Tuesday, September 12, 2017

What Really Happened: America Nuked on 9/11


Jim Fetzer

The Cambridge University Press journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, became an instant sensation by publishing target articles on specific, well-defined subjects and inviting experts from around the world to post critical commentaries about it, which has resulted in significant advances in research.  I suggest this new book about 9/11, which has 15 contributors, might serve a similar purpose and thereby similarly significantly advance 9/11 research. That provides a way to circumvent the 9/11 Truth movement, which, like the JFK research community, appears to have been massively infiltrated by the CIA.

 
Here are some of the important reasons to believe that we ought to adopt that suggestion. The book is divided into 28 chapters, where the core falls into 8 sections that, in reverse order, focus upon "9/11 Limited Hangouts""The Myth of Nanothermite""The 9/11 Crash Sites""The Pentagon: What didn't Happen", "New York was Nuked on 9/11", "What happened on 9/11", and "9/11: Who was responsible and why", Parts I and II, with three chapters each. It has a Preface and a Prologue as well as an Epilogue and an Afterword with an Index. Softcover, 458 pages, 338 photos. $20 B&W; $30 COLOR.

There are three major groups in 9/11 research--A&E911, which supports the use of nanothermite and focuses on Building 7; Judy Wood and DEWs, which promotes Directed Energy Weapons and no planes theory; and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which advances the use of mini or micro nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers and likewise contends that none of the official 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11. The contributors explain why A&E911 is right about Building 7 but wrong about nanothermite and why Judy Wood and DEWs is right about no planes but wrong about DEWs. Here is my latest video summary:



Because the arguments and evidence presented are specific and detailed, the book facilitates a level of intellectual engagement that is missing from most discussions about 9/11. In relation to nanothermite, for example, three chapters explain that it is a law of materials science that, in order for an explosive to blow apart a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, it is 6,100 m/s; but the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 m/s. And the three chapters in the book that make these points were originally published in 2011--more than 6 years ago!

The Latest from A&E911


That makes it obvious that those who want to defend the use of nanothermite in the destruction of the Twin Towers need to explain what else was used to bring that effect about. While it is certainly true that something else could have been added to make it explosive, A&E911 has been reluctant to say what that something else could have been. The same, of course, could be said of toothpaste, which is also non-explosive but could be made explosive by adding an explosive to it. After all these years, it is not unreasonable to expect that A&E911 should have an answer to that question. But that does not seem to be the case. Here is a report about the state of its research on 9/11, which has recently appeared:


While the article presents proof that the "official narrative" of 9/11 cannot be sustained, it does not advance anything that has not been widely known with the 9/11 research community in the past. If you compare these propositions with my own "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong", for example, you can see that the latest from A&E911 does not significantly advance our knowledge and understanding beyond what was available then, where "20 reasons" was originally published on 9/11 of 2011! Surely we should be able to expect more from an organization that has such a high profile and tends to consume the attention of the public and media. Just compare their respective contents:


Judy Wood and DEWs


Indeed, some might be tempted to argue that the earlier article covered more ground that the latest from A&E911. But Judy Wood and DEWs have not been doing any better. Consider, for example, that a review of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I originally published on 20 May 2012, was subsequently downgraded from 5-star to 3-star on the basis of research presented during The Vancouver Hearings, which were held in June 2012. It has been subject to attack around 7,500 times now. But denouncing evidence of the use of nukes does not explain it away, where Judy has displayed the unscientific attitude of ignoring it. A scientist would instead take into account new evidence not previously considered and adapt their theory appropriately by accepting hypotheses that had been previously rejected, rejecting hypotheses previously accepted, leaving others in suspense:


The point is that the specificity of the arguments presented in this new book make it possible to make advances by citing specific propositions that are laid out in detail with the evidence supporting them, which enables those who disagree to explain what we have wrong and how they know. Otherwise, we are left in the muddle of having to deal with distorted versions of those arguments, which do not come to grips with the evidence and leaving issues hanging. That was exhibited perfectly during the 9/11 Truth Teleconference on 31 August 2016, when Adam Ruff and Wayne Costa challenged my explanation of how we know that this was a nuclear event, which were nice illustrations of the point that I am making here.

Objections raised during the call


I observed that the conversion of material into very fine dust and the vaporization of 60-80,000 tons of steel are indicative of the use of nukes as well as the destruction of the buildings to or even below ground level. Wayne Costa replied that elements "that shouldn't be there" does not take into account that some of those elements could have been present because of naturally occurring concentrations of those elements or from other sources. That sounded persuasive but, as the book explains, they would not have been there in the quantities discovered and the correlations between them had this not been a nuclear event. There would have been less likelihood of misunderstanding using the book as a basis.

Adam Ruff contended that there would have been no reason to use nukes because everything that was done could have been done with nanothermite and explosives. Ruff said that there was "a giant pile of debris", but ignored the point that there was no massive stack of debris in the towers' footprints! Comparisons with Building 7 are instructive here, because experience with controlled demolitions have shown that they leave a stack of debris equal to about 12% of their original heights. At 47 floors, WTC-7 left just that residue in a stack of debris 5.5 floors high. But that was not true of the Twin Towers, which, had they been demolished as Ruff suggests, should have left debris piles 14-15 floors high but did not:

Compare the debris from WTC-7 (left) with that from WTC-1 (right), which should have been more than twice as high.
Indeed, while it is appropriate to describe the destruction of WTC-7 as a "controlled demolition", it is not appropriate to use the same phrase for the Twin Towers, which were "demolitions under control" but lacked the characteristics of controlled demolitions. The reason for having to have used a novel technique for their destruction appears to have been to protect the bathtub, which was an enormous dike within which the towers were constructed to protect them from Hudson River water. Had the bathtub been breached, it would have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, including the subway and PATH train tunnels, which they wanted at all cost to avoid.

The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified as the use of "Directed Energy Weapons", which, according to Judy Wood, are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be directed. Set at 100' in the core columns, they would have had a diameter of 200' for buildings that were 208' on a side. Their use enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And this appears to be how it was done as the US Geological Survey dust studies substantiate.

Other arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

For those who dispute characterizing A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs as "limited hangouts", the argument is straightforward. We have three major problems to solve about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Both of those organizations only address the HOW and refuse to explain the WHO or the WHY. That is simply absurd for 9/11 Truth organizations. And even their explanations of HOW appear to be inadequate. Only Scholars for 9/11 Truth addresses all three. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016) lays out the evidence in detail.

But we make no claims to infallibility--and the best test of the validity of our case is critical attempts to refute it, which can be accomplished if we make this book the target for scrutiny and criticism and thereby advance the cause of exposing 9/11 Truth. If you have something to contribute, then submit it to me and I will be very glad to consider it for publication here and elsewhere. When we have a critical mass of discussion and debate, I will edit another book to bring our knowledge and understanding of 9/11 further up-to-date.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

24 comments:

  1. Professor Fetzer: In your learned view, did commercial airplanes hit the twin towers on 9/11?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. As I explain in the video study you find here, none of the 9/11 aircraft appear to have crashed on 9/11, where the crash sites were faked in different ways. Check it out and get back if you have any further questions.

      Delete
    2. https://vgy.me/Z76sXY.jpg

      Anyone who is truly interested in the truth about what did, or more correctly, what did not happen on 9/11 at the World Trade Center complex will read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood. (I read it almost 6 years ago!)

      Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 are:

      1 Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed

      2 Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed

      3 Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed

      4 Conventional explosives blew the buildings up

      5 Mini-nukes blew the buildings up

      Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up. Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong.

      Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yes, I know it’s amazing. Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy? *;) winking

      THE FACTS:

      1. DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.” Rubble totaled less than a story. It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found. Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers whispers “no collapse.” See Chapter 9.

      2. BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown. If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse. Did not happen. Upshot? Collapses did not happen. See Chapter 5.

      3. SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood. Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses. This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7. Again, no evidence of collapses. See Chapter 6.

      4. SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST. Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal. See Chapter 6.

      5. DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower? I simply couldn’t comprehend it.” The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown. Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere. The volume was incredible. Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA. As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.” See Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.

      Delete
    3. Where Did Their Credibility Go?

      https://vgy.me/xixegK.jpg

      Delete
    4. What is your theory you are proposing. And please provide ample evidence to back your position. Right now you only rant ad hominem's for every post you do, nothing more. You simply are not credible in any respect. Remember, to vaporize steel, you need 6100m/s to do it. So whatever you propose needs to take that into consideration.

      Delete
  2. A&E Truth has produced a finite element analysis of the NIST hypothesis on WTC-7 by Dr Leroy Hulsey, professor of structural engineering at University of Alaska, Fairbanks

    Media.UAF.edu

    Thermite was used as cut charges to direct WTC buildings into their own footprints. Veterans Today has extensive research on history and repeated use of mini-nukes, listed in bibliography with this article:

    "The B-61, the More Usable Nuke"

    Find and share Truth....it is your duty as an Earthling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that cannot possibly be true of the Twin Towers. There was no pile of debris in their footprints. A&E9/11 has done great work on WTC-7, but has failed miserably on WTC-1 and WTC-2.

      Delete
  3. cui bono....

    & Means - MOTIVE & opportunity...

    curiously, when the mugshots are on the wall

    all the Truth hating - Justice Hating

    ECONOMIC TERRORISTS.....reveal the EXACT and

    PRECISE perps of WARMONGERING PSYCHOPHANTS

    employed by the MONEY CHANGERS & PHARISEES

    of the Synagogue of Satan....who mysteriously

    also have a stool sculpture deity cult compound


    https://buelahman.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/cant-trust-a-jew-in-politics-or-their-shabbos-goy/

    for "JEWS" only called "Israel"...
    What are the odds ...?

    https://world.wng.org/2001/08/flash_traffic_1

    what about the Emet Group...?

    http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Israeli-Security-Firm-ICTS-the-MOSSAD-and-1992-Crash-of-an-El-Al-Plane-into-a-Skyscraper-9-11_printer.shtml

    Seriously,

    Davy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the subtitle reflects, "Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad", where most of the Neocons were dual US-Israel citizens. 9/11 was conceived by Bibi Netanyahu to draw the United States into endless wars in the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states that served as a counter-balance to Israel's domination of the entire region and to set up for confrontation with the Persian nation of Iran.

      Delete
    2. you do great work Jim, and many could
      seriously benefit by your fidelity to
      logic and common sense ..."science"
      & PHYSICS...

      curiously, there were never any "Dallas Cowboys" at the Alamo...
      & No "JEWS" in the Old Testament

      IPSO FACTO the "JEWISH" state cannot be "Israel"...."Israel" is a people who
      have never been "JEWISH"...!

      Zephaniah 3:9 refers to a pure language
      tow opposites can never be the same "THING"...

      http://theantimedia.org/israel-preparing-major-war/

      Modern day so-called "JEWS" can be "JEWISH" until HELL freezes over, but
      {{{{THEY}}}} will never be Israel.

      https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5014986,00.html

      All people who love Truth, especially
      in the 1st world nations should "Train" their children to LOVE THE TRUTH...
      {as in correct language & True conclusions}

      instead of teaching the children to love lies so they can be part of the politically correct -
      "JEW" worshipping "SOCIETY"...

      No One on earth HAS to believe LIES...

      Thinking defined means reaching a TRUE CONCLUSION...like in MATH & PHYSICS...

      Israel will NEVER be a "JEWISH" state.

      "Israel" properly Identified & Defined in the modern era are the 1st world nations...

      http://israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/KnowEnemy.html

      Sincerely,

      Davy

      Delete
  4. I would like a little better explanation about the sprinkler systems in the towers. 100 story building would have sectional valves and check valves on each floor, in essensce each floor would be its own sprinkler system. Huge fire pumps able to pump 750 to 2000 gallons a minute energize the sprinklers upon pressure loss. Simultaneous fires on every floor would be suppressed. A fire in the basement in no way would would require the entire building to taken out of service. Not practical or procedural. Also those buildings would have to have the sprinklers tested at the least quarterly. Would be interesting to know who had the contract for the inspections proir to 9/11. Obviously I have some knowledge in the area and its always bothered me and never properly been explained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The massive explosions in the sub-basements meant to coincide with the "hits" by the planes appear to have been designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water, as I explain in the video report above. Please get back and explain what we may have missed, because this is a rather crucial point.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. As I said before each floor would be indivually pressurized in excess of 100 psi. Think of each floor as its own system. How would an explosion in the sub-basement depressurize and drain all the other floors. Something else happened here. Seperate from the sprinkler system there would be standpipe up and down each stairwell for the fireman, you don't drain a standpipe. If a "plane" did hit the tower the fire would have supressed and if it failed the stand pipe surely would have severed spraying steam and water at a rate in excess of 750 gallons a minute through a at minimum six inch diameter pipe. A biulding that large probably had a fire pump in the basment and two more going up the building.

      Delete
    4. Explosion in the sub-basement alone simply doesn't explain enough. The underground water main to the property would have to shut off and the fire pumps would have to manually shut off and the transfer switch to the generator would also have to manually shut off.

      Delete
    5. So each sub-basement seperately had massive explosions at the same time the planes hit? Carefully placed explosives that severed and destroyed all the sprinkler water mains and fire pumps that fed the rest of the building? Maybe im not playing with the whole deck Professor but it doesn't add up. A explosion or fire in the sub-basement that set off the sprinklers in the area would not drain the standpipes or drain the other floor protected by sprinklers. Each floor would be isolated and indepently pressurized.

      Delete
    6. @Baschor Sixtus - you are not playing with a full deck. Read the book. Fire cannot melt steel. You need energy in excess of 6,100m/s. Any high-school educated kid will understand this. If you don't, then oh well. It might help to read a few more real books to see the big picture.

      Delete
    7. So each sub-basement seperately had massive explosions at the same time the planes hit? Carefully placed explosives that severed and destroyed all the sprinkler water mains and fire pumps that fed the rest of the building? Maybe im not playing with the whole deck Professor but it doesn't add up. A explosion or fire in the sub-basement that set off the sprinklers in the area would not drain the standpipes or drain the other floor protected by sprinklers. Each floor would be isolated and indepently pressurized.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As always Jim, excellent post. Thank you for your continued vigilance against the psychopaths, sociopaths, banksters, zionists, cabalists, illuminists etc.. They truly indeed have a lot of $$$ to buy/control everything. Endless resources to hide the truths, alter history - there is no end to their insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fetzer just how many pieces of silver have you lined up in your pockets to muddy up the water so as to keep 911 from being solved and the Jews not being held accountable for their Crimes against the American People?
    Have you no Shame Fetzer?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There were survivors of the two top down demolitions which were done with conventional explosives. C-4 perfectly explains the pulverization of all the concrete, which the building was full of. To say this was just a steel frame is Ridiculous. Frame by frame you can see the beams beings snapped off like twigs with cutter charges. There was enough Radioactive material inside buildings that when pulverized just added to the deadly toxic cloud. The most likely cause is almost always the most likely cause. Su7pporting the elevators was a concrete wall 12 foot thick, a core within a core spanning the inner columns. The design was from Yamasaki, and all skyscrapers were based on this design, including the new tower which features this concrete core. Every skyscraper has this core wall for support, I challenge anyone to walk up the stairwell of just about any taller building, you are scaling a concrete wall directly across from the elevators. think of a concrete column like the ones that hold up highways, inside of the core metal structure. Using heavy rebar throughout the wall is connected to the frame of the building, usually directly holding the elevator guide rails. Like the famous North tower spire. As the concrete wall pulverizes the cloud covers the metal as it drops to the street below. It was not vaporized as the disinformation artists will tell you. all of the metal was shipped to a small island offshore and sorted. There is vast documentation of this, the real crime is only a fraction of the metal was saved for any kind of investigation. Of course we know that these learned engineers, and PhD's, never even looked for explosives as the root cause. Two pounds of c-4 will vaporize a 4x4 pickup truck, literally, or it could raze a two story building. Just what do you think a demolition team of 20 or so could do to those towers with a backpack full of c-4, and an elevator ride. Those concrete walls had to be blown or else none of what you say makes any sense. The idea there was no 12 ft thick support wall in utterly ridiculous.
    The architects led by Gage are a joke, don't send these people money, do your own research. The idea you have to have a degree is also insane, a good critical mind is far more important. From day 1 I knew 911 was a false flag because of Bill Cooper's direct prediction that whatever they blame on Bin Laden was complete nonsense. One other item, blaming the Jews is another canard that is best left to those who carry around genuine hatred.
    Americans did this, period. None of this happens without a direct military stand down, that only comes from an American command. Always put yourself on the side of demolition, make people explain to you how this could happen without it. Nukes were not necessary when conventional methods were built into the structure, inside that 12 foot thick wall. can anyone see why this support wall is never mentioned, and why 2k engineers looking for truth don't seem to have a clue about it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A gambling game that you can play every day.

    Gclub The casino will give gamblers the chance to find the full bet. Played very well Gambling is a live casino game. Bring it to everyone to play it realistically. There are many investments. Make huge profits. Where to play gambling every day. New bets. Have fun at any time like Gambling helps players find the number one bet. Gambling Wherever You Are It is ready to play the luck as anyone can play well.

    In addition, the gambler to invest in the online casino gambling at our website. In addition, investors will invest in your favorite gambling games. Investors will also get a lot of promotions that we have been held for the player to get here. Investors who are interested to subscribe to our website, then the player can invest in our online gambling services at this player will not be disappointed in this game. The gambler will play simple with our online casino gambling site standard. The gambler will not be disappointed by the chance we have to open the player for sure. Royal1688

    ReplyDelete