respond to a blog he obviously had not bothered to study, he allowed his loyalty to take precedence over the exercise of reason.

    John Hutchison and Conrado Salas Cano's replies display other cult-like aspects. Hutchison's is the more rational by alluding to "papers" that substantiate his position, but when invited to identify their source and accessibility, he has no response. If he is speaking the truth, then it should be effortless for him to cite publications that present the principles that define his "effects" that they might be subject to replication by other students of physics. That he has not done that suggests to me that such "papers" as may exist do not actually address these points.

  8. Part II: Conrado Salas Cano

    Conrado Salas Cano begins his post by acknowledging that he has not read the blog! How irrational is that? Not only would it have taken less than 15 minutes to have read it through, but his hasty and ill-considered comments obfuscate rather than clarify the key issues that have been raised in the previous exchange. He goes so far as to assert that "The burden of proof is not on the claimant, sorry", which he describes as a "misconception floated as a discrediting, intimidating tactic". What could be less scientific and objective than to simply take someone's word for it when it comes to extraordinary claims about physics?

    If Hutchison has made discoveries, then he should be able to explain their principles. Conrado earned a degree in physics from CalTech. He has to know better. This is a stunning example of placing loyalty before logic. Would he say the same thing about someone who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine? And the situation with Hutchison is even more disturbing, since he actually offered a video presentation to support his claims that appears to have been faked. No scientist worthy of the name would do something like that, thereby raising questions about his integrity as well as his science.

    In defense of the group, Conrado even suggests that I am "an agent paid to silence the free energy implications of 9/11", which is rather stunning. I am no expert on free energy or cold fusion, but I have been doing what I can to insure the integrity of "scientific research" on 9/11. I would bet that no one has been a more persistent and thoroughgoing critic of the work of Steven Jones in the history of the 9/11 movement. Just visit 911scholars.org and scroll down to "The Science of 9/11" for some of my critiques of Jones.

    Moreover, I have also been among the most active in the 9/11 movement at promoting the work of Judy Wood. She became a frequent guest on my various radio programs and, of course, I featured her during the Madison conference. At a time when no one was taking her seriously, I did everything I could to make her name a household word. Our relationship was very strong up to the point where she and Hutchison began to collaborate, when she took exception to questions like those I have raised about his research and training. Since then, in spite of several invitations to return to the show, she has shut me out for raising questions she does not like. To her, I appear to be a heretic!

    Everyone who has followed the movement knows this. Ask Morgan Reynolds or Jerry Leaphart, who are among her closest associates. It was an important factor in my split with Steven Jones and his allies, who, in my opinion, also exhibit many cult-like characteristics. Their belief in the existence of vast pools of molten metal at Ground Zero, for example, has all the characteristics of a dogma. In common with Judy Wood, I have offered many critiques of Steve's work on this ground, most recently in Portland on 11 December 2009, which was recorded and can be found under the title, "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories", at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html under the title, "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories". And this is far from the only time I have carried the heavy water against Steven Jones.

    It is certainly true, on the other hand, that I have not attacked Steve Jones for his alleged efforts to derail cold fusion research, even if I have mentioned it intermittently as an issue worthy of exploration. What I find rather stunning about Conrado attacking me on this score is that he has a M.S. from Portland State that he earned with a thesis on cold fusion! If one of us should be pursuing this issue, surely it is he, not me. Yet I see no indications of that in his sparse record of publications and other presentations. So why is he attacking me for something he is better positioned to pursue but has not done?

  9. Part III: Cultish Incoherence

    This kind of inconsistency in attacking a perceived critic for an alleged failure of which you yourself are to a higher degree guilty is another manifestation of cultish conduct. He and Andrew and others insinuate that I am out to damage the 9/11 movement. But consider some of Conrado's associations and self-identifications. On his web site, http://conrado.50gigs.net, for example, he lays out his "favorite links" as a "tribute to people [he] really likes": "David Icke, of course," he tells us, "must be first and foremost. Let's cut the bullshit and go to the bottom of what's really going on in this parcel of reality."

    For those who may not know, among David Icke's claims to fame is his book, THE REPTILIAN AGENDA (2003), which contends that there are lizard people living among us. Just to make sure I understood Icke's position accurately, I have visited the web site, http://www.stargods.org/ReptilianAgenda.htm, where his work is discussed in considerable detail. Here is an important paragraph:

    "Reptilians according to Icke are creatures that look like humanoid lizards that can take human form and rule over us through political leadership. Also under the Reptilians we have the alien grays that take orders from the Reptilians. What is happening is that the governments of the world have been infiltrated by, and our working with the aliens. The major lie is that they are from outer space, but in fact they are from interdimensional areas on earth known as the spirit world. They control us from the forth dimension and NOT outer space. This outer space lie is pounded into our brains over and over again through movies and TV."

    Now I am not making this up and I am sure that Conrado would not deny that these are among his beliefs. Indeed, as if to accent the point, at the bottom of his web page is a photograph of Queen Elizabeth labeled as "El-lizard-birth". Even then, it might not be worth mentioning were it not the case that other members of the Wood/Hutchison group appear to share those beliefs, including Andrew Johnson and even Belinda McKenzie, who has been extremely generous in her support for 9/11 and other activists by sheltering them in London. If Conrado, Andrew, and Belinda, all of whom are fervent supporters of Wood and Hutchison, are followers of David Icke, that rasises the prospect that perhaps Judy and John believe in lizard people, too. It may be a good idea, if it's true, for them to tell us.

    As though to demonstrate the complete incoherence of Conrado's position, he supports Michael Shermer as the same time he attacks me, describing Shermer as "the Ironman of renegade Skepticism". Well, perhaps he knows no more about Shermer than he does about me, but "the Ironman of renegade skepticism" is a dedicated defender of the official account of the assassination of JFK and of the theory that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers on 9/11, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed those atrocities. To learn more about his idol, Conrado might like to listen to a debate between us on the "Free Beer and Hot Wings Show" (11 September 2007), which is archived on the home page of Scholars for 9/11 Truth at http://911scholars.org [Round 1 (mp3), Round 2 (mp3)].

  10. Part IV: Concluding Reflections

    Andrew Johnson has now posted a link to a book that he has authored, 9/11: FINDING THE TRUTH (2009), according to the blurb for which, “Dr. Judy Wood has pieced together the physical evidence and Andrew Johnson has highlighted who is working to silence or smear whom, as the powers that be rush to impede or at least contain the dissemination of these startling findings”. And those "powers", of course, would be Steven Jones and me! I read this work--which might well be filed under “fiction” for its fantastic depictions of my relationship to Judy--around a year ago and characterized it as drivel at the time. But that is precisely what righteous defenders of the faith will do: crucify the opposition, regardless of the facts! If anyone wants more proof of the cultish aspects of the Judy Wood group, then they can find it here—in spades!

    Another comment has come from someone who identifies herself as “Mrs. Oz”, whom I infer is also closely related to Judy. She apparently agrees with Conrado—she writes, “I do not agree that something that exists needs to ‘prove’ its existence”—ignoring thereby that scientific claims are not articles of faith but empirically testable hypotheses, which their advocate, John Hutchison, does not even deign to publish. Since I cannot permit this blog to turn into a falme war by zealots in defense of a cult, this will be the last post in this exchange, where I would like to believe that Judy Wood will eventually come to her senses. From all appearances, however, I infer that her messianic complex will not allow that to happen and her group, alas, will probably endure as a cult whose scientific standing will remain open to doubt.

    Taken collectively, these comments from Andrew Johnson, John Hutchison, and Conrado Salas Cano exemplify, in relation to the Wood/Hutchison group, their members' excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group, and even the exploitative manipulation of members of the group by its leaders. What could possibly have brought Andrew Johnson and Conrado Salas Cano to post comment on a blog they had either not read or not understood than directives from Judy Wood or John Hutchison themselves? They are attacking me as a perceived threat to the group, even though--apart from raising obvious questions about the scientific standing of Hutchison's alleged "discoveries"--I have in fact been doing more to advance the cause of 9/11 truth than have these critics. So when I suggest that this group is a cult, it is because it has the characteristics of a cult where its members act as though they are one. Q.E.D.

  11. The latest from Andrew Johnson: "All of the work contained in this book confirms that something is very wrong within the Truth movement. Jim Fetzer's dismissal of the Hutchison Effect is crucial to understanding the meaning of the deception as the Hutchison Effect is central to an understanding of what went on 9/11. Most of the more enlightened people who I speak with are aware of the basic tenets of the 9/11 truth movement’s “Inside Job” theory - and its relation to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and see that as a symptom of Greed and manipulation."

    I not only have not "dismissed" the Hutchison effect--the existence of which I have had the temerity to ask for proof!--but I have been doing everything I can around the world to publicize that 9/11 was an "inside job"! See, for example, my Buenos Aires Powerpoint--presented at The National Library on 11 September 2009--which is entitled, "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", which is archived at http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html and my presentation from "Debunking the 'War on Terror" London Symposium, on 14 July 2010, entitled "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ . I dare say I have done far more to promote the truth about 9/11 than have any of my critics.

  12. Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:24:59 -0500 [05:24:59 PM CDT]
    From: "Jack & Sue White"
    To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

    I read the blog comments. The pictures are missing. They were collected from a variety of internet sources. The attacks were without justification.

    I collected the images from a variety of sources. I recall only one that Jim specifically requested that I include from Judy's site, and that was of the "bathtub". At that time I was not familiar with the term "bathtub", and at Jim's suggestion I obtained it from Judy's site. Jim was the person who first introduced me to the site, and I was amazed at all the good work Judy had done.

    I do not understand people being proprietary about facts and images. Judy herself collected images from many sources, so they are not "hers" in an ownership sense. Facts exist. Images exist. Few have claimed any copyright ownership rights to 911 pictures, so most have been put up on the internet without restriction. Jim has been generous in praise of Judy and her website (except Hutchison).

    This is a silly attack on a genuine search for truth.


  13. Apart from all the ad hominum commenting, and where ever the pictures came from, please compare them to this:

    To me it looks, that the clouds from the explosions look the same as the ones in the Operation Plowshare presentations, and other peace project of nuclear science. My training is art school in the case. And since I saw published by Professor James, that nuclear elements where found in the rubble, that many workers there would get cancer, to me a nuclear demolition the most plausible hypothesis on how it is done.

    This researcher Hutchinson is a funny man, but his experiments can not be repeated in a laboratory. One wonders whether woman are able to conduct science, in the way Dr. Wood is referring to such a womaniser. Dr. Wood compared 9/11 to Hiroshima in her observations, the first logical step than is to suspect nuclear technology.

    At any case, Dimitri Khalezov is acknowledged as a material witness by the FBI, and worked in the field of nuclear technology. I see nothing in his explanation that is not plausible. The dates are correct, all observations I see explain Dimitri to be correct. I would watch the Youtube by Prof Fetzer in 2011, and all presented facts made me conclude, that a nuclear demolition was the way how it was done.

    Ground Zero