Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 6, 2020 - Jim Fetzer

01:58:59

9/11: What happened, who was responsible and why (6 September 2020)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, this is Jim Fetzer, the Conspiracy Guy.
	I'm very pleased to have you join me for a discussion of one of the most important topics I will ever address.
	9-11, what happened?
	Who is responsible and why?
	Most of you know that I'm a former Marine Corps officer and a retired university professor who has done a huge amount of research on conspiracy theories, but many of you may not know that I am also the founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
	In December of 2015, And that I have done a voluminous research about 9-11, even been flown around the world to present about it.
	I also founded, with Mike Palachuk, Moonrock Books, where of the 12 volumes we have now published, Amazon has seen fit to ban six of them, depriving you of the opportunity to know what really happened, whether it's about Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, or even the moon landing, and related issues.
	Amazon doesn't want you to know, so they banned these books.
	Frankly, I think they make wonderful presents if you have friends or relatives who want to know the truth rather than live a life of illusion.
	Where, as you may know too, I earned my PhD in the history and the philosophy of science.
	I offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
	And where I specialize in bringing groups of experts together to dissect the complex and controversial events of our time, whether that includes, you know, all of the above or other events as well, where scientific reasoning involves four steps or stages.
	Puzzlement.
	Something doesn't fit into your background, knowledge, and experience.
	Raising questions.
	Speculation.
	What are the possible alternative explanations of what has taken place?
	Crucial to consider the alternatives.
	Adaptation.
	What are the probabilities of the available evidence on the alternatives?
	If H1 is true, then what's the probability of the evidence?
	If H2 is true, what is the probability of the evidence?
	Where When the evidence has settled down, we're entitled to accept the best supported hypothesis to wit the one that confers the highest probability on the available evidence as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science, meaning
	With the acquisition of additional evidence or alternative hypotheses, we may have to reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
	With awareness that even the best supported hypothesis may nevertheless turn out to be false, as was the case, for example, with classical Newtonian physics, which stood as the paradigm of scientific knowledge for nearly 200 years, but which turned out to be a special limiting case of general relativity advanced by Einstein, and therefore Not universally true, as was widely assumed at the time.
	We learned our lesson.
	So, what was puzzling about 9-11?
	Well, the reports of hijackers, still alive the following day, Buildings that did not appear to collapse.
	Missing debris at several crash sites.
	No plausible explanation for the attack.
	Think about it.
	What did the president at the time, George W. Bush, tell us?
	He said they attacked us because they hate our freedom.
	They hate our freedom.
	Well, that's pretty ludicrous.
	I mean, frankly, that didn't raise doubts in your mind.
	And when it comes to buildings that did not appear to collapse on the day of the event, I was lying in bed reading a newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee when my wife came up.
	We just got a phone call from our daughter residing at the time in Bradenton, Florida, telling us to turn on the TV.
	And we saw, to our astonishment, the North Tower smoking.
	Eventually, we'd see an explosion at the South.
	When the buildings were destroyed, I said to myself, and it was described as a collapse, I said to myself, this is not even physically possible, but when would I ever be in the position to do anything about it?
	Oddly enough then, years later, I'd find myself in the midst of an email chain with about two dozen experts from around the world, and it occurred to me that there might be a virtue in founding a loose affiliation of society to bring together collaborators from different fields such as engineering, civil, mechanical, structural, aeronautics, Pilots.
	Physicists.
	So we could dig deep and get to the bottom of this, and I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth, where you can find the archival website, 911scholars.org, which is not active, but which preserves the state of the society at the time.
	When I was compelled to turn to other events, so I maintain my research in 9-11 to this very day, as is obvious from what's going on here.
	Now let me highly recommend the first book, serious book about 9-11, The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin.
	This is one of two books that I am going to recommend, published in 2004.
	Very important book, gives a wonderful overview, where, among other points, it observes about the flights, locations, and passengers at Flight 11, which would Allegedly strike the North Tower was a Boeing 757 out of Logan, Boston Airport, which had only 92 of 351, you know, seats occupied.
	Flight 77, another Boeing 757, this time out of Dulles.
	Again, only partially full with 64 out of 289.
	Flight 77, another Boeing 757, this time out of Dallas.
	Again, only partially full with 64 out of 289. Flight 93, another 757, actually 93.
	The two that allegedly hit the Twin Towers were of course supposed to be 767, so I need to correct my own slide.
	Flight 11 was supposed to be a 767.
	11 was supposed to be a 767.
	Then we had 77 supposed to have hit the Pentagon, a Boeing 757 out at Dulles with only 64 at 289.
	Flight 93, another Boeing 757 out at Newark with 45 at.
	That's, of course, a flight supposed to have crashed in Shanksville.
	And finally, Flight 175, another Boeing 767 out of Logan again, with 65 out of 351.
	Now you might ask yourself, how can airlines like United and American stay in business if
	they're flying transcontinental flights when they're only partially full?
	Because these were all destined for California, Los Angeles, San Francisco.
	I mean, it's absurd.
	These companies could not possibly have remained in business if they were regularly flying Only partially full flights.
	Now here are the official routes that they took in the air, and it's interesting and worthy of note, the significance of which will become greater as we proceed, that the security for all these efforts, airports, was provided by ICTS, which happens to be an Israeli firm.
	Now, here are the alternatives we're considering.
	Hypothesis H1.
	The attack was reeled and carried out by 19 Islamic terrorists under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.
	Or H2.
	The attack was fake, meaning actually orchestrated, planned, but not by the parties alleged, and evidence was fabricated to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.
	I think you'll find as we proceed that the evidence overwhelmingly supports H2 and defeats H1, which is going to have a virtual zero probability, while H2 is going to have a virtual probability of close to one.
	So what happened in Shanksville?
	We'll start with the various crash sites.
	If a Boeing 757 had crashed there, we'd expect to find evidence of the crash.
	Right?
	What could be more obvious?
	If there's an absence of debris, what are we to infer other than that no plane crashed there?
	What are the probabilities?
	Look at this!
	This is a purported crash site, but it's about 15 by 25.
	Well, think about it.
	This is an enormous airline.
	It weighs over 100 tons.
	It has a wingspan of 125 feet.
	It has a tail itself that stands over 44 feet above the ground.
	And yet, you see no debris whatsoever.
	No sign of any plane having crashed there.
	Compare that with others where planes really did crash.
	In Missouri, in Amsterdam, in Russia.
	I mean, look, there is typically massive debris from the crash of a large Boeing commercial airliner, but not in Shanksville.
	In fact, Steve Konicki, who was one of the first reporters on the scene, actually explained that the eerie aspect of the crash site was there were no signs that any plane had actually crashed there.
	Think about it.
	No signs that any plane had actually crashed there.
	Remember, we're told you can't prove a negative, but that turns out to be false.
	You can prove, for example, there's no elephant in your living room by going to your living room and looking for signs of the presence of elephant.
	Finding none, you're entitled to infer that's because there's no elephant in your living room.
	If you go to purported airplane crash sites and find no signs of any plane having crashed there, you're entitled to infer that's because no plane actually crashed there, which is exactly what we find in Shanksville.
	Now, some apologists for the government maintain that actually the hijackers took control, that there was a tussle in the cockpit.
	The plane wound up crashing upside down and disappeared into an abandoned mine shaft.
	Listen, We know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts.
	We bring out the bright lights and the heavy equipment and we dig 24-7 in order to ensure that, you know, if anyone might have survived.
	But here in Shanksville, even though there were 45 souls aboard, no effort was made, no bright lights brought out, no heavy equipment.
	And of course, ask yourself, would that make any sense if the crash had been real?
	Even under this preposterous scenario of disappearing into abandoned mineshaft?
	No, of course not.
	They didn't break out the heavy equipment and the bright lights because there was nothing to recover.
	Indeed, here you can see a photograph on the left taken by a woman by the name of Val McClutchie, allegedly, Well the smoke appears to be much more like that from a demolition as you see in the center image than from an actual plane crash site on the right, which characteristically produced dark black smoke.
	That was not the case at Shanksville and there's therefore every good reason to suspect that photograph was photoshopped because it's not clear that any plane actually crashed there.
	Here's yet another, right?
	In fact, The probabilities, given the evidence already, that a Boeing 757 actually crashed in Shanksville, given the available evidence, is approximately zero.
	The probability, therefore, that it was fake is approximately one.
	Well, what happened at the Pentagon?
	Again, if a Boeing 757 had crashed there, we'd expect to find evidence of the crash again.
	And if there's an absence of evidence of debris, what are we to infer?
	Then that no plane crashed there either.
	What again are the probabilities?
	Now, there was a surveillance camera.
	I mean, the Pentagon has like, you know, Massive cameras all over the place.
	It's probably the most heavily surveilled building in the entire world, yet the Pentagon only ever released just five frames from a surveillance camera.
	And you notice here, the first one is conveniently labeled playing.
	And if you search and search and you see, well, apparently it's this thing right up here.
	Just above the, you know, this is the where you put in your ticket or your pass to get the gate to open, and you see a bloom of white smoke and the silhouette might be a plane.
	Then we have various, you know, the impact of the growing fireball, right?
	Now any number have observed that it's got the wrong date and time on it to have been 9-11, that this is a very, very peculiar Jack White, who is a legendary photoanalyst and film with whom I collaborated in research on JFK,
	Took into account various forms of distortion to ensure a proper comparison, I asked him to model the image of a Boeing 757 to the same size as the tail on the plane, and he did so.
	And as you can see here, a real 757 would have been more than twice as large as the plane captured in that one frame, conveniently labeled plane.
	Not only that, but pilots and aeronautical engineers have explained that a white plume of smoke cannot be the exhaust from a jet engine, which would be black, but could be the exhaust from a missile being fired into the building, which would leave a similar white plume.
	Now here's the impact point.
	The area is 10 feet high and 16-17 feet wide.
	There's chain link fence, two automobiles, two huge spools, a cable, but there are also unbroken windows here.
	Unbroken windows!
	That's what you see.
	What do you not see?
	You don't see a massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner.
	You don't see bodies, seats, luggage.
	You don't see wings.
	You don't see tail.
	You don't see the engines.
	I mean, this is absolutely astonishing!
	Now, eventually, The part of the building would collapse.
	This is about 45 minutes later, but it didn't collapse originally, and my suspicion is that those who were perpetrating this fraud felt that the damage didn't look significant enough, so they arranged to have a supplemental demolition to bring down a part of the building.
	My colleague Scott Bennett, former Army Intel and PsyOps officer, actually drove by the Pentagon the following day, and they had a big blue tarp out there to cover part of the building.
	But it was evident to him, no Boeing had hit the building.
	But it was evident to others who were there at the time.
	Notice when they did a reconstruction here, that massive fireball would have caused intense heat, and yet there's no indication of any fire here, intense heat.
	Right here appears to be the stand for what I take to be an Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
	Seems to be perfectly intact.
	In other words, what we have here is inconsistent With a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon, I'd say the probability of this evidence given a real plane hit there on that hypothesis is pretty close to zero.
	Here you have a drawing of what's supposed to have happened with this plane flying in nearly, you know, barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour and impacting on the first floor of the Pentagon.
	It's a simulation, of course.
	Meanwhile, you would expect there to be massive debris all over the ground.
	This is one of my favorite photographs.
	From 9-11.
	Because, you see, these lime green civilian fire trucks that just happened to be in the area were diverted to the Pentagon to extinguish the very modest fires.
	And notice the complete absence of any aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn.
	That's perfectly consistent with no plane having crashed there.
	It's inconsistent with a plane having crashed there.
	Meanwhile, there was planted evidence.
	The most conspicuous was a piece of wreckage that came from a crash site near Cali, Colombia, where a 757 actually crashed in 1995.
	It appears, to me, some of the plane parts were dropped from a C-130 that was circling the Pentagon at the time.
	Here again, this is from the BBC.
	You see the clear Pentagon lawn, right?
	No debris.
	Here's yet another photograph, and this is even after that portion of the building had collapsed.
	Where's the blame?
	In fact, Thierry Meyssan, whom I regard as perhaps the world's leading public intellectual, Created a blog early on entitled Hunt the Boeing, raising precisely that question.
	Where's the Boeing?
	Some of you may remember the old commercial, Where's the Beef?
	You know, supposed to be lampooning.
	I can't recall if it was McDonald's burgers at the time, but it was very famous.
	Where's the plane?
	Where's the beef?
	I mean, this is embarrassingly bad.
	Now, remember none of that debris was out there?
	Well, it only showed up later!
	It showed up later!
	Where could it have come from?
	This is by far the most striking piece, because it's clearly a piece of fuselage from a plane that appears to be a Boeing 757.
	But notice, it's not all crumpled like you would expect, had it been involved in a violent collision with the side of the Pentagon.
	It doesn't show any signs of having been exposed to an intense fire, and yet we've seen the massive fireballs that were supposed to have taken place there.
	And notice here, there's actually a piece of vine entangled in the wreckage, not indigenous to the Arlington, Virginia area.
	Here's a close-up.
	A fellow by the name of Jim Hansen from Columbus, Ohio, who's a retired attorney, very astutely pursued the issue of where this piece of fuselage could have originated, and he discovered that although crashes of Boeing 757s are very rare, it's among the safest aircraft ever Flown by the hand of man.
	There was a crash near Cali, Colombia in 1995.
	Here you can see part of the wreckage.
	Here's more of the wreckage.
	And guess what?
	Yes, the salvage was taken by an Israeli company who appear to have saved it up just for an occasion like this.
	This is the pilot who, when he was asked by the BBC after they'd interviewed me and I'd suggested That the wreckage might have been dropped from the C-130 saying he thought that was absurd.
	Notice he didn't say it was false.
	He said he thought it was absurd.
	But I have to ask, where else could it have come from?
	The official account, by the way, of the flight pattern is a fantasy.
	The purported pilot, Hanihan Jor, could barely fly a Cessna.
	A complex commercial jetliner is overwhelmingly more complicated.
	There's not a chance in the world he would have had the ability to fly it.
	The approach itself was incredibly difficult and far beyond his capabilities.
	Indeed, most pilots who are qualified to fly commercial airliners,
	acknowledge they would have had difficulty executing this trajectory.
	More important, the alleged flight pattern turns out to be aerodynamically impossible.
	Now, when I talk about measures of probability, they're conventionally from zero to one,
	but I add an additional measure called null for impossible events, right?
	Null are for impossible events that violate the laws of physics and engineering, or in this case of aerodynamics.
	Here's the flight path allegedly executed by the pilot intent on hitting the Pentagon.
	I mean, look, this is really sophisticated and virtually, you know, except for a highly, highly trained pilot, this is a kind of maneuver you might expect from a small air force like a fighter jet airplane, like a fighter jet, a military aircraft, not a commercial airliner.
	Not only that, but according to the official account, the plane came in barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour and hit a series of lampposts you can see here.
	A series of lampposts.
	Now let me just mention that the effect of hitting a series of lampposts at over 500 miles an hour when the lampposts are stationary would be, by Newton's third law, every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, or by the relativity of motion, be equivalent to a stationary airliner being hit by lampposts traveling over 400 miles an hour.
	They would have ripped open the wing, the jet fuel stored there would have mixed with oxygen and burst into flames, and the plane would have catapulted across the lawn.
	But we know the clear Pentagon lawn didn't feature any crash, any indications of debris from any plane crash having taken place there.
	Ergo, if there's no evidence of plane debris from a plane having hit a multiple number of lampposts, then we're entitled to infer that's because there was no plane barely skimming the ground and hitting multiple lampposts at all, that the hypothesis is false.
	Now interestingly, there's a CITGO station here which had a number of witnesses who reported seeing a plane fly toward the building, but it was the green path is the official trajectory.
	The yellow are their variations, what they actually witnessed.
	These were eyewitnesses.
	So that the plane they saw came in north of the Sitco station.
	The official trajectory requires it came in south.
	This, by the way, appears to have been the aircraft that Norman Mineta reported hearing discussed in the underground bunker where Dick Cheney was in charge that day when aid came up and said, sir, it's 50 miles out, sir, it's 30 miles out, sir, it's 40 miles out.
	Do the orders still stand?
	When Cheney, according to Minetta, whipped him around and said, have you heard anything to the contrary?
	Of course the orders still stand.
	Where the order had to have been to not shoot the plane down.
	Think about it.
	Once you know that aircraft are being used as weapons to attack structures, then you know that they are weapons of destruction, and therefore they ought to be shot down, in which case you lose the passengers and the aircraft, but you do not lose personnel or property of the designated target.
	So the obvious thing to do would have been to shoot it down.
	Dick Cheney, however, was directing the plane not be shot down, and it appears to have approached the building and then swerved over the building.
	Indeed, I have a dear friend, Roy Schaefer, again from JFK Research.
	You had a friend who was a truck driver in front of the Pentagon.
	And his truck driver friend told him that he'd watched as a plane approached the Pentagon and then swerved over it.
	Now, Roy was stunned because his friend still insisted a plane had hit the Pentagon.
	And I said to Roy, look, let me get him on the air so he can issue his report.
	He'll be more secure.
	Roy has sought to do that, but he was reluctant.
	And a couple of weeks later, he was found dead in an abandoned building.
	Meanwhile, you have in the C-ring, and remember the Pentagon has these five concentric rings, A in the center, B, C, D. And in the C-ring, you have this hole that's much too symmetrical to be caused by an engine part.
	Because it would have come in at an angle.
	If it came in at an angle, then the hole would be asymmetrical.
	What you cannot quite read in the circled line, by the way, it says punch out.
	And there are various witnesses who said they smelled cordite, which is a common military explosive, in the immediate aftermath, where cordite appears to have been used to punch out this hole in the seabring that would then be attributed to a plane that never hit the building.
	Now, this is the best reporter that CNN had at the time, who is reporting live from the Pentagon, and when he was asked by the anchor about the plane that crashed there, he said, well, you know, you might think that, but from my close-up inspection, there's no sign of any plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon, only some very small pieces, no large pieces of any aircraft that you could hold in your hand.
	Now he was subsequently pressured to retract the observation that no plane had hit the Pentagon, and he did so in the following artful manner.
	He said only a fool would deny that a plane had hit the Pentagon, meaning that he had been a fool to expect that CNN actually wanted him to report the truth rather than to serve as a conduit for propaganda.
	And he retired.
	Meanwhile, we have April Gallup, who was an employee, a civilian employee at the Pentagon, who said it was just as she turned on her computer that she heard this massive explosion in the facade of the Pentagon, that she stepped out through it, looked around, saw no plane parts whatsoever.
	Very, very important eyewitness.
	Meanwhile, Major General Albert Stummelbein, who is formerly the head of all U.S.
	military signals intelligence, including photographic analysis, gave an interview to a reporter in Germany about the Pentagon crash and he explained to the reporter how he knew that no plane had hit the Pentagon because there was no imprint of the wings on the facade.
	Now the Pentagon walls were massive but external to them were limestone.
	It had a limestone facade that is a relatively soft stone would have easily reflected the impact of an aircraft had one actually hit.
	I would subsequently, to verify my research on all four of the aircraft 9-11 crash sites, do an interview with General Stummelbein, then retired, and not only did General Stummelbein confirm my findings as I'm reporting them to you here and now, but he added additional reasons why I was correct.
	And here, It was very, very odd when later in the morning, I heard that massive black clouds were being reported.
	They claimed That the Capitol was next, and members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the Capitol to go across the Potomac toward the Pentagon, and saw these billowing black clouds.
	Well, I knew that those lime green civilian fire trucks had already extinguished the very modest fires, and therefore wondered what could have possibly been the source.
	It turns out, as you see here, there was a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the Pentagon that were set on fire to create the billowing black smoke to make an indelible impression on the members of Congress.
	Now, another student of 9-11 came through Duluth.
	This was pretty early on in 2006, as I recall, and he had 44 more slides from a National Geographic special taken from a different angle, and you could actually see the light.
	You could see daylight between the dumpsters and the Pentagon.
	None of the smoke.
	Was coming from the Pentagon itself.
	This was, in other words, a classic Hollywood special effect.
	So who could have planned 9-11?
	I mean, it gets us wondering, you know?
	I mean, if things don't seem to be adding up, if there was no crash, no plane actually crashed in Shanksville, no plane actually hit the Pentagon.
	And indeed, indeed, I omitted to make a crucial point About the plane flying in at nearly 400 miles an hour, barely skimming the ground.
	Conversation with pilots and an aeronautical engineer substantiated that that was not even an aerodynamically possible trajectory.
	That a Boeing 757 at over 400 miles an hour, because of the phenomenon known as downdraft, sometimes called ground effect, Could not have got closer than 60 or even 80 feet to the ground, which is higher than the Pentagon at 71 feet is tall.
	So it's not even an aerodynamically possible trajectory.
	So the official account of the strike on the Pentagon has a null, null, below zero, impossible.
	Could not have happened.
	I mean, this is how badly they misconceived their plan to deceive the American public.
	Many, many Americans bought at hook, line, and sinker.
	So who could have planned 9-11 if we stopped to think about it?
	Well, it's very, very interesting, and this is not to draw any premature conclusions, but there is evidence tending in this direction.
	Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, held a major conference in Jerusalem on terrorism before the West was aware of any threat.
	Israel would have had motive to want to use U.S.
	forces to destroy the Arab states that served as a counterbalance to its domination of the entire region and eventually to confront the Persian nation of Iran.
	So in 1987, as a result of this conference, Bibi published Terrorism, How the West Can Win.
	Pretty fascinating.
	Meanwhile, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the United States becoming the sole remaining superpower, a think tank called Project for a New American Century sprang up, Where the overwhelming majority of members were dual U.S.-Israeli citizens and where they talked about the idea of creating a new American empire that would endure for the next 100 years if only the U.S.
	would take advantage of its status as a sole remaining superpower to move aggressively into the Middle East and exert Military and diplomatic power outward from that geopolitically sensitive region.
	Notice they wrote, they were worried Americans wouldn't realize the opportunity history had presented.
	The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
	Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and contents of transformation, as much as the requirement of current missions.
	Wherefrom, of course, David Ray Griffin adopted the title of his book, A New Pearl Harbor.
	You may recall, even on that day, almost immediately, representatives of the administration were talking about a new Pearl Harbor.
	Remember the Pearl Harbor, of course, the attack of December 7, 1941.
	Well, my dad always said I was born a year and a day before Pearl Harbor initiated, you know, America's entry into World War II.
	World War II.
	So here they're talking about a new world war.
	And the question would become, of course, against who would that war be waged?
	Now, General Wesley Clark, who at the time was serving as Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, which means he was a commanding general of NATO, Clark returned to the Pentagon about a month after 9-11 and encountered a general of his acquaintance who told him that we were planning to invade Iraq.
	They both thought that was quite bizarre because Iraq had, as they knew, had nothing to do with 9-11.
	So they thought that was very strange.
	And Clark told the general to be sure and keep him informed.
	Well, he returned months later, encountered the General and asked if we're still planning to invade Iraq.
	And the General called him into his office and said, Oh, no, sir.
	He said, I've just got a memorandum from the Secretary of Defense.
	The situation is much worse.
	We're now planning to attack, take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years.
	And Wesley Clark said, well, is it classified?
	And the general said, oh, yes, sir.
	And Clark said, well, then don't show it to me, because I may want to speak about it later.
	And indeed, on October 3, 2007, at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, Wesley Clark laid out the agenda to take out seven governments in the next five years, beginning with Iraq and Libya, ending with Syria and Iran.
	And the whole process moved quite forward quite effectively in Syria.
	Russia and Iran came to the aid of Syria at the request of the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, who many Americans to this day do not realize was a democratically elected president of Syria and joined the support of 80% of the Syrian people.
	Which means, of course, that we cannot be in Syria to bring democracy to Syria because Syria is already a democracy.
	But there it is.
	At the request of the democratically elected president of Syria, Russia and Iran intervene to halt the attack, to take out the government of Syria.
	And of course, it's never actually been marshaled against Iran, which is a very strong country.
	Anyone who thinks that Iran could be dominated the way Iraq or Libya or other of these countries were dominated really needs to think twice.
	Not only that, but Iran is perhaps the most peaceful great nation in the world, having not launched a war of aggression against any other state since 1775.
	Just to put that in perspective, the ratification of the Constitution began in 1787.
	The election of George Washington in 1789.
	So for longer than the United States has existed as a constitutional republic, Iran has not launched a war of aggression against any other state.
	It did, of course, Defend itself against the onslaught from Iraq, which was promoted by the American government, and both sides lost about a million apiece.
	But while Iran has been willing to defend itself, it has not been an aggressor nation, but perhaps the most peace-loving great nation in the world.
	Meanwhile, here are some of the members of the Project for a New American Century who moved into the Department of Defense when Bush Cheney came into office.
	Paul Wolfowitz, with his hand on his head.
	Richard Perle, known as the Dark Prince.
	These were among the principal proponents of the politics of American entry into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states in retaliation, of course, for the attack on 9-11.
	So what happened in New York?
	The Twin Towers were actually marvels of engineering.
	They had a robust tube within a tube design.
	The New York Port Authority transferred the World Trade Center for the first time to private holding to Silverstein Properties just six weeks prior to the events of 9-11, where Larry Silverstein fired the security firm that had been providing security for the World Trade Center since it first opened in 1970.
	Hired an Israeli firm instead and negotiated new insurance coverage, including an anti-terrorist clause, so that when there were attacks, allegedly two attacks by two different planes, he claimed double indemnity and pocketed over four and a half billion dollars on a hundred and fourteen million dollar investment.
	He's not known as Lucky Larry for nothing.
	So here you see the really magnificent Twin Towers, the north distinguished by the massive tower on the top, the south lacking.
	You can see these divisions here because, as we'll later explain, the principal components were three 30-story buildings on top of one another.
	Now just to give you an idea of the engineering, there were 47 massive core columns at the center, but then there were like 240 external steel support columns, where they were connected by steel trusses, so that the core columns were connected by steel trusses to the external steel support columns, which are quite formidable in and of themselves.
	And then there was a Concrete was poured on top of each of those floors.
	This decreed all this open office space.
	It was an ingenious design that received all kinds of accolades for engineering and architecture.
	Now it's also interesting to note that the steel beams were 6 inches thick in the sub-basement, and then they went to 5 for the next 16 floors, then 4 inches thick, then 3 inches thick, 2 inches thick, Okay, all the way up to the top where they were only a quarter inch thick for the top 14 floors.
	So the mass of the steel was overwhelmingly greater in the lower and much lighter at the top, which becomes very significant subsequently when I explain that it was physically impossible for a twin tower to collapse.
	Physically impossible.
	The probability of the collapse of a twin tower was a zero.
	Meanwhile, many do not know to this day that there were not only Building 1 and Building 2, the North and South Tower, but there were other buildings.
	Three, the Marriott Hotel complex.
	Four, Four of the World Trade Center, five of the World Trade Center, six, and Building 7, where, you know, these buildings, the principal buildings, one through six, were destroyed in the attack, but Building 7 would only be destroyed about seven hours later after the destruction of the North Tower at 5.20 in the afternoon.
	Meanwhile, there was an interesting problem with these buildings.
	They were laden with asbestos.
	Larry Silverstein knew this when he took possession of the Twin Towers.
	The asbestos was quite substantial and created the following dilemma.
	There are problems with truancy in the Twin Towers.
	They didn't have a lot of tenants.
	They weren't financially remunerative.
	It would have been a good idea to demolish them and replace them.
	However, because of the asbestos, they could not undertake a classic controlled demolition that would have released asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.
	Therefore, there were only two alternatives.
	They could construct massive scaffolding around each of the buildings and undertake a bestow
	subatement or removal, which was estimated to run about a billion dollars apiece, or
	they could have, you know, undertaken a very gradual piece by piece dismemberment of the
	building, which would have been absolutely stunning, staggering in its proportions.
	How convenient that terrorists just happened to come along and take down the buildings
	where the owner wouldn't be responsible for the release of asbestos and other heavy metal
	and where Christie Whitman, whom I damn to this day as head of the EPA, said the air
	was safe to breathe when it was anything but completely outrageous.
	So here you see a photograph.
	It's as though all and only buildings with a WC The WTC designation had been slated for removal.
	Here is where Building 7 stood in the past, to which we shall return as we proceed.
	Meanwhile, the transfer of the World Trade Center into private hands was engineered or responsibility of the Port Authority of New York, including Frank Lowry, Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder, all of whom are very prominent Zionists.
	Very prominent Zionists.
	And whom I believe are all, again, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, as is Larry Silverstein.
	They call him Lucky Larry, who would have a conversation every Sunday with his dear friend, Benjamin Netanyahu.
	The ties to Israel among those who were involved in the transfer into private hands were enormous and clearly revolved around the best interests of Israel.
	When, in fact, that transfer was made to security, it went to an Israeli company by the name of Kroll.
	And, you know, it's just one of many signs of what was going on here.
	It turns out there was an Israeli messenger service a day ago that was actually sending out messages to warn Israelis not to come into work that day.
	I even had a little old lady From Brooklyn called me and told me that the rabbi had told the members of her synagogue not to go into lower Manhattan that day.
	Willie Brown even was warned Acknowledge that he'd been warned not to fly that day.
	He didn't want to reveal the source, but it appears to have been Condoleezza Rice.
	So isn't it interesting that Condoleezza Rice would be warning Willie Brown not to fly on 9-11?
	Other 9-11 oddities.
	There's no evidence the hijackers were actually aboard any of the planes.
	The hijacker passports were actually issued by the CIA rather than by the Department of State.
	Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget the day before the event on 9-10, where it just so turns out that the chief financial officer, the controller of the Pentagon at the time, was Doug Zockheim, who's not only a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, he's actually a rabbi, and had a company that was responsible For manufacturing remote control systems to regain control of an aircraft should it be subjected to hijacking, which I believe was the original plan.
	As Craig McKee, who has a wonderful Truth in Shadows website, has reported, there isn't any evidence that any of the 9-11 hijackers actually boarded any of the planes.
	There are two different timestamps on that one.
	Not only that, but the 9-11 hijacker passports were issued by the CIA, where a whistleblower, Michael Springman, was ordered to give visas to the eventual terrorists.
	This is pretty fascinating.
	Turns out the company P-TECH had access to all FAA databases for two hours on the morning of 9-11.
	Another Israeli company!
	Meanwhile, Ron Selde explained $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget.
	Now think about it.
	This is a Monday.
	A big story like that, released early in the week, is going to grow and grow during the week.
	It's going to, as they say, get legs.
	So that a sophisticated politician and operator like Donald Rumsfeld would know better than to release information like that early in the week and save it till Friday.
	Hope it got buried by other events that would overwhelm it.
	But this appears to have been the occasion for Donald Rumsfeld to call the head of the The Financial Group to undertake an investigation of where the money had gone by bringing together all the members of his section, including financial analysts, budgetary experts, and accounts into the West Wing on the morning of 9-11 with all their records.
	Now, what you may not know is the West Wing had just been renovated.
	It was the only wing of the Pentagon with its five wings that had been made basically, you know, bomb-proof.
	And as a consequence, there were virtually no personnel or property in the West Wing except for the budgetary committee that Rumsfeld had directed to go there and the Office of Naval Intelligence, which we suspect was trying to figure out What was going on on 9-11?
	And when I looked at the list of purported victims from the Pentagon, I was astonished that there were three dozen.
	Three dozen names on the list were budget experts, accountants, and financial analysts who would have been in that way.
	Here you see Dov Zockheim, the controller, the rabbi, and you can well imagine where that 2.3 trillion went.
	Taxpayer expense, no doubt, to our gallant ally in the Middle East.
	Meanwhile, what was up with the North Tower?
	If a Boeing 767 had crashed there, we'd expect to find evidence of the crash, right?
	The video evidence is peculiar.
	It looks, when you do a frame-by-frame analysis, like a flying pig.
	That's a Rosalie Grebel, also known as a web fairy's depiction, which is highly appropriate.
	It looks like an impossible entry, because the plane was intersecting with seven different floors, as I shall explain.
	A gelatin group, this was Israeli art students so-called, who are conducting performance art external to each of the Twin Towers, who may have played a role in setting up to create the gashes in the side of the building.
	Now, it just so happened that a film crew from France, calling themselves the Naudé Brothers, were there on Duane Street, where they heard the plane, but since the plane is traveling faster than the speed of sound by the time they heard the plane, the plane would have been far distant, and yet the cameraman just happened to swing his camera up to catch the impact with the North Tower.
	That's pretty remarkable in and of itself.
	This all appears to have been There's a fellow named Raphael from Scotland who has observed the 100 improbable circumstances that had to be satisfied in order for the Naude film crew to be in exactly the right place to swing the camera up to capture the crash in the North Tower.
	And where, by the way, just to show how blatant they are about these things, Now this is what a 767 would look like if it actually were approaching the North Tower again.
	Brothers, you know, not Dave Brothers, appears to be an anagram for Duane Street, S-T, when
	you rearrange the letters.
	How bad is that?
	Now this is what a 767 would look like if it actually were approaching the North Tower
	again.
	Notice the antenna.
	But here's what we actually have when you take a look at the footage.
	It's very peculiar.
	It doesn't look right.
	Here's the first hit frame.
	There's a flash there, which is peculiar.
	We find a similar flash in relation to the South Tower, as I shall also observe.
	But it just doesn't look right.
	Now, from the initial impact, it looks like we had kind of a Z-shaped pattern.
	But yet, with the smoke clears, it's simply an elongated V. And there's even an extension here at the end, where even after the crash, they decided to extend the wing.
	Remember that the tip of a wing on a plane is very fragile.
	It'd be very unlikely it could penetrate massive steel barriers.
	In fact, all of this looks quite ridiculous.
	Judy Wood has referred to these as cookie cutter cutouts, analogous to the Wile E. Coyote cartoons, where Wile E. crashes through a boulder and leaves an exact silhouette of himself.
	Here you can see the original Nadé frame of impact and how it's been extended.
	Jack Quiet, as I recall, pointed this out to me.
	So there's a lot of funny business going on here, fabricating evidence.
	I mean, after all, What's the probability if this had been legit that there'd be an addition to the damage done by the wing?
	Or what's the probability if it had been legit that you'd have a cookie cutter cutout?
	In fact, it appears all that was going on beneath the smoke and flames that occurred from what we surmise was previously positioned Jet fuel and even napalm.
	I mean, it's really extraordinary.
	So that you had this massive explosion that was attributed to the impact of the plane.
	But behind this scenario, things are going on.
	In fact, in video here, you'll see twinkling little points that I've suggested.
	Perhaps these are the points of light, the thousand points of light that George H.W.
	Bush described for us.
	So, poetically.
	Okay, Flight 11 was actually intersecting with seven different floors.
	Now, each of those, as I've observed before, was a steel truss connected at one end to the core columns, at the other to the external steel support columns, and filled with two to four inches of concrete.
	Now, the variance is because the trusses had V-shaped grooves that were two inches deep, and therefore in some areas the depth of the concrete was two, but in other areas four inches deep.
	Because the buildings were 208 feet on a side, that means each floor represented an acre of concrete on a steel truss.
	The very idea that a Boeing 767 could have penetrated seven floors on an angle is preposterous.
	It ought to have crumpled external to the building.
	A body seat, luggage, wings, tail fallen to the ground.
	Engines might have intervened, but possibly not.
	Now, a fellow biominivist, Steve Dock, and I have debated about how to create those external gashes.
	Steve is suggesting it was done by missiles that were fired just to create the illusion.
	And I cannot tell you that he's wrong about this.
	But I can't tell you there are only, it appears to me, two serious options.
	Steve's alternative of missiles having been fired at an angle to create the impression, or the gelatin group having in place previously positioned explosive to blow it out.
	There are various elements that could be cited here on either side.
	It's pretty fascinating to contemplate.
	This is one of the few areas, in my opinion, where there's still room for debate.
	If I'm inside the Israeli Arts, the Gelatin Group, inside the World Trade Center, where they had boxes and boxes of fuse holders.
	Suggesting to me that was either to implant charges to create that external impression or even to position that, you know, to prime the building for explosion by using those fuse holders throughout the building.
	Well, what then about the South Tower?
	We have an aerodynamically impossible speed at the altitude of 700 to 1,000 feet.
	So we have another aerodynamic impossibility here in New York, parallel to the aerodynamic impossibility at the Pentagon.
	It was physically impossible for a Boeing 767 to make an entry into the tower.
	Here it was intersecting with eight different floors, just as in the North Tower it had been intersecting with seven.
	There's no airplane debris beneath the facade, which ought to have been the case, had a plane actually crashed there.
	Meanwhile, there was an engine, an antiquated engine, planted at Church and Murray Streets, further proof that this whole thing was fabricated.
	Here you see what purports to be Flight 175 approaching the South Tower.
	Now, unlike the North Tower, where we only have the one Naudé Brothers footage, and another taken from a bridge that's far less informative than the Naudé Brothers, we have some 52 videos of what's supposed to be Flight 175 approaching the building.
	Pilots for 9-11 Truth has done absolutely brilliant work and they have ascertained that the plane shown here approaching the South Tower actually exceeds the rate of speed that the National Transportation Safety Board concluded At that, the plane was traveling at 510 knots or 430 knots for the United 175 South Tower and American North Tower, respectively.
	30 knots for the United 175 South Tower and American North Tower, respectively.
	So the South Tower, 510 knots, for the North, 430.
	Those are both impossible speeds for a Boeing 767, exceeding the max.
	So what pilots have shown in their own documentary, 9-11 Intercepted, which I'm sorry to say most Americans have never watched, they actually show exceeding the stress capabilities of a 767, the plane would have come apart in flight.
	It would never have even reached the South Tower.
	Meanwhile, we have the actual footage showing the plane effortlessly melting into the building.
	Now mind you, as observed before, we're witnessing here an impossibility.
	This is very like, you know, we see impossible things with movies made about Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, all kinds of impossibilities which we forgive because they're movies.
	We tend not to think about Hollywood special effects and editing techniques being applied in what we take to be real life.
	Well, I guarantee you what you're witnessing here, although purporting to be real life, cannot possibly actually be.
	Because you have a plane effortlessly entering a massive 110-story building, a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building intersecting eight different floors, With no collision effects whatsoever.
	None.
	So here you see diagrammatically what's going on here.
	I guarantee 100% it was physically impossible for Flight 175 to enter the South Tower, just as it was also physically impossible for Flight 11 to enter the South.
	They ought to have crumbled external to the building.
	But here's what we see from the Evan Fairbanks taken looking straight upward.
	The plane is passing its whole length in air in the same number of frames it passes its whole length into the building.
	Now obviously that's a manifest absurdity unless a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air.
	One of the other anomalies here is that in the footage, there's a peculiarity.
	Look at the bottom left.
	They actually captured the nose coming out of the building on the opposite side.
	Now, this is preposterous.
	The nose of an aircraft, a commercial aircraft, is loaded with electronics.
	It is the most fragile part of an airplane.
	Therefore, a nose out is utterly impossible, preposterous, and absurd, which is why the networks, even though filming the most important footage in recent American history, went to fade to black.
	Fade to black when the nose out occurred.
	Because they were embarrassed thinking the whole plane might emerge.
	Now, this was a hand-eye coordination problem, it appears, but the fact they went to fade to black gives it away.
	This is outrageous.
	Fade to black.
	Meanwhile, what ought to have actually occurred is well shown by Ace Baker in his magisterial 9-11 Psy Opera.
	Brilliant piece of work, where he depicts the plane crumbling external to the building.
	Instead, what we got were these massive effects, explosion, you know, brilliant dazzling smoke, other effects, which has to have been caused not by the aircraft itself, but by pre-positioned jet fuel, even napalm, I surmise.
	Now we know that no planes hit either of the buildings because on the roadway and walkway, the sidewalk and street beneath the facades, there was no airplane debris for either the North or the South Tower.
	None!
	No bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no tail.
	Ridiculous!
	Meanwhile at Church and Murray Street, We find a 767 engine, but alas, not one that was currently in use.
	So this was a prop.
	This was a special effect just laid on the sidewalk.
	It was underneath a canopy and steel scaffolding, which were undamaged.
	Jack White, once again with his keen eye, spotted a white van in the vicinity where about five agents in vests were unloading something very heavy.
	Making the delivery!
	So, they may have even used this dolly in the process.
	But the fact of the matter is, this was planted engine.
	I would also observe, by the way, that anything as massive as one of these engines, coming at high velocity, would have made mincemeat of the sidewalk.
	It would have been all gouged up.
	There'd be a deep furrow there, rather analogous to the furrows that would have been made in the Pentagon Lawn, and a plane actually crashed there.
	They are not there.
	Therefore, not only did the plane not crash in the Pentagon, but an engine didn't hit the sidewalk at Church and Murray in New York City.
	So, how was it done?
	The facades, as I observed, have cookie-cutter cutouts.
	Could it have been done with computer-generated images?
	That was Valerie Gable, the web fairy's hypothesis.
	Could it have been done by video compositing?
	That would be by adding the images of planes between the time the initial footage is shot and it's released to the public.
	There's a 17-second interval during which that could have been done.
	Could it have been done alternatively with holograms?
	Now remember, that crucial stage of speculation demands that we consider all the possible available explanations.
	We got these empty holes.
	There'd be skin of the plane wrapped around the keel columns, but the holes themselves are devoid of any sign of a plane.
	So, further evidence that no plane created these cutouts.
	If a verb doesn't vaporize the process of slicing a wing, then a plane shouldn't vaporize during the process of slicing steel and concrete.
	Where is the evidence that a plane created these holes?
	And we have.
	There are hundreds upon hundreds of the damage that birds, which only weigh a few ounces, have done to the trajectory of aircraft in flight.
	Just think about a plane in flight.
	If this damage will be done by a bird weighing a few ounces, If a plane were to encounter a single floor, an acre of concrete on a sterile truss in flight, I mean, imagine the catastrophic consequences.
	If birds slice through aluminum plane wings and nose cones, can these same fragile wings have easily cut through steel columns?
	The answer, obviously, emphatically, no.
	By Newton's third law of physics, I explain we should have had collision effects.
	Now apologists for the official account want to claim that there was a bunker buster experiment.
	This was using a An F-16, as I recall, that was mounted on a railroad trussle and rushed into a nuclear-resistant bunker at very high speed, around 400 miles an hour.
	And it blew apart in every direction.
	Now, the points I've made is this plane, which I gather was actually loaded with water, is made of a synthetic element to blow apart, and that it did not, it did not penetrate The concrete barrier!
	So how can they claim this shows what happened to the plane?
	It's completely ridiculous!
	The plane should have been busted out on the outside of the building.
	Instead, it disappeared.
	The plane would be exerting tremendous force on the wall, while the wall would be exerting an equal and opposite force on the plane.
	Remember, just as I observed with regard to the lamp post, A plane traveling 400 miles an hour hitting stationary lampposts would have effects to the same effects as if the plane were stationary hit by lampposts traveling 400 miles an hour in relation to the buildings.
	A stationary 500 ton building being hit by a plane going over 400 miles an hour would have the same effect if the plane were stationary and hit by a 500 Thousand-ton building going over a 400 miles an hour.
	That may clarify your thinking about this matter.
	It's elementary physics.
	So how was it done?
	Well, as I said, there are three different accounts.
	Computer-generated images that would be used to create the image of the plane, the theory of the ghost plane, AceMaker, that was added in, or the idea of a hologram.
	Now, the problem with computer-generated images and video compositing is, at the very least, the following.
	Hundreds of witnesses maintain they'd seen a plane approaching the South Tower.
	Hundreds of witnesses.
	They described it in various ways.
	Some said it was a large plane.
	Some said it was a small plane.
	Some said it was a commercial plane.
	Some said it was a military plane.
	But you have hundreds of witnesses with contradictory accounts claiming to have seen a plane in real time approach the building.
	But had either of the techniques of video compositing or computer-generated images been employed to create the impression we saw in the broadcast images, there would have been nothing to see in real time because the images would not have been there.
	They were only on the broadcast footage.
	Therefore, If we take seriously the idea of these witnesses, it includes a whole lot of firemen, for example, who are notable for their commitment to integrity and speaking the truth, then it was done in another different manner.
	What could that have been?
	Richard D. Hall of the UK performed his Flight 911, Flight 175, 911 radar data 3D analysis.
	You can find it online.
	A completely brilliant piece of work.
	What he did was to take those 52 videos And figure out which of those were sufficiently precise that he could get locations of the plane at specific times, so he could create a graph.
	So he created a plot from about 27 of the videos that enabled him to extract data of the plane approaching the building.
	He discovered later that this claimed to have a similar plot, same location, same times, which they said was based upon radar data.
	But the radar data they purported to have used did not look to him to be reliable.
	He found this very peculiar.
	Now it turns out there actually was a radar path, that he did discover radar data.
	However, it was for a plane that was 1,200 feet to the right of the projected image.
	1,200 feet to the right.
	So you got the civilian radar path versus the military radar path.
	The civilian, this is what we see in the civilian videos, the actual bona fide radar path is 1,200 feet to the side.
	So how would that be possible and explained?
	Well, if the plane 1,200 feet to the side was projecting the image of a Boeing 767, that might explain exactly what we're witnessing here.
	The impossible speed where the plane that was projecting the image of a 767 was not itself a 767, And therefore could fly faster at 700,000 feet than a commercial airliner 767 could fly at that speed, where the blunder appears to have occurred by taking the cruising speed of a 767 at 35,000 feet and assuming it could fly that fast at 700 to 1,000, where the air is three times thicker and the turbines can't process it fast enough and begin to function as brakes,
	But the smaller plane could fly faster and had to do so, we surmise, in order to maintain the integrity of the holographic image.
	That explains why there was no collision physics because the image was passing through the building and the image, of course, wouldn't have to crumble when it interacted with a 500,000 ton building.
	It would also explain why the nose out occurred.
	It was the image of the hologram before they shot it down.
	And why the military radar didn't detect a plane in the observed position.
	Because the radar functions by bouncing off of solid metal objects.
	A projected holograph is not a solid metal object.
	So you would not have a corresponding image on the radar.
	Thus it appears to have been done in the manner shown here.
	A plane flying faster, 1,200 feet to the side, projecting the image that was then picked up and captured by the 52 videos, where Richard D. Hall, in my opinion, did a brilliant piece of work.
	Where I was subsequently sent a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector.
	Read this.
	The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location Remove from the digital generator, the display generator.
	The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management.
	It's also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging in an unsophisticated adversary.
	So here you see the plane projecting the image of another plane, exactly as appears to have happened in New York on 9-11.
	You often hear about no-plane theory, and it sounds on the face to be completely absurd, because after all, we saw videos of those planes, did we not?
	We have reports of planes from the Pentagon, and another was supposed to have crashed at Shanksville.
	Well, actually, no plane theory doesn't mean there were no planes involved.
	Remember, one actually flew toward the Pentagon and then swerved over it, just as an explosion occurred, as was witnessed by Roy Schaeffer's friend, who declined to come on the air with me and tell his story, and was found dead in an abandoned building two weeks later.
	The no-plane theory actually consists of the conjunction of four theses.
	Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower.
	Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon.
	Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
	Now you can see the reason why no-blame theory may suddenly appear to you vastly more plausible than it has in the past, before you actually look at the evidence.
	Now, Pilot for 9-11 Truth has done so much brilliant work, they are the unheralded heroes of the whole 9-11 aircraft investigation.
	They discovered, for example, that Flight 93 was still airborne, that it was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, after it had officially crashed in Pennsylvania.
	That Flight 175 was also airborne after it had officially hit the South Tower.
	It was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it had officially collided with the South Tower.
	Not only that, but Gerard Holmgren, who is a brilliant blues musician from Australia, early on recognized some kind of fakery was taking place by consulting the Bureau of Transportation's statistics records.
	Now, the Bureau of Transportation keeps records on every takeoff and every landing of every commercial plane in the United States.
	It keeps track of when it was at the gate, when the passengers loaded, when it departed from the gate, when it was wheels up, when it was wheels down.
	What Gerard Holmgren discovered is that there was no Bureau of Transportation chart for an American Airlines Flight 11 to depart Boston-Logan on 9-11.
	In other words, Flight 11 was not even in the air.
	Meanwhile, he also discovered there was similarly no American Airlines flight data for the Bureau of Transportation for flight 77 scheduled to depart Dallas on 9-11.
	So not only was the plane that allegedly hit the North Tower not even in the air, neither was a plane that purportedly hit the Pentagon.
	I went about obtaining FAA registration records for the two planes that Pilots for 9-11 Truth had confirmed were still in the air after they'd allegedly crashed or hit the South Tower and discovered that both of those planes were not formally registered or taken out of service until 28 September 2005.
	In other words, the Federal Aviation Administration keeps records on when every plane is officially taken out of service.
	Remember, the same plane can be used for multiple flights on different occasions, today from Tampa to Chicago, tomorrow from New York to San Francisco.
	So we're talking about the planes that were physically used for Flight 93 and physically used for Flight 175.
	Which were not even taken out of service or officially decommissioned until 28 September 2005, which raises the following questions.
	How can planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9-11?
	And how can planes that crashed on 9-11 have still been in the air four years later?
	Meanwhile, we have to ask ourselves what happened to the World Trade Center.
	There were explosions in the sub-basement roughly at the same time as the hits by the planes, or so we were told.
	But they occurred 14 and 17 seconds before the alleged impact.
	Falling jet fuel was supposed to have explained them falling through the elevator shafts, but in fact it didn't happen.
	It was necessary to create an ingenious mode of demolition for the Twin Towers, To preserve the bathtub intact, as I shall now explain.
	It's interesting, even fascinating, that Donald Trump was the first personality in the world to contest the official version of the attacks on 9-11 on television that very day.
	Having noted that the engineers who built the Twin Towers were now working for him, he declared on New York's Channel 9, it was impossible that Boeing's going to burst through the steel structures of the towers.
	He continued stating it was impossible Boeing's could have caused the towers to collapse.
	He concluded by affirming there had to be other factors of which we were as yet unaware.
	He actually used the word bombs.
	And when you consider that bombs are powerful sources of explosive power, Donald Trump was 100% correct.
	Now here's smoke indicating from those explosives in the sub-basements, in this case of the North Tower, as you can see with the antenna there.
	But it occurred in the South as well.
	The explosion were powerful enough to blow up glass in the lobby and to bring about, you know, tremors.
	So we had these very early first impact.
	This was actually about the time the plane approaches.
	That's supposed to be a seismic effect for the plane hitting the building, but it's actually an effect from the explosion going off in the sub-basement for the North Tower, and then subsequently for the South.
	These now much more massive explosions are for the South Tower, and then later for the North.
	Which becomes readily explicable once we understand what actually is going on here.
	Now, it turns out that two members of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, actually undertook a study of the phenomenon here of the relationship between the seismic signals recorded and the video or radar allegations for the impact.
	It found that the seismic signal for Flight 11 in the North Tower occurred at 8.46.26, but the actual visual impact was not until 8.46.40, a 14 second difference, that the impact occurred 14 seconds after.
	The seismic recording.
	And for Flight 175, similarly, the original seismic was at 9.0254, but the video impact not until 9.0311, 17 seconds.
	So in both cases, the explosions occurred 14 seconds and 17 seconds, respectively, prior to the plane having made contact with the buildings.
	Now, I mentioned that the Twin Towers were basically three 30-story buildings constructed upon one another.
	Interestingly, we're seeing a lot of the elevator systems here, okay?
	They'd go up a certain number of floors you'd have to get off.
	Even if you wanted to go all the way to the top, you'd go up roughly 30 floors, get off, go to another elevator, get off, go to another elevator.
	There are only one or two shafts that went all the way from the top to the bottom.
	So it's really a stretch to suggest that pulling jet fuel caused all the way to the sub-basement
	caused those explosions, which was a purported explanation the 9-11 Commission would like
	us to buy.
	Now, I've mentioned that it was terribly important they had to preserve the bathtub.
	This was indispensable to maintaining the integrity of Lower New York.
	The bathtub was kind of like an elaborate dike to keep Hudson River water out.
	If the bathtub had been seriously damaged, Hudson River water would have flooded beneath
	lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, including the subway tunnels
	and the path to the troubles beneath the river to New Jersey.
	So they had to avoid that from happening.
	This required an ingenious design.
	You can see here after the excavation and removal where World Trade Center 1 and World
	Trade Center 2 had previously stood inside the bathtub.
	Now what you have to understand, and this is indispensable, the Twin Towers did not
	collapse.
	They were blown apart outwardly in every direction from the top down.
	This is what we observed externally.
	They could not possibly have collapsed.
	It wasn't even physically possible.
	On the contrary, the buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which incidentally is a signature of the use of nuclear devices.
	There was no pile of debris in either of their footprints.
	Father Frank Morales from St.
	Mark's Episcopal Church, a first responder, was on my shows in the past twice.
	Both times he affirmed the buildings were destroyed to or below ground level.
	Just look at the destruction of the North Tower.
	Again, you notice the antenna.
	Does this look like a collapse?
	Remember, to collapse, you have all the floors coming down at the same time, symmetrically, typically, and there's a massive pile of debris when it's over.
	You do not have Debris blowing outward from the top down in every direction.
	That is no collapse.
	This is why I, witnessing this take place, said to myself, what I'm witnessing here is impossible.
	But when would I ever be in a position to do anything about it?
	According to the official account, the planes hit the building, they weakened the structure by the intense fire, and it worked as a pile driver.
	The higher floors driving down the lower floors, driving down lower floors, driving down lower floors.
	Nice story, but it's fantastic!
	Chuck Baldwin, who's a retired high school math, physics, and chemistry professor, for example, Who gave me the earlier diagram where you could see the relative thickness of the steel columns calculated.
	That for every downward unit of weight from the top 16 floors, remember where the steel was only a quarter inch thick, there were 190 units of upward force.
	I mean, it was just preposterous.
	Not only that, but John Skilling had built the buildings with a safety factor of 20.
	What that means is every floor could support 20 times its expected live load.
	20 times!
	Where the live load is equal to the dead load of the buildings empty, but the live load is all the furniture, the equipment, the computers, and the people who would be there.
	20 times the expected live load.
	There was no physically possible way they could collapse.
	So look here, look at this.
	This is an actual, and here you see in the foreground, Building 7, which wouldn't Actually collapsed until 5.20 in the afternoon, about seven hours later.
	Can anyone in the world seriously look at this photograph and believe that this is the North Tower undergoing a collapse?
	I mean, it's preposterous!
	Just think of the power of the psychological operation of convincing the American people there's a collapse, when what we're witnessing is something completely different.
	This cannot possibly be a collapse.
	There you see it.
	So who are you going to believe?
	You know, me, says a government spokesman, or your lying eyes?
	Reminds us of the old Richard Pryor cartoon.
	Ridiculous.
	Meanwhile, here's wonderful footage of the last destruction of the spires from the North Tower.
	Look at them disintegrate before your very eyes.
	Now, while Judy Wood suggests this is because of the use of directed energy weaponry, it appears to be the result of the use of nuclear devices.
	Just as I said, the conversion of all of, you know, these massive 500,000-ton buildings into very fine dust is a signature of nuclear devices.
	I'm going to explain why the nuclear hypothesis can explain everything the directed energy hypothesis can, but also evidence the directed energy hypothesis cannot explain.
	Obviously, when a hypothesis is superior to another, when it can explain available evidence, the other cannot, as well as all the evidence the other can.
	So that's going to be a test case.
	Here you see the enormity of the dust clouds that were generated by the conversion of those buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	Now, remember the 47 core columns.
	Here you see a couple of arrangements for bombs in the World Trade Center, but this is just meant to be an object of discussion.
	There are theories that there were, you know, a small nuclear bomb implanted in the sub-basement To take out the Twin Towers.
	How could that be consistent with what we observe?
	You would think a small nuclear device would have destroyed the Twin Towers from the bottom up, not from the top down.
	However, on the most sophisticated version, The buildings are destroyed by having the inner tube destroyed from the bottom up and then as a consequence the outer tube blowing the building apart from the top down.
	The result being there's nothing left in the footprint.
	The alternative is a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes to blow out the parts of the building in one segment after another segment after another.
	I am Completely open to debating how this was done.
	And by the way, on this very program, in two days, I will feature Jeff Prager on America Nuked on 9-11, where Jeff was one of the first to put the pieces together that this had to be a nuclear event.
	Because as I have previously featured, Joe Olson, who is both a civil and a structural engineer, to address the very same issue, they both converged in their conclusion.
	Now, how do we know that it cannot have been a directed energy weapon, or jet fuel alone, or even nanothermite?
	Jet fuel could not have ejected a 30-ton steel assembly up at a 45-degree angle and 600 feet outward into the winter garden, which is something that happened.
	It required a massive source of explosive energy, which neither jet energy nor directed energy nor nanothermite can provide.
	So, Winter Garden is where dews and nanothermite go to die.
	Really serious.
	What then about Building 7?
	And by the way, I'll return to these points.
	Building 7 may be the most robust building ever designed by the hand of man.
	It was erected over two enormous electrical generators.
	It was designed to never collapse.
	Just to give you one illustration, even in the North and the South Tower, the massive steel beams were hollowed out in the center.
	Because hollowed out steel beams provide virtually as much support as Solid steel beams.
	But in Building 7, they used solid steel beams.
	It collapsed, and it actually did collapse at 5 20 p.m.
	Eastern Time.
	It was the last building to be destroyed.
	This was a classic controlled demolition, and it left as a residue 5.5 floors of debris, or approximately 12 percent of its original 47-4 height.
	Interesting, there was a glitch in the reporting on 9-11, where Jane Standley of the BBC was reporting that Building 7 had already collapsed.
	This was at about 4-57, when Building 7 was actually visible in the background behind her.
	So this is a major glitz.
	She reported the 47-story Solomon Brothers building, which was another name for Building 7, because Solomon Brothers had built a huge number of floors, and the building was so robust, they actually completely redesigned their floors.
	Hence the alternative name Solomon Brothers Building has also collapsed 23 minutes before that event would take place.
	This happens when you're operating on the basis of a script and there are glitches that interfere.
	There is an actual building, this often happens with poured concrete buildings, not with structurally reinforced.
	This I believe was in Pakistan.
	Look at that!
	Put that in your mind.
	Record it.
	Keep it in your memory bank.
	That is a building that actually collapsed.
	Meanwhile, here you can see the sequence of destruction of Building 7.
	It had a classic little kink right at the top.
	All the floors are coming down at the same time, totally symmetrically into its own footprint.
	Even Dan Rather, on television that day, said this looks just like the classic controlled demolitions we see of resorts and casinos in Las Vegas.
	And indeed it was.
	He got it exactly right.
	Here's that five and a half floors of debris.
	Had the Twin Towers been destroyed by a demolition, a classic controlled demolition.
	There would have been 12% of 110 floors of debris or 13 and a half floors of debris, but they were not there.
	There was nothing in the footprint.
	So the contrast is stunning.
	Meanwhile, Barry Jennings was a member of the New York Emergency Management Team.
	He went to Building 7 in the morning to the Command and Control Center that Rudy Giuliani had established there, a couple of floors with its own air and water.
	When he got there, he discovered half-eaten sandwiches, still steaming cups of coffee.
	A fireman came along and said, we've got to get you out of here.
	While Barry Jennings was inside the buildings, explosions were taking place.
	A stairwell was blown out from under his feet.
	At one point, he felt himself stepping over bodies.
	In the pitch black, he couldn't see them, but he could feel them.
	And when he got out, he gave interviews about it.
	Now, here you can see the contrast between the North Tower here, where you can see it's destroyed to ground level.
	You don't see 13 1⁄2 floors.
	And Building 7, we have 5 1⁄2 floors.
	Here's Building 6 with an enormous blowout.
	I mean, each of these buildings is fascinating in and of itself for a study.
	But the question becomes then, how was it done?
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey studied dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan.
	They found elements present that would only have been of there had this been a nuclear event.
	Nanothermite cannot possibly have done it and obviously would not leave elements that are only available from a nuclear event.
	Dews, likewise, cannot explain the available evidence.
	So consider the dust settled all over the city.
	Absolutely massive.
	It averaged around two and a half inches across lower Manhattan.
	And Judy Wood has done calculations that if you were to calculate the amount of dust from the conversions of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, it's a very close approximation to the amount of dust that was distributed around lower Manhattan When you take into account that a lot of it was blown out to sea by the wind.
	The elements that were found there included barium and strontium.
	Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities.
	The levels never fall before 400 parts per million for barium.
	They never drop below 700 parts per million for strontium and reach over 3,000 parts per million for both of the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Street.
	Thorium and uranium.
	These elements only exist in radioactive form.
	Thorium is a radioactive element formed by uranium by the clay.
	It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble ever.
	So once again, we have verifiable evidence that nuclear fission has taken place.
	Lithium.
	With a presence of lithium, we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of uranium to thorium and helium, with subsequent delay of the helium into lithium, has taken place.
	Lanthanum, the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element barium.
	Yttrium, The next decay element after strontium, which further confirms the presence of barium, chromium.
	The presence of chromium is one more telltale signature of a nuclear detonation.
	Tritium, a very rare element, should not be found in concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC 6, no less than 11 days after 9-11.
	Another telltale sign of the use of nuclear vents.
	Here's another called The Curse of Ground Zero.
	The number of cancer cases among 9-11 responders and civilian survivors tripled to more than 5,400 in fewer than three years.
	all kinds of bizarre and exotic cancers, esophageal, pancreatic, leukemia, multiple myelomia, a pattern that was equivalent
	to what we saw at Chernobyl, where incidentally the Soviet Union responded to the
	nuclear meltdown there very much as was responded in your heart.
	Rudy Giuliani, the mayor, was able to arrange for 150 dump trucks to take away the debris the morning after on 9-12.
	I surmise it would take any of us a month to arrange for one dump truck.
	Rudy had 115.
	What Judy would observe, quite astutely, is not only were they taking out all of the debris, which was then shipped to China for disposal against the demands of the fire marshals who wanted it to be subjected to an analysis to determine what had actually happened.
	It was bringing in tens of thousands of tons of dirt to absorb the radioactive remnants.
	It was done in Chernobyl.
	The Soviets brought in tens of thousands of tons of dirt so that the actual debris pile in New York actually increased the first couple of days because they were bringing in this massive piles of dirt to absorb the radioactivity.
	And by the way, as an aside, can you imagine why Geiger counters were outlawed for use in New York City following 9-11?
	Think about it.
	Meanwhile, It's simply dumbfounding that Richard Gage would go on to C-SPAN, this would be many years later, and leave 9-11 Truth in a time warp.
	I was completely astonished.
	Richard Gage heads an organization called Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	He is and continues to advocate nanothermite.
	But as I mentioned here, actually, Mark Hightower is a chemical engineer, and I prove nanothermite couldn't possibly have done it.
	in three articles published on 1 May 2011, 17 July 2011, and 27 August 2011. And yet in 2014,
	Richard Gage is going on C-SPAN to talk about nanothermite.
	Now it turns out, and this is extremely significant, for an explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material.
	That means that for an explosive to destroy concrete, it must have a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 meters per second.
	To fragment steel, a detonation velocity of at least 6,100 meters per second.
	But as Mark Hightower and I established, the highest detonation velocity ever recorded in the scientific literature for nanothermite is only 885, 895 meters per second.
	In other words, not powerful enough to shatter concrete, much less to decimate steel.
	It's very interesting, too, that Niels Herreth, who is a retired professor of chemistry from Denmark, as I recall.
	A proponent of the nanothermite hypothesis has estimated that would have required hundreds of tons to do the job.
	Bear in mind, nanothermite only has an explosive power one-thirteenth that of TNT, which is a universal standard.
	So he offered a more precise calculation of from 290,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons for each tower.
	Or that the lab Christopher Bolin has cited Los Alamos as his source for explosive lobothermite.
	They couldn't produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it couldn't blow a hole in a piece of paper.
	It's an absurd theory.
	And yet Richard Gage was still advocating nanothermite after we already knew it was impossible.
	Here's a nice summary of basic physical facts.
	Jet fuel fires, even if they burn hot enough and long enough, would cause the buildings to sag and gradually collapse.
	Actually, the fires were oxygen-deprived, indicated by the dark smoke, and were at least a thousand degrees too low to have weakened steel, much less melted.
	Moreover, jet fuel could not have ejected 300-ton steel assembly up at a 45-degree angle and 600 feet outward into the winter garden.
	Nor could nanothermite, nor could directed energy weapons.
	To explode steel, an explosive needs to have a detonation velocity of 6,100 or 200 meters per second.
	1,100 or 200 meters per second to explode concrete, a detonation velocity of 3,200 meters per second.
	Kerosene, which is the basic component of jet fuel, has a detonation velocity of only 1,600 meters per second.
	Nanothermite, detonation velocity of only 895.
	Mini-nukes or a micro-nuke in the basement would have had the observed effects.
	Meanwhile, I published a review of Judy Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go?, in May of 2012.
	I invited her to participate in the Vancouver hearings, which I organized for June of 2012, which she never replied.
	She even talked John Hutchison, her associate, out of participating even after he'd accepted.
	And another physicist, also on Judy's team, also withdrew after accepting.
	In any case, I published a five-star review in May of 2012, on May 20th.
	That was my original review.
	During the presentation at the Vancouver Hearing, a mass of energy with evidence was presented that it was indeed a nuclear event, including research of Jeff Prager, whom I'm going to feature two days hence.
	Thus, when I returned, I found that my original review had had over 2,000 comments.
	Now, mind you, this is a five-star review of Judy Wood's book, but where I did have a single sentence that, well, I felt that she'd excluded larger dukes on the basis of the argument it would have exploded the whole building from the bottom up, which I now believe is mistaken.
	That there's a more sophisticated theory of doing The inner tube from the bottom up and then the outer from the top down.
	That she had not ruled out mini-nukes, where on those 2,000 comments the overwhelming majority were by partisans of Judy who are savagely attacking me.
	I realized then from all those comments I had to adjust my review so I downgraded it to a three-star review and added the fact that the evidence based on the U.S.
	Geological Survey's dust sample indicates the destruction of the towers was a nuclear event.
	The most important defect in her book is the failure to report a come to grips with a presence
	of barium and strontium, thorium and uranium, lithium, lanthanum, tritium, chromium, and
	tritium where she mentions the latter, but inexplicably minimizes the value for tritium
	that were obtained, which was scientifically irresponsible.
	The idea that directed energy weapons were used is seriously underdeveloped, where her
	strongest claim is that dews provide vastly more energy than conventional explosives and
	can be directed.
	Anyone familiar with the gross observable evidence knows, the former to be true, or many are micro-nukes, not to mention a new positron anti-matter technology satisfy both conditions.
	For the latest and best on how it was done, serious students should check out the Vancouver hearings.
	Indeed, because Judy has refused to come to grips with the USGS survey evidence.
	She can no longer qualify as a scientific student of 9-11, which requires revising your hypotheses.
	Similarly, Richard Gage is in the same boat.
	what you previously accepted, accepting what you previously rejected and leaving others
	on in suspense on the basis of new evidence, which he ought to have done but has not. Similarly,
	Richard Gage is in the same boat. We have not only demonstrated conclusively nanothermite cannot have
	done it, but he was unwilling to talk on C-Span about who is responsible or why, just as Judy
	Wood refused to talk about who was responsible or why, and where each of them give it a hopelessly
	inadequate theory of how it was done.
	Cover-ups and misdirection, the renovation records for the Twin Towers quietly disappeared.
	Palestinians, of all people, were blamed as it was occurring.
	Rudy had those 135 dump trucks the following day.
	Israelis were in fact arrested all over New York.
	If you do a search on the 9-11 report, there's no entry for Ace Elevators, which nevertheless was reported to have had the largest renovation contract in history for the Twin Towers, which appears to have been the cover for implanting the devices.
	Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, records for reported WTC renovation work were destroyed on 9-11.
	Isn't that fascinating?
	The records just have conveniently been destroyed.
	Meanwhile, even as 9-11 was taking place on national television, They reported having a phone call from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claiming responsibility.
	That's about as ridiculous as it gets.
	But over and beyond, they just happened to show footage of Palestinians rejoicing!
	I knew at the time this was completely absurd, and indeed, It was archival footage from a historical event previously on a religious or other holiday that had the Palestinians rejoicing.
	The fact of the matter is they were just as slack-jawed and dumbfounded by the events they were observing on television as the rest of the world.
	But it's typical of the Israelis to go a bridge too far and blame the Palestinians for everything.
	It's not for nothing that Sirhan Surahan, who was a Patsy in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, was a Palestinian.
	Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani had to be deeply involved, as I observed, having 135 dump trucks to be in massive quantities of dirt to absorb the radioactive contamination cannot have happened by accident.
	Meanwhile, all over New York, events were taking place involving Israeli groups who were apprehended.
	The Dancer Art School group had a variety of tasks.
	This is the hundreds of Israelis who entered the country under the guise of being art students, some of whom the gelatin groups were actually in the building.
	They were planting jammers on buildings to block Port Authority dispatchers and first responder radios.
	They planted explosives on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, where the cables were anchored in order to collapse a bridge.
	They were going to explode a truck in the Lincoln Tunnel.
	They were going to explode a truck in the Holland Tunnel.
	They were going to park trucks with devolution devices in specific parking areas of the Twin Towers, and to coordinate with Mohammed Adda and his group, the purported hijackers.
	In other words, they were going to isolate the island of Manhattan Fortunately, it didn't happen.
	The NYPD was on the spot.
	One group was observed in Liberty State Park of New Jersey by a nearby resident who were filming the destruction of the Twin Towers, celebrating, giving each other high fives, taking photographs of themselves with the Twin Towers being destroyed in the background.
	She notified the police and they were apprehended.
	They're known as the Dancing Israelis.
	They were apprehended in a van which had explosive residue, passports, Box cutters, interestingly, and where the driver said, when the police approached him, we are not the problem, your problem is our problem, the problem is the Palestinians.
	And where they had a photograph of a plane in front of the Twin Towers, painted as a mural on the van itself.
	These five guys were held by the FBI for 41 days until they were released by Michael Chertoff, who was then an assistant attorney general.
	They returned to Israel.
	Three of them went on Israeli television and testified.
	They were there to document the destruction of the World Trade Center, which obviously required prior knowledge.
	Michael Chertoff, shown here, is, of course, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen and would become the second head of the Department of Homeland Security after Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania.
	These are not good people.
	Tom Ridge looks like an All-American.
	Michael Chertoff does not.
	He looks like an Auschwitz prison guard.
	Meanwhile, the big picture.
	Islamic hijackers in Osama were patsies.
	Philip Zelikow headed the 9-11 Commission.
	9-11 legal actions have been constrained by An Israeli favoring a judge named Hellerstein in New York City.
	Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert and their friends appear to have been responsible for 9-11.
	The hijackers, 15 of the 19, Oh, we're from Saudi Arabia.
	None of them were from Iraq.
	It would have made more sense, therefore, to have invaded Saudi Arabia.
	It turns out the Saudis appear to have provided financing for 9-11, but it was basically an Israeli awe.
	In fact, as David Ray Griffin observed in the very first point he makes in his magisterial work, the 9-11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, a half a dozen of these guys turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with the British media.
	Obviously, they cannot have died in the suicide plane crash that crashes and been alive the following day.
	Something is wrong.
	Meanwhile, if no planes actually crash, then no passengers die, and no Islamic hijackers cause them to crash.
	And if no Islamic hijackers cause them to crash, then there was no warrant or any justification for the war on terror that led to these endless interventions in the Middle East.
	Here is Philip Zelikow, who became The director of the 9-11 Commission.
	He's now a professor of history at the University of Virginia, which causes me despair.
	I taught at the University of Virginia twice, in 1977-78 as a visiting associate professor in the Department of Philosophy, and in spring of 1985 as a visiting full professor.
	My surmise is you could not have had a better guy To chair the 9-11 Commission Report, where we have that he had actually completed the draft of the report at least a year before he shared it with any member of the staff, where I believe that Philip Zelikow actually was a script writer for the events of 9-11.
	Meanwhile, here we have Alvin Hillerstein, the judge for the U.S.
	District Court for Southern District of New York, involved in high profile 9-11 related cases,
	including consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International, Beacon Airlines,
	Airlight Security Forum, the World Trade Center owners,
	and Boeing, the aircraft manufacturers, all of which were contained or dismissed.
	Meanwhile, here we have Ehud Omar conferring with Bibi Netanyahu,
	where Ehud Omar arrived in New York City on 9-10, the day before 9-11.
	Here you have Dick Cheney, who appears to have been the executive director of 9-11 from that underground bunker beneath the White House, and George Bush, who is so untrustworthy, didn't really fill him in on everything that was going on.
	Hear Bibi Netanyahu, what he has had to say in 2010.
	America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, drop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we will create and control.
	This is what we do to countries that we hate.
	We destroy them very slowly.
	Think about this.
	This is a Prime Minister of Israel.
	Israel is supposed to be an ally of the United States, but Israel attacked the United States on 9-11, where America was new.
	Compliments of the CIA, the neocons, the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Now you know what actually happened on 9-11.
	This is a second book I obtained.
	I recommend you obtain, in this case, from moonrockbooks.com, where I bring together a group of experts, as I do in other cases.
	Put that together with David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, and you'll have in hand Two volumes that give you the big picture, and in many cases, lots of the crucial details about what actually happened on 9-11, and you'll appreciate the enormity of the scam to which the American people have been subjected by their own government and the 9-11 Commission.
	It's my belief the American people are entitled to know the truth of their own history, which I'm providing here to the best of my ability.
	And I am perfectly willing to revise my views with access of new evidence and alternative hypotheses.
	You're welcome to write to me.
	Perfect source.
	If you want to comment on any of this, write to me at jim at moonrockbooks.com.
	Jim at moonrockbooks.com.
	Meanwhile, as the conspiracy guy, I want to thank you for being here, and I hope you'll share this with friends and neighbors, because they too are entitled to know the truth about our own history.

▲