Jim Fetzer - Boston 9/11 Truth (29 July 2025) with Jim Fetzer

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

02:12:51

Boston 9/11 Truth (29 July 2025) with Jim Fetzer

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, welcome everybody to 9-11 because the 9-11 Truesday and today is Tuesday and as opposed to our regular Thursday meetings on July 29th.
	And we have a very special guest today, and it's a special day and time, Jim Spencer.
	And I think everyone here is familiar with Jim.
	He's been at this for just about since the beginning.
	How long have you been working on 9-11 Truth?
	Well, I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in December 2005 and brought together hundreds of experts from around the world.
	And by 2006, when Alex Jones organized his American Scholars Conference, he invited me to be the keynote speaker.
	And during the panel discussion on Sunday, the four members of the panel were all from scholars, Steve Jones, Bob Bauman, Webster Tarbley, and myself.
	So, you know, I've kept at it and believe in collaborative research.
	One of my strengths, I dare say, is that I know I don't know everything.
	So I bring in experts who are expert in fields where I am not.
	I did this initially with JFK beginning in 1992, including a world authority on the human brain who was an expert on moon ballistics, a PhD in physics, who is also an MD, board certified in radiation oncology, an expert in the interpretation of X-rays,
	a physician who'd been in trauma room number one when JFK's moribund body was brought in, another photo and film analyst, another PhD, this time with especially in electromagnetism, robberies of light and images of moving objects.
	And I have organized conferences and published books, edited books.
	None of my work is solely authored.
	Of course, I take responsibility.
	But what I do basically is synthesize the results of the collaborative research in which I've been engaged.
	Now, one of the benefit of bringing in multiple experts in a case like this is they each contribute something from their own diverse backgrounds.
	Now, in my case, as a professor of philosophy, I offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years and am an expert in scientific reasoning, scientific explanations, scientific theories, confirmation, testability, and especially here, the nature of laws of science.
	Because the laws of science, like physics, chemistry, biology, cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement.
	Unlike the laws of society, which obviously can be violated.
	I tend to drive faster than I ought to.
	So I'm regularly testing whether the speed limit laws can be violated.
	And they can be changed, right?
	Sometimes 55, sometimes 60, 70.
	And they require enforcement.
	So, you know, I've had my share of tickets over the years.
	Of late, since I moved down here to Oregon, Wisconsin, which is a small town just 10 miles south of Madison, I've had four tickets, two for exceeding a speed limit in a residential area, which was 25, and I was going, I think, 35 twice, and then once for not having my seatbelt on, and it was just a fluke.
	Normally, I'm very conscientious, but on this particular occasion, I didn't.
	And the other was backing out of the driveway to take my wife out to launch.
	My foot slipped off the brake and I rolled in about two miles an hour into a parked car.
	So, you know, this is just to illustrate there's a big difference between laws of nature, laws of physics, and aerodynamics, for example, which give us a clue.
	Because if we're witnessing purported violations of laws that cannot be violated, we know we're being played.
	It's a fantasy.
	It cannot be true.
	And it turns out 9-11 just abounds with these fantasy scenarios.
	I presume you're all aware that all those phone calls from the planes were fake.
	A.K. Dudney, for example, a professor of computer science from Western Ontario, took three types of cell phones, flew around, discovered at speeds over 200 miles an hour or altitudes at 2,000 feet.
	The relay stations can't relay the messages fast enough at that time.
	So that those claims of the cell phone calls were all fabricated.
	You may be aware that some of the crash sites were fabricated or faked.
	I'm going to argue all four were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways.
	We know the 19 Islamic terrorists had nothing to do with it.
	Osama bin Laden himself was actually an official of the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman.
	So he was a convenient taxi for them to utilize, but he had nothing to do with it.
	I'll cover all of these.
	Now, I built in a couple of breakpoints.
	When I begin, I'll be talking about Shanksville and the Pentagon, and then I'll take a break.
	And then I'll be talking about, you know, the New York Plains too.
	And I'll be taking a break because I want to get feedback from you.
	I mean, I have very high confidence of what we found, but if there's something we've overlooked, I want to benefit from your critique and criticism.
	And of course, in relation to discussing how the Twin Towers were destroyed, no doubt that'll be the most controversial of all, but I'm glad To share with you what we have found and get your take on what you think is right and wrong about our findings.
	So here we have a beginning.
	I'm offering the title, 9-11, a made-for-TV movie, violating the laws of physics and of aerodynamics.
	And I'm simply delighted to be here and to have the opportunity to get your feedback.
	Now, we all know about the four different flight plans, and no doubt most are aware that an Israeli security firm, ICTS, was present at all four of the airports.
	Now, you're also undoubtedly aware No Plane Theory is defined as a conjunction of four planes, that Play 93 did not crash in Changston, that Plite 77 did not hit the Pentagon Plus, that Planet 11 did not hit the North Tower, and that Play 175 did not hit the South.
	Now, that doesn't mean there were no planes involved here.
	We obviously had lots of images of planes.
	The question was, were they real planes or something else?
	And I'm going to argue they were something else and review the theories about what they really were.
	But I want you to understand.
	I mean, as a philosopher, a classic philosophical problem is reality versus illusion.
	And what I have been doing in devoting myself to the investigation of what are colloquially known as conspiracy theories, JFK 9-11, Millstone, Sandy Duke, Boston, bombing, moon landing, and more, is to sort out the real evidence from the fabricated.
	In JFK, that's extraordinary because so much of the evidence was fabricated or faked as part of a cover-up.
	Now, here we have a video that takes us back to that tragic and fateful day where if you were sitting at home watching TV, say an old episode of MASH, here's what you might have experienced.
	And notice how much key issues here about causation.
	No second plan.
	It was a bomb.
	Bomb in another building, not a second plane.
	That was a bomb.
	Who says a second plane?
	That's what we're told.
	The second plane.
	We saw it on television.
	13.
	All right.
	Thanks a lot.
	This is You have how much of the plane actually impacted the building.
	You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
	The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in.
	And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand.
	There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
	Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon, you see that the floors have all collapsed.
	That didn't happen immediately.
	It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
	Jeff, it's a United Airlines plan.
	It's believed to be at that site outside Pittsburgh, isn't it?
	That's right, John, with 45 people total on board.
	And one of the more profound things today, the imprint of terrorism seared not only on Wall Street, but also on Main Street.
	Here you have an area 80 to the southeast of Pittsburgh and this plane, which went down at about 10 o'clock this morning.
	We have rescue vehicles that came in earlier in the day and they have turned up nothing.
	No one believed to be alive from this crash.
	Some of the media just getting back to the scene, which is about a quarter of a mile up on a hill back behind me.
	And so some of the first pictures just starting to come in within the last hour.
	I want to get quickly to Chris Kanicki.
	He's a photographer with the Pittsburgh affiliate of Fox.
	He was back there just a couple of minutes ago.
	And Chris, I've seen the pictures.
	It looks like there's nothing there except for a hole in the ground.
	Basically, that's right.
	The only thing you could see from where we were was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees.
	We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see, there wasn't much left.
	Any large pieces of debris at all?
	No, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
	Smoke, fire?
	Nothing.
	It was absolutely quiet.
	It was actually very quiet.
	It's nothing going on down there.
	No smoke, no fire.
	Just a couple of people walking around.
	They look like part of the NTSB crew walking around looking at the pieces.
	How big would you say that hole was?
	From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20 to 15 feet long and probably about 10 feet long or 10 feet wide.
	What could you see on the ground, if anything other than dirt and ash?
	You couldn't see anything.
	You could just see dirt, ash, and people walking around, broken trees.
	Says that City Hall in Oakland will remain open.
	It will be business as usual.
	Urging people to remain calm with given what is going on.
	Remain calm.
	Oakland City Hall will remain open, but in San Francisco, City Hall has been closed.
	We're also just getting word here now that a second United Airlines jet, Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, is now missing.
	Again, if you're just joining us, there have been four separate plane crashes.
	Three of those planes were en route to California.
	Two were heading to LAX.
	The third was heading to San Francisco International Airport.
	That was specifically the one heading to SFO United flight number 93 from Newark to SFO.
	It apparently crashed in Pennsylvania, fairly close to the border of Maryland and not too far from Camp David.
	Why is that significant?
	Because one of the groups possibly claiming responsibility for all these terrorist attacks is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
	And it was this week in 1978 that the Camp David Accords were reached.
	Is there a connection?
	At this point, we don't know, but it is important to be aware of that situation.
	In Washington, D.C., many congressional leaders have been transferred to a secret location.
	Some senators have described this as a second-story hazard.
	And President Bush was in Florida this morning that he made a brief announcement when the first attacks were cleared on the World Trade Center, and he was heading back to Washington, D.C. At this point, we don't know exactly where he is.
	They're not really broadcasting that information, but we are told that the president is safe right now.
	We're waiting for a press conference to start in San Francisco from the Office of Emergency Services to discuss what the situation, what the city's reaction to all of this is going to be.
	I mean, there you had a hole that was, what, described as maybe 15 feet wide and 10 feet deep.
	The plane had a wingspan of 125 feet.
	It had a tail that stood 40 feet above the ground.
	Where is the plane?
	You cannot have a plane crash and have no plane parts.
	Here are real crashes, Missouri, Amsterdam, Russia, compared to Shanksville.
	Colonel George Nelson, who's an expert on plane crashes, told me it looked to him like they took a bulldozer out there, dug a trench, filled it with trash, and blew it up.
	There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near there.
	In fact, the two reporters first on the scene both reported.
	The eerie aspect of the plane crash site was there was no evidence any plane had crashed there, which of course is explicable if no plane had crashed there.
	Here's one of the fantastic theories.
	This was supposed to be why we can't see any plane parts.
	This was supposed to be an area where mining had taken place.
	This is allegedly where the passengers commandeered the plane and it came in upside down and disappeared into an abandoned mine shaft.
	Well, ludicrous on its face, but think about it.
	We know what to do with miners trapped in abandoned mine shafts.
	We break out the bright lights and the heavy equipment and dig 24-7 and hope someone might have been saved, might be recovered.
	Here in Shangsville, they didn't even burn to recover the plane and its passengers, where one of the oddities of these flights is they were only like a quarter full.
	In the case of Flight 93, it could carry 289.
	It actually only had 45 aboard.
	How could a commercial carrier make money traveling intercontinental or cross-country with that kind of a number of passengers?
	Now, Val McClutchy claimed to have taken a photograph on the left at the time.
	But notice a cloud looks much more like that in the middle from an explosive than from a plane crash on the right.
	And if you trace the geography from McClutchy's photograph, it's over a pond where the plane did not crash.
	Here's another real plane crash.
	The type of smoke is completely different.
	Meanwhile, pilots for 9-11 Truth has done some brilliant work.
	In this case, they determined that Flight 93 was still airborne after it officially crashed in Shanksville.
	It was over Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
	Get that.
	And I got to tell you, as I'm going to explain, I track Flight 93 thereafter and look at the FAA registration data, and the plane wasn't even taken out of service until 28 September, 2005.
	Meanwhile, looking at the Pentagon, we only got five frames that were released, including this one, conveniently labeled plane.
	If you look up here, there's something that might be a plane.
	And then you got the growing fireball.
	It's got the wrong date, time stamp.
	Very suspicious.
	I asked Jack White, legendary photo analyst from JFK, if he could figure the image of a Boeing 757 to the size of the tail shown in this frame.
	He did so, and obviously a 757 is twice as large.
	So that cannot be a Boeing 757.
	In fact, pilots and aeronautical engineers explained to me the white plume is not the black exhaust of a jet, but rather it could be from a missile being fired into the West Wing, which turned out to be exactly what happened.
	Dennis Camino has been brilliant about this, identifying it as having been a global hawk.
	And here's a hit point.
	You notice it's only about 10 feet high, 15, 17 feet wide.
	There's a chain leak fence, couple automobiles, a couple of spools that are on fire, unbroken windows.
	What's missing?
	A massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner.
	Here's after the collapse, and you see more widely, but there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, just as Jamie McIntyre explained.
	Now, if you look here, when they excavated, do you see any signs of an intense fire or collision?
	Because I do not.
	Here you actually have what looks like the Stanford Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
	It's not burnt.
	There's no evident damage.
	And yet we're told the plane came in at over 400 miles an hour, barely skimming the ground, to hit that target on the ground floor.
	Now, a plane that low with the engines so massive would have torn off the lawn.
	It would have been a mess.
	And of course, there would have been aluminum debris everywhere.
	Body seats, luggage, wings, tail.
	Not even the images were recovered.
	Here you see the two civilian lime green firetrops extinguishing the very modest fires.
	But what's most important is the lawn.
	The lawn.
	Where's any evidence of debris from a plane which would have ripped up the lawn?
	By various scenarios, we get the same outcome.
	The effect is not present, which means the cause cannot have been present.
	Here's from a BBC.
	They did a conspiracy files.
	They actually came to my home and interviewed Free for eight hours.
	And then you use seven and a half minutes of eight eight hours.
	I gave him 100 arguments about 9-11.
	They picked and shows, but look, what's significant here?
	The lawn.
	No debris on the lawn.
	Here's another.
	Even after the collapse of that wing, no debris on the lawn.
	Here we have some that showed up later, and I conjectured that it was dropped by a C-130 that was circling the building.
	But a fellow named James Hansen, who's a retired attorney from Columbus, Ohio, observed in this piece of fuselage, there's a piece of vine entwined here that is not indigenous to the Arlington, Virginia area.
	Also notice this piece of fuselage, albeit from a 757, is not crumpled as you'd expect from a violent collision, doesn't show any signs of having been exposed to intense fire.
	And there you see a close-up of the vine, because a 757 has a very good safety record.
	There have been very few collisions.
	He discovered American Airlines 965 had crashed near Cali, Colombia, where the pilots lost track of their access, crashed into a mountain through a jungle where these vines are indigenous.
	And the salvage was done, guess what, by an Israeli salvage crew.
	Here you have the pilot who in the BBC asked him, what did he think about my suggestion that he dropped debris on the Pentagon lawn, since it would have been so awkward to have officers and enlisted men carried out.
	He said it was absurd, not that it was false.
	Indeed, we also know, according to the official narrative, the plane is supposed to come in and hit a series of stationary steel lampposts.
	One, two, three, four, five, six.
	Now, by Newton's third law, equal and opposite reaction, the effects of a plane moving over 400 miles an hour, hitting stationary lampposts, would be the same as if the plane were stationary and by lampposts traveling over 400 miles an hour.
	They would have broke open the wings with a fuelist or it would have mixed with air.
	It would have exploded.
	The plane would have scattered across the Pentagon lawn.
	But as we already know, there is no such debris.
	It cannot have happened, as we have been told.
	Now, it just so happened there were a group of civilians at a Sitco station who actually observed a plane fly toward the Pentagon, only it was on the opposite side, north of the Sitco instead of south.
	The green line is the official trajectory.
	The yellow, what they observed.
	Now, I have a friend from JFK Research, Roy Schaefer, who had a buddy, David Ball, who was a trucker.
	He was in front of the Pentagon when all this happened.
	He told Roy, he saw a plane fly toward the building and then swerve over it, swerve over it.
	At the same time, an explosion occurred.
	And I believe that's exactly right.
	And it's consistent with the testimony Norman Minetta gave before the 9-11 Commission, which they refused to print, of being in an underground bunker with Dick Cheney when an aide came up and said, sir, it's 50 miles out.
	Sir, it's 30 miles out.
	Sir, it's 10 miles out.
	Do the orders still stand?
	And Cheney whips around and says, of course they still stand.
	Have you heard anything to the contrary?
	Well, the order had to be to not shoot it down.
	The obvious thing to do would have been to shoot it down.
	You lose a passenger and plane, but you do not lose, in addition, the property and the personnel at the target.
	And yet it was allowed to proceed to create the impression of a plane having hit the Pentagon.
	It's even supposed to have done damage.
	The Pentagon has these five rings, E, D, C, B, A. And in the C ring, this is supposed to have been done by, say, the landing gear.
	But look how symmetrical it is.
	It would have been hitting from an angle.
	The blow up would not have been consistent.
	And here it says right there, though you can barely read it in this image, punch out.
	And we had reports of cordite.
	This was further fabrication of evidence to create the impression of a plane having crashed there when no plane crashed there.
	Just as Jamie McIntyre reported, would you believe?
	Jamie McIntyre was forced to recant, and he did it in the following way.
	He said, only a fool would report that no plane hit the Pentagon, implying he'd been a fool to report the truth at the time.
	And he retired from CNN, even though he was their best reporter, because he had too much integrity to carry the bullshit.
	Meanwhile, April Gallup was a civilian.
	She was there with her infant son.
	She said when she first touched her computer, the explosion took place.
	She walked out the hole.
	She looked around.
	She didn't see any evidence of a plane anywhere, but she did smell explosives.
	Here we have General Albert Stubblebein, who is in charge of all U.S. military intelligence, including photographic, being interviewed in Germany.
	And he was explaining how he could tell no plane had hit the Pentagon.
	Why?
	Because there's no imprint of a plane on the Pentagon.
	Now, the surface of the Pentagon is made of very soft stone, porous stone, limestone.
	There would have been an imprint.
	But get this.
	I interviewed General Stubblebein on one of my shows.
	I gave him all the evidence for the fabrication of all four of the crash sites.
	General Stubblebein not only agreed with me, but offered additional reasons why I was right.
	And here you have smoke.
	I thought it was so damn peculiar that we had members of Congress coming out in front of the building when they were told that the Capitol might be next, looking across the Potomac and seeing billowing black smoke.
	I knew the fire green, the lime green fire trucks had put out the very modest fires.
	So I wondered what in the world was going on here.
	And it turns out it was coming from a series of dumpsters to create the impression that Pentagon had suffered damage, which it had not.
	Another member of scholars, by the way, came by in Duluth, where I was residing at the time with 44 more images, including where you could see light between the dumpsters and the building.
	Totally fake.
	Terry Maison was the first to notice he got it right when he put up his website with his son, Hunt the Boeing, pointing out there's no evidence of a Boeing having been anywhere present at the Pentagon, that it had, that therefore it appeared no plane had crashed there, and he got it right.
	Now, Edward Henry was quite brilliant.
	He realized that every commercial flight in the United States is recorded by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
	They keep records on the scheduled departure time, the actual departure time, wheels up, wheels down for every commercial flight in the United States.
	Well, guess what?
	No American airline Flight 77 was scheduled to Dulles on 9-11.
	It was completely made up.
	Thus I say, no planes define the conjunction of four claims, the first two.
	Flight 93 did not crash into Shangsville.
	Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
	I'm claiming what I have provided is proof of the first two of the four theses, and I welcome any questions or comments.
	Does anyone deny that Flight 93 did not crash into Shangsville or that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?
	I'm open to your comments.
	anyone Craig McKee has his hand raised.
	Go ahead, Craig.
	Hey, Jim.
	How's it going?
	Good.
	It's a delight to see you, my friend.
	You've done such good work over so many years.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much, Jim.
	Good to see you, too.
	I just wanted to comment on a couple of things that I've been asserting, and I'd just be very interested to know what your reaction is to them.
	One of them is that with the Lloyd England part of it, which you didn't touch on, but it's my assertion that since Lloyd claims that the long pole that we saw on the highway was what hit his cab,
	my assertion is that it's impossible because it would have been hit by the right wing and therefore should have been knocked sort of to the, you know, across the highway, not onto the other side of the fuselage where the cab is alleged to have been.
	So that, I'll give you two things and then I'll give you something after.
	So that, I'd love your reaction to.
	I agree with that.
	Look, it's a fantasy.
	His story is just fantastic.
	They tried to figure out ways they could support this unbelievable story and that was one of them.
	So I'm in agreement with you, Craig.
	And would you also agree with me that the claim being made by the David Chandler, Wayne Costi group, that it actually was not the big poll that Lloyd said, but rather the top part of the second poll that hit the cab?
	Would you agree that there's no evidence for that?
	I have dealt with them before, Craig, and I regard them as unreliable sources.
	And we have someone here who's already accusing me of, you know, doing some kind of cover-up in relation to Judy Wood's work when I was a strong supporter of Judy from the beginning.
	And I'll explain more of how she induced me to take a serious look at what happened with the planes in New York.
	She and Morgan Reynolds spent a year and a half convincing me to look at it and where I have assessed Judy's work of a directed energy weapon.
	And I'll explain why I think it's not correct.
	But there are those who want to insist in spite of the evidence.
	And frankly, I don't see them doing a very good job of responding to the evidence.
	It's as though it's an article of faith.
	But look, I'm with you, Craig, and I am not a fan of either of them.
	Continue.
	Okay.
	So I guess the other thing I wanted to throw at you, I mean, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the missile theory, but I'm, you know, I'm not necessarily, I guess my approach is more focused on what, you know, that it wasn't a 757.
	That's kind of what the angle I've chosen to take because then I feel like it puts the burden of proof on others to assert.
	And most of the time, what it is that I'm pushing them to try to justify is the 757 crash claim.
	And so, but I did want to ask you, in terms of the damage to the building, two things strike me.
	One is that two titanium engines weighing more than 8,000 pounds each, going at 530 miles per hour, would have, in my view, would have created two exit holes in the C-ring.
	And also, we would have seen damage to the concrete foundation on the first floor that we did not see.
	Would you like to comment on those two?
	100% correct.
	And that the engines weren't even recovered is absurd.
	Now, there are these danglers claiming, oh, later they recovered the engines, but your point is impeccable.
	You're 100% correct, Craig.
	And listen, in other presentations I've made, I had Dennis Camino and I spent a huge amount of time on how the Pentagon was destroyed.
	It's just it wouldn't fit into the timeframe we have on this occasion and the stuff about the cab driver and all that.
	Yeah, it's more malarkey for the weak-minded.
	And if I can just finish off on this, I don't want to take too much time, but just on the Shanksville thing, my feeling has always been that the idea that that plane buried itself completely underground in that field is perhaps the most absurd part of the official story.
	And it's interesting that there are those in our movement, some of the same people that I just mentioned a moment ago, that seemed to be open to the idea that the official story also got that point correct.
	But you know what?
	You mentioned something that I hadn't really thought about.
	I knew that the plane had never been dug up.
	And I know that the claim is that it's still under there, but it hadn't even occurred to me that the idea that you've got people supposedly on that plane.
	I mean, they would be very unlikely to survive such a crash, but wouldn't would you not just dig them up anyway?
	Of course.
	Of course.
	I mean, some of these things are so obvious, Craig.
	And, you know, something I've always admired about you is your complete open-mindedness.
	You're among the most objective I've ever encountered among students of 9-11.
	And some of the parties we're talking about here are manifestly not.
	They have an agenda and they're going to promote it regardless of the facts.
	So I appreciate your comments, Craig, and I agree with you across the board.
	Good stuff.
	Thank you.
	Continuing then.
	Now we turn to the Twin Towers, which had this unusual tube within a tube design, massive 47 core columns.
	It created all this open space.
	And then you had the 230 external steel support columns.
	It was extremely robust, brilliant design, won a lot of awards for architecture.
	Now, what some don't think about is that steel was massively more thick at the bottom, actually six inches, five, four, all the way up to the top where it was only a quarter inch thick.
	So that, you know, these theories we get about top floors having created a pile driver effect on the lower is absurd from the beginning.
	There were, of course, seven buildings, not just the two twin towers, of which the seventh, building seven, also known as the Solomon Brothers Building, only came down at 5.20 in the afternoon, seven hours after the destruction of the North Tower.
	There was asbestos, by the way, in the building when they were originally constructed and first opened in 1970, which had to be removed.
	Silverstein properties, which took possession just six weeks before, after it was transferred by the Port Authority, had a problem.
	They had to remove the asbestos, but it couldn't be done by a classic controlled demolition because that would have released all the asbestos particles into the atmosphere.
	And to construct scaffolding around the buildings to undertake the removal might have run as much as a billion dollars apiece.
	So it was extremely convenient that there just happened to be a terrorist attack to destroy both of the buildings, more of which we will review.
	But it's as though all and only buildings with the WTC designation were destroyed that day.
	Truly stunning.
	Meanwhile, here it was, Frank Lowry, Ronald Lauer, Paul Eisenberg, all, of course, dedicated Zionists who were involved in transferring the property.
	Lucky Larry Silverstein, who had the habit of having breakfast at Windows of the World Atop the North Tower every day except on 9-11.
	And of course, he had already revised his insurance agreement to include an anti-terrorist clause.
	So now, because there were two blanes, he claimed two double indemnity.
	He pocketed around $2.5 billion on $114 million investment.
	They don't call him Lucky Larry for nothing.
	Meanwhile, the security firm that had been offering protecting since it opened was replaced by an Israeli firm, Kroll.
	Another remarkable development.
	Odago Messenger Service was warning all the Jewish employees of the World Trade Center not to come in that day.
	I even got a phone call.
	This is decades ago, from a little old lady in Brooklyn who said that her rabbi had told the members of the synagogue not to go into Lower Manhattan that day.
	And I wanted to thank her for giving me that information, which of course is consistent with everything else we know.
	Willie Brown even said he was warned not to fly that day.
	And the party who warned him was Condoleezza Rise.
	Meanwhile, the very day before, Rumsfeld acknowledged $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget.
	Well, that's rather astonishing.
	And the very idea that an experienced politician like Rumsfeld would reveal that information on a Monday is contrary to typical practice.
	You save a big story for Friday.
	You hope it'll get lost over the weekend.
	There won't be follow-up on a Monday, it's going to grow legs.
	It's going to become bigger.
	It's as though he knew some event was going to intervene and he'd be able to waltz into Congress the following day and ask for hundreds of billions more in defense spending, which is exactly what happened.
	And the controller of the Pentagon at the time is Dove Zockheim, who's not only a rabbi, but has a remote control company so that you can protect against hijacking, but could also allow you to hijack planes.
	I believe the original plan was to use remote control to fly planes into the building until they discovered their design was so robust that any real planes would have crumbled external to the building, which wasn't good enough.
	They therefore had to devise an ingenious plan to make it appear as though the planes had entered the building before they exploded, lest they have no explanation for what they would purport to be the collapse of the Twin Towers.
	Now, it just so happens a French film crew happened to be in Manhattan purportedly investigating a gas leak where the cameraman just happened to swing his camera up to capture the first hit on the North Tower.
	Now, think about it.
	By the time you hear the sound of a plane, the plane is far moved away.
	You'd hear the sound, you'd look back to the source of the sound, not forward.
	This is as though it were planned by design.
	Leslie Raphael, a Scotsman, has discovered in order for this to happen, you had to satisfy over 100 improbable circumstances.
	And let me add that the Naudet brothers, as they call themselves, is an anagram rearranging the letters of the Wayne Street where this took place.
	Here you have what a real 767 would look like if it were approaching the North Tower.
	But here's what the images they produce have.
	Rosalie Grable put these together.
	She described them as looking like a flying pig.
	Here you have the first hit.
	Notice the kind of image.
	Then you have initially what looks like a Z. Then it turns into an elongated V. And guess what?
	They went to the extraordinary step of extending the V. This is at the tip of the wing, very fragile.
	I mean, we're talking about impossible effects from a real plane having hit the North Tower.
	And the cutout, which Judy has described as cookie cutter, and I agree with all of that, was done behind the smoke and debris from what appear to have been previously positioned explosives by a group known as the Gelatin Group, of whom more later.
	Here, this plane was intersecting with seven different floors.
	And what you have to appreciate is each floor consisted of a steel truss connected at one end to the massy 47 core columns, at the other to the external steel support columns, the external steel support columns, which were quite massive and impressive on their own.
	It would have been physically impossible for a plane to enter the North Tower or the South.
	Now, there are some who believe that some of the damage might have been done by firing a missile at the building.
	I mentioned that in passing.
	It's not impossible.
	I regard it as improbable.
	Edward Henry, once again, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
	No American Airline Flight 11 was scheduled to bart Boston, Logan on 9-11.
	That plane, too, wasn't there.
	Now, I mentioned the gelatin group.
	It turns out there were 200 Israelis, whom I believe were all mossad, who were entered into the country as art students.
	And groups of them took up Domile in both the North and the South Tower.
	They had free reign.
	And there are boxes here of fuse holders.
	They were even conducting performance art outside of the building, which was attracting a lot of attention.
	On 9-11, a lot was going on, and the NYBD was on the job.
	Let me add, including the fact that a woman at Liberty State Park saw a group of, well, they've come to be known as the Dancing Israelis who are celebrating high-fiving while they were videotaping the destruction of the North and the South Tower.
	She thought that was very odd.
	She notified the police when they stopped the van in which they were driving from urban moving system, which turns out to be an Israeli asset.
	It had a drawing of a plane and the Twin Towers on the side.
	The driver said, we're not the problem.
	Our problem is your problem.
	The problem is the Palestinians.
	And you may recall, at the time of that report about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine possibly having been involved, they switched to a video that showed Palestinians rejoicing, which I recognized immediately at the time had to be archival footage from a previous political or religious event,
	because the Palestinians, in fact, were just as slackjot and dumbfounded as the rest of us, but they just happened to have it at hand to broadcast nationally.
	They were held for some 44 days until Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff released them and they returned to Israel, where three of them went on Israeli television and acknowledged they had been there to document the destruction of the World Trade Center.
	Obvious foreknowledge.
	Chertoff would become the second director of Homeland Security following Tom Ridge and is a very strange guy.
	He also was eager with a scanning system to make lots and lots of money after Las Vegas.
	There was a proposal to put scanners in every casino and result in Las Vegas and eventually every school across the country, which would have yielded billions.
	Well, here's one of many images we have of what reports to be Flight 175 approaching the South Tower.
	It turns out the speed recorded in these videos, and let me say, we have like 52 different videos, of which some 27 are sufficiently clear and precise that you can actually plot the location of the plane as it approaches the building, turns out to exceed benchmarks that would be for the viability of a 767 at the speed it was traveling.
	It appears they made the blunder of supposing that the cruising speed of a 767 at 35,000 feet could be attained at lower 700 to 1,000, which would have been impossible indeed.
	As pilots for 9-11 Truth explained in their brilliant documentary, 9-11 Intercepted, the plane would have physically come apart.
	So we're witnessing a fantasy just from the speed depicted of the plane in the video.
	A fantasy.
	It's not aerodynamically possible for that plane to attain that speed at that altitude, and it would have come apart.
	Meanwhile, we have the plane just disappearing into the building effortlessly, leading some to call it a ghost plane or a butter plane, as though the South Tower were a 110-floor cube of nothing but butter.
	It turns out that in this case, the plane was intersecting eight different floors, once again, making it physical impossible for a real plane to have entered the building.
	It would have crumbled external to the building, but what do we see?
	Here's the Evan Fairbanks video.
	The plane approaching the building, effortlessly entering the building.
	We have verified from both the Heser Connie and the Evan Fairbanks that the plane passes its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its entire length in air, which makes sense only if a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air, which is absurd.
	Once again, we're witnessing a violation of the laws of physics.
	Not possible.
	And if you look at the lower left, you'll see the anomaly that occurred when they're broadcasting the footage because the nose popped out.
	How absurd is that?
	The nose of a commercial carrier is its most fragile part.
	It's loaded with electronics.
	A tiny bird hitting the nose can cause tremendous damage.
	It's impossible that the nose could have popped out.
	And it's been a real plane as portrayed.
	Indeed, as a speaker represented in his 9-11 sci offer, the plane would have crumbled externals of the building, body, seats, luggage, fallen to the ground.
	There would have been parts of the plane, the wings, the tail on the ground.
	But instead, we had that fireball, of course.
	And underneath the fireball, the cutout was being installed, executed, carried out by the gelatin group.
	And we have the ground below.
	We have the sidewalk.
	We have the roadway.
	There's no bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no tail, meaning it didn't happen.
	It's a fantasy.
	It's a story we're being told.
	Now, to bolster it, they claim there was an engine found at church in Murray.
	Well, it's very interesting because the engine is just sitting on the sidewalk.
	It's underneath a canopy and a steel scaffolding, which are undamaged.
	Jack White tracked Fox footage and found there was a van with a group of individuals wearing FBI vests who were unloading something heavy.
	Now, it turns out that this is not an engine that was in use at the time in Boeing 767.
	It was an antiquated engine.
	It was just a plant.
	It was just a park.
	And think about the physics of the situation.
	If something that massive had hit the sidewalk at high speed, it would have plowed up the sidewalk and made a mess.
	But they didn't want the city of New York to have to reconstruct the sidewalk.
	After all, it was just a prop.
	You know, we even have a dolly here that may or may not have been used in moving it into place.
	Now, if a bird doesn't vaporize in the process of slicing a wing, then a plane shouldn't vaporize during the process of slicing steel and concrete.
	Where's the evidence a plane created those holes?
	And believe me, there is so much work on this that's very impressive.
	Can, if birds can slice through aluminum plane wings and nose cones, can the same fragile wings cut through steel columns?
	The answer, obviously, no.
	It's physically impossible.
	And some will cite the Sandia crash Site where you took a fighter jet filled with water that's made out of fabricated material, put on a rocket, and run into a nuclear-resistant barrier, and then breaks into a million tiny pieces.
	Well, let me just make an obvious point.
	It didn't penetrate the barrier.
	And this is a faulty analogy.
	Analogies comparing two parts are appropriate when there are more similarities than differences.
	In this case, there are more differences than similarities and crucial.
	Even if there are many similarities, if there are crucial differences, as there are here, then the analogy is flawed.
	The plane would be exerting a tremendous force on the wall.
	Therefore, the wall would be exerting an equal and opposite force on the plane.
	This is just as I said before.
	It's like with the lamppost.
	If the plane hit the building at over 400 miles an hour, the building stationary would have the same effect as if the plane were stationary, hit by a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building traveling over 400 miles an hour.
	It would have crunched the plane.
	It should be busting up on the outside.
	Instead, it disappeared.
	A fantasy.
	So how can we explain it?
	Three different theories have been advanced.
	One is that was done with CGI.
	That was Rosalie Rabel, the Webb Perry.
	It could have been done by video compositing.
	That was the theory of Ace Baker.
	There's like a 17-second gap between the time footage is filmed and it's released to the public during which plane images could have been added.
	Now, the fatal disproof here is that on either CGI or video compositing, the plane would only have been visible to the public in broadcast footage.
	But we have over 500 reports of witnesses seeing the plane prior to the impact.
	I went through this with Andrew Johnson, who's one of Judy's Praetorian Guard.
	500 reports to the New York Times.
	They were all varied, large plane, small plane, military plane, civilian plane.
	The point is, and they included hundreds of firefighters who are not known to be prevaricators, that they were seeing a plane approaching the building before the hit.
	Now, the third theory, which many find highly controversial, is that was actually a holographic projection.
	And I ain't going to explain why the evidence supports that theory.
	It was first advanced by Richard D. Hall of the UK.
	I've been told he has disavowed it.
	So let me say, if Richard Hall has disavowed this theory, then let it be Jim Fetzer's theory because he got it right.
	This is known as his Flight 175 3D radar study, where he had created plots of the plane as it was approaching the building.
	From those 27, he made plots of the plane approaching the building.
	Now, he discovered NIST had a similar series of plots that they claim was derived from radar data.
	Well, he looked at their alleged source and it didn't look right to him, but he discovered there actually was a military radar.
	Well, it was for a plane that was 1,200 feet to the side of the plane he had plotted approaching the South Tower.
	And what we have here is an explanation.
	That was a holographic image projected by another plane, 1,200 feet to the side.
	The other plane was traveling faster than a Boeing 767 could travel at that speed, possibly to maintain the integrity of the hologram.
	So we get an account for the impossible speed because it wasn't a real plane.
	It passed effortlessly into the building, which can account for the nose-out phenomenon.
	When the network faded to black, here they are recording the most historic event in U.S. history, with the possible exception of the assassination of JFK in Dallas, and they cut to black.
	It was a hand-eye coordination failure that allowed the nose-out to slip past.
	And in addition, because the image of the plane is not a physical object, it wasn't bouncing off radio waves to create a radar image.
	So we only had the radar image of the real plane, which was producing a real sound that the real spectators on the ground heard and attributed to the image.
	I was even sent a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector.
	Brief description.
	The holographic projector displays the three-dimensional image in a desired location removed from 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 an unsophisticated adversary.
	Who is more unsophisticated than the American public when they're being fed a story by the government they take to be authoritative?
	And get this.
	Pilots from 9-11 Truth discovered Flight 175 was also still airborne.
	It was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after it reportedly hit the South Tower.
	And as I mentioned before, I obtained FAA registration data that showed that the physical aircraft used for those flights for both 93 and 175, where remember the same physical aircraft can be used one day from New York to San Francisco, next Chicago to Tampa, were not even taken out of service, formally deregistered until 28 September 2005.
	So how can planes that weren't 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?
	As I mentioned to you, I did a whole interview with General Stobelbein, and he not only agreed with me, but gave me additional reasons why I was right.
	Now, I'd like to know, does anyone want to dispute that in addition to 93 not crashing in Shanksill and 77 not hitting the Pentagon, Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and 175 did not hit the South?
	Jane Clark has a comment in the video.
	Sure.
	In the chat, that is.
	Jane Clark is the Executive Director for the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry.
	And McHarrison is the legal counsel.
	And Dave Meiswingle is the former executive director.
	So her comment is the pictures seen by David Meiswingle and McHarrison of body parts.
	When they went to Shakespeare, her giant permission to see the pictures by the corner showed very small burnt pieces of body parts, no bigger than one digit in a finger, with a cage body part, but all body parts pictured were burnt.
	It appears these body parts were picked up over an eight-mile area, up to the area where the alleged hole in the ground where supposedly the plane went in.
	From what David and Nick understood, the body parts were sent to the Army DNA labs for identification with family members had donated DNA and then the body parts were returned for families.
	Do you have a comment about that?
	Easily faked or staged.
	I mean, look, no plane crashed there.
	If no plane crashed there, then no passengers died in plane crashes that didn't occur.
	And indeed, here we have the key result.
	If no planes crashed, and I've proven no planes crashed, regardless of their claim to have found these tiny, tiny body parts, utterly inconsistent, by the way, with the theory that a plane crashed into an abandoned crash site, a mine shaft, because they would have all been intact, and that no effort was made to even recover the bodies, that no passengers died, and no Islamic hijackers caused them to crash.
	And if no Islamic hijackers caused them to crash, then there was no warrant or any justification for the war on terror.
	What I'm telling you is the evidence is no planes crashed at any of these four sites.
	And they may have, you know, fabricated evidence of one kind or another, even including burnt body parts.
	It seemed to me that would be pretty easy for the government to make up along the way.
	But count me unimpressed.
	Just go to Hollywood.
	They do this kind of stuff all the time.
	Fake bodies, they look really bad, blah, blah, blah.
	I think what they're telling us, given the evidence I've adduced, is faintly ridiculous, at least.
	Faintly ridiculous.
	Mayten Jack Bottom believe has this mangrace.
	Go ahead, Jack.
	Yes, I've seen considerable evidence that the planes at the World in New York were old refueling planes.
	And as such, those planes are designed to go much faster because they have to keep up with fighter jets in an emergency.
	And Dobbs Eckheim had a company that rented those tankers to the airports at great profit to him.
	And those were old ones.
	There's also considerable evidence that there was missiles mounted on the bottom of those planes that hit the building just before the planes hit.
	And the way that the planes would have gone through the building is momentum.
	A plane card, when thrown fast enough, can really hurt a person.
	A 2x4 can go through a concrete wall.
	You see them in tornadoes.
	A 2x4 goes through a concrete wall.
	So at high speed, something which is lightweight, it's just got so much momentum.
	And every single piece of that plane would have that momentum of 500, whatever, 600, 400 miles per hour, which is so much momentum that it would fly into the building.
	Just one screw, for example, at the end of a wing.
	If that's going at the building at, say, 500 miles an hour, that's going to fly right into the building and go through it.
	Just because of momentum.
	I'll do my best to address this sympathetically.
	You're misunderstanding the nature of physics.
	Some of the cases you're cite are completely different.
	We have a straw on the side of a tree.
	It's because they're in a tornado, the tree was twisted.
	It opened up and the straw got caught.
	This is, you can no more accomplish what you're talking about than you could take a can of Coke and throw it really, really hard at a brick wall and expect it to pass through.
	It's physically impossible.
	You're not understanding Newton's third law.
	No, you see it in tornado.
	Listen, listen.
	You see it in tornadoes all the time.
	You can...
	You can believe what you want to believe.
	That's okay with me.
	What I'm telling you is physics rules it out.
	You're being played and in a serious way.
	And since a plane was traveling at impossible speed, you're claiming the tankers.
	I don't care what kind of plane it would have been.
	There was no resistance.
	The plane didn't slow down.
	It melted into the building.
	And I don't care what kind of plane you think you're talking about.
	That's physically impossible.
	So if you want to believe things that are physically impossible, and what an Alice saw, yeah, I believe three impossible things every day before breakfast.
	You're welcome to.
	Don't try to foist it off on those of us who have a better grasp of physics, okay?
	I say you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not.
	I've seen the two by fours go through a concrete wall.
	That does happen in tornadoes.
	Listen, I'm telling you, in New York, no real planes were involved.
	And there wasn't even any radar image.
	If there had been a real plane, it would have shown up on radar.
	It's not there.
	A plane 1,200 feet to the side is there, not the projected image.
	You're just ignoring the facts, which I suppose you as a person are entitled to do, but I don't know what else.
	A so-born tanker is going to cost $30,000 to $100,000.
	You can buy the futile and live in it.
	I've seen several cases of that happening.
	Now, to do all the stuff that you're describing, the holograms and everything, would cost millions.
	So Dodge.com would say, look, it's much cheaper to stick one of my old planes and crash it in.
	And they can be remote control because not only did he have the remote control technique, but Boeing had it at that time.
	I've seen videos from that exact time of Boeing flying F-16s by remote control.
	Let me just say given the patient way I'm explaining all of this, to me, it's embarrassing you're making these arguments.
	But you go ahead, if you find it comforting to believe fantasies, no real plane could have entered the building.
	I don't care if commercial, military, large, small, the type you're talking about, doesn't matter.
	It would have crumpled external to the building.
	There is no body seats, luggage, wing, tail beneath the facades of those buildings.
	That is impossible.
	If any real plane had hit the building, it's not there.
	Thus, your claim, your hypothesis has been falsified by the evidence.
	You cannot have a cause without the effect that that cause would bring about.
	The effects are not there.
	This is so elementary.
	This is known as modus tollens in logic.
	If P, then Q, but not Q, then not P. It's as elementary logic gets.
	There is no debris there, which would have had to have been there had there been real planes, no matter what real planes you're talking about.
	There was no real planes were there.
	We're going to have to move forward because, you know, frankly, this is reaching point of no return, no benefit at all.
	Meanwhile, what many do not understand is that there were early explosions.
	At the same time, the planes were purportedly hitting the building.
	There were explosions in the sub-basement, which were going to be attributed to the planes.
	But since there weren't any actual plane hits, it had a completely separate source.
	It blew out the lobby glass.
	When William Rodriguez, who is a senior custodian in the North Tower, came here to Madison to give a talk, he and Kevin Barrett and I went to dinner.
	And when he started talking about how the water was filling up in the sub-basements, I knew that had been the purpose for the earlier explosion, to drain the sprinkler systems, which had been installed when they had a huge fire way back when in the North Tower, because they would have easily extinguished the modest fires that remain.
	So here you get the first impact, you know, second impact.
	Those are from these explosions set off in the sub-basements.
	Now, two members, Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, actually discovered that there was a difference between the seismic record of those impacts and the video recording of when they hit.
	So that for Flight 11, North Tower, the original seismic was 848.26, but a commission video 846.40, a 14-second difference.
	Similar for 175, original seismic 902.54.
	A commission video, 903.11, a 17-second difference.
	In other words, just as with the nose-out phenomenon, they had a hand-eye coordination problem here, and they didn't get it coordinated properly, completely separate.
	Plus, while they claimed it was jet fuel falling through the buildings, there really weren't elevator shafts that would have been appropriate.
	In the towers, they were like three 60-floor buildings, 30-store buildings stacked on top of one another with supplemented in between it at the base to make them a total of 110.
	But you'd go up in an elevator, you have to get off, get in another elevator, you have to get off.
	Now, there was one or two employee or worker elevator shafts, but Willie said he had a colleague who was in one of those shafts who survived, which would not have happened if this jet fuel had blown down.
	Now, they had a problem in destroying the Twin Towers because they were built in the below level of Hudson River.
	So they had to build them within a dike colloquially known as the bathtub.
	And if they were not able to preserve the bathtub, and here you can see, they would have had Hudson water, river water flooding beneath Lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world.
	They wanted to avoid that.
	So they had to figure out an ingenious way to destroy the towers.
	Now, if you look at this and realize you're being told this is a collapse, when a collapse involves every floor coming down at the same time, not blowing apart in every direction, as we see here, you've got to understand that was the power of suggestion and repetition that anyone has ever believed the Twin Towers collapsed because they did not collapse.
	Here's how I referred to that pile driver theory.
	But remember, the top floor of the steel was only a quarter inch thick.
	It only represented that even top 17 floors only represented like 1.4% of the mass of the steel in the building.
	And the other mass would have prevented it from falling.
	Here's another.
	This again is by a retired high school math, physics, and chemistry teacher.
	Brilliant stuff.
	Showing for every weight of downward, there were 118 weights of upward force.
	And those buildings cannot have collapsed.
	It was a physical impossibility for them to collapse.
	And yet, look at this.
	Look at this.
	Does anyone think that's a collapse?
	Judy calls this the bubbler.
	They're going to have building seven in the foreground.
	And I want you to understand, I think Judy has done a lot of wonderful work.
	I think her book is probably the best compilation of photographs, diagrams, and studies we have available to this day.
	So I bear her no malice.
	I simply disagree with her theory of how it was done.
	And I'm going to explain why I disagree, and you can evaluate for yourself.
	But look at this.
	Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine this is a collapse?
	Obviously not.
	And here's a part of a remnant of the core columns of the North Tower, which are undergoing molecular disintegration.
	Now, she's certainly correct that directed energy weapons can bring about molecular disintegration, but that's not the only mechanism that can bring about the same effect.
	And I'm suggesting it was not, in fact, directed energy, but an alternative.
	Now we had this, these buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	It was coating lower Manhattan up to two and a half inches over the town.
	Now Donald Trump was the first personnel in the world to contest the official version of the attacks of 9-11 on television that very day.
	After having noted the engineers who built the Twin Towers were now working for him, he declared on New York Channel 9 that was impossible that Boeing's going to burst through the steel structures of the towers, as I have been insisting.
	He continued by stating it was also impossible that 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 even used the word bombs.
	Now here we have another, an interview with Trump, knew the same day bombs must have been used in the towers on 9-11.
	You're probably the best known builder, particularly of great buildings in the city.
	There's a great deal of question about whether or not the damage and the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by the airplanes, by architectural defect, or possibly by bombs or aftershocks.
	Do you have any thoughts on that?
	The architecture of this, I do.
	The one that was known as a very, very strong building.
	Don't forget, that took a big bomb in the basement.
	Now, the basement is the most vulnerable place because that's your foundation.
	That's in 90s.
	And I got to see that area.
	And I really had to surprise because one of my structural engineers actually took me for a tour because he took the building.
	And I said, I can't believe it.
	The building was dirty solid.
	And half the clean columns were blown out.
	This was an unbelievably powerful building.
	If you don't think about structure, it was one of the first to make a structure that I said.
	The reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you have the steel on the outside.
	See, the steel on the outside of the building.
	That's why when I first looked, and you had two heavy I-beams.
	When I first looked at it, I couldn't believe it because there's a hole in the steel.
	And this is steel that was, you remember the windows in the World Trade Center, folks.
	I think, you know, if you remember up there, they were quite narrow.
	Even a plane, even a 767 or 737 or whatever it might have been.
	How could it possibly go through this?
	I have to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost every plane.
	I couldn't imagine anything being able to go through that room.
	Most buildings are built with the steels on the inside around the outside.
	This one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have.
	And it was almost just like a can of soup.
	Dana, we were looking at pictures that morning of that plane coming into building number two.
	And then you see that approach The far side, and then all of a sudden, within a matter of millisecond, the explosion pops out the other side.
	I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel.
	I think obviously there were very big planes that were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going.
	Yeah, if you appeal to what you think is intuitive physics, you know, how you think things should happen, you're going to be misled because physics does not follow intuitive patterns.
	The steel was so resistant, no real plane could have entered the building.
	It would have crumbled external to the building.
	Body seats, luggage, wings, tail, fallen to the building.
	The engines, which are virtually indestructible, no doubt would have entered, but we found that engine at Church and Murray was a plant.
	So how was it done?
	Well, Veterans Today has done massive work on the use of nukes to destroy the Twin Towers.
	And the best study appears to be by Hans Palmer, P-O-M-M-E-R.
	And I'm going to show you just a couple of sample slides from Palmer, who basically submits that the building, which was a tube within a tube design, was destroyed the inner tube from the bottom up.
	And then it had the effect of destroying the outer tube from the top down.
	Some of you may remember the south tower.
	Actually, the top section started to tilt, and then all of a sudden it was bolt.
	This was when the fire chief said, I think we just need a couple lines to put out the very modest fires.
	They decided they had to blow it then.
	Here you have more about how it was done.
	Now, I'm not the leading expert on the use of nukes here.
	I'm telling you, the nuke hypothesis is the only one that fits.
	And I'm going to explain why the alternatives of nanothermite or directed energy won't work, cannot explain the data.
	But if you want more, there are people I can recommend like Joe Olson, who's an engineer qualified structural, civil, mechanical, even electrical, who would make a wonderful guest for you, who has published on the use of nukes on 9-11 and is more expert than MI.
	Meanwhile, we did have the toasted cars.
	Judy's ate a lot out of the toasted cars as though that were the directed energy were the only way that it could explain the toasted cars or the molecular dissolution of the building.
	But it's also an effect of nukes.
	In fact, Palmer specifically addresses it about the toasted cars and related damage.
	And I like that Judy draws our attention to it.
	But here it turns out that the same effects would have occurred from a nuke, given the design of the building.
	It's really fascinating stuff.
	And I would encourage you to invite Joe if you want to go more deeply into it.
	Meanwhile, also, contrary to directed energy, we had debris ejected from the North Tower at a 45-degree angle here at the winter garden, which some have said is where dews and nanothermite go to die.
	Now look at this.
	Jet fuel fires, even if they burned hot enough and long enough, would cause a building to sag and gradually collapse, not convert into millions of tons of very fine cubic yards of very fine dust.
	Jet fuel could not have ejected 300 tons up at a 45 degree angle and 600 feet outward into the winter garden.
	To explode steel, an explosive needs to have a detonation velocity of 6,100 meters per second.
	To explode cement, a detonation velocity of 3,200 meters per second.
	Kerosene, which is a principal constituent of jet fuel, has a detonation velocity of only 1,600 meters per second.
	Nanothermite, believe it or not, has a detonation velocity of only 895 meters per second now.
	T-Mark Hightower, who's a chemical engineer, and I published three articles back in 2011 demonstrating that it was impossible for nanothermite to have destroyed the Twin Towers on grounds such as these.
	And if you want a nice summary overview, you can go to my blog at jameshfetzer.org and check out on C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9-11 truth in a time warp because I summarize the evidence there.
	Many nukes, however, would have had the observed effects.
	Now, the U.S. Geological Survey did studies of 35 samples of dust from Lower Manhattan, and they found elements that would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event, some of which only exist in radioactive forms.
	Barium, and strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium.
	You can go through the evidence in detail.
	Meanwhile, the curse of ground zero, number of cancer cases among 9-11 responders and survivor triples to more than 5,400 in less than three years.
	Well, now the number has grown to about 70,000.
	And it's all kinds of cancers like leukemia, multiple myeloma, esophageal pancreatic cancer, very similar to the pattern following Chernobyl.
	So we have a pattern here.
	Not only that, but there were thermal hotspots beneath the ground that endured until mid-December.
	Mid-December.
	Neither nanothermite nor directed energy can possibly account for this.
	Only the use of mini nukes can do that.
	And here you see a typical example of directed energy.
	This, I think, was in Paradise, California.
	Notice, they just reduce everything to the ground.
	There's nothing left.
	Well, that's not what we had here.
	These buildings are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	They're being destroyed literally.
	And I do think directed energy weapons are fascinating, and I do think it's a worthwhile hypothesis to contemplate, but it doesn't explain what happened in New York on 9-11.
	Here are key points about the heat beneath Manhattan post-9-11.
	Intense and long-lasting fires.
	Fires within the debris burned for months, contributing to the prolonged heat at the site.
	High temperature.
	Thermal measurements taken by choppers showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees Fahrenheit to over 2,800 Fahrenheit due to the ongoing underground fires.
	Impact on rescue and recovery.
	The intense heat at the site posed challenges for workers, melting the soles of their shoes and required careful consideration for the safety of search and rescue dogs.
	Thermal hotspots.
	Initial analysis of thermal data from September 16, 2001 revealed numerous thermal hotspots in the region where the WTC buildings, they didn't collapse, but they used the word here, were destroyed with temperatures greater than 800, which only gradually cooled over the following days.
	Not the following days, they extended to mid-December.
	And I've been looking for, there are thermal maps that show how extensive was this heat residual to the development.
	Now, if you want to talk about a collapse, here's one, Pakistan.
	This is not a steel structure high-rise.
	And by the way, as I'm sure you're all aware, no steel structure high-rise ever collapsed due to fire before 9-11, after 9-11, or on 9-11.
	But building seven did collapse.
	Well, this is one version of a collapse.
	Here we have what actually happened with Building 7 at 5.20 in the afternoon, seven hours after the demolition of building one, the North Tower.
	All the floors are coming down at the same time.
	You're probably more familiar with this than any other aspect.
	It left the residue at five and a half floors of debris.
	That's what we have typical result from classic experience with demolitions.
	They leave a residue equal to about 12% of the original height.
	This was a 47-floor structure, 12%, 5.5 floors.
	Look, however, you got 5.5 floors from a 47-story building.
	Here where one would have stood, you should have had 13 and a half floors, 12% of 110.
	But it ain't there.
	It ain't there.
	Father Frank Morales from St. Mark's Episcopal Church was a first responder, came onto my shows twice, and both times emphasized that the buildings, the North and the South Tower, were destroyed two or even below ground level.
	That's not an effect of a collapse.
	That's an effect of some very sophisticated mode of demolition that was intended to preserve the bathtub intact.
	Here you have Barry Jennings.
	He set out for building seven, where Rudy Giuliani had a command and control, two floors with its own air and water, and found no one was there.
	Half-eaten sandwiches, still steaming cups of coffee.
	Fireman came along and said, we got to get you out of here.
	And he heard explosions inside while he was there.
	A stairwell collapsed under him while he was there.
	He found himself stepping over bodies in the pitch blackness.
	He couldn't tell, but they were clearly bodies.
	When he got out, he gave an interview.
	He gave an interview.
	Now, one of the primary complaints about the 9-11 Commission Report is it didn't say anything about Building 7.
	And of course, they couldn't say anything about Building 7.
	Building 7 may be the most robust building ever constructed by the hand of man.
	It was erected over two enormous electrical generators providing backup electricity for Manhattan.
	They used solid steel girders.
	Even in the North and the South Tower, they used hollowed out solid steel because it gives virtually as much support.
	But in Building 7, they were solid steel.
	That building could not have collapsed, most certainly not have collapsed in the very modest fires that were attributed to that outcome by NIST.
	And I'm certain every one of you understands this 100%.
	So I shall not belabor it.
	Rudy was clearly involved.
	Get this, the day after 9-11, he had not one, not two.
	He had 115 dump trucks there to haul away the debris, even though the fire officials were saying, don't do it.
	We've got to investigate.
	115 dom trucks.
	Do you imagine how much time it takes to arrange for one dump truck in New York City?
	It might take a month to get one.
	He had 115.
	And Judy very discerningly observed, they were bringing in tons of dirt, tons of dirt to absorb the radioactivity, just as they did at Chernobyl.
	They covered the site with tons of dirt.
	So bringing in tons of dirt and hauling away the debris, even against the request of the fire officials.
	And here, of course, we had this celebrated event at Jan Stanley of the BBC announcing that the Solomon Mother Building had collapsed at 4.57, 23 minutes before it would actually occur.
	How embarrassing.
	The BBC has never been able to explain it.
	They got ahead of the script.
	Here we have that image of the Palestinian kids rejoicing.
	Israel has a tendency, the most odd, of overplaying their hand.
	They just go a step too far.
	They give one too many indications.
	It's like the dancing Israeli and saying, we aren't the problem.
	The Palestinians are your problem.
	They want to blame everything on the Palestinians.
	They want to blame 9-11 on the Palestinians.
	Are you kidding me?
	This was a very sophisticated op.
	The Palestinians were among the least capable of pulling it off.
	Simply absurd.
	But they had the vintage.
	They had the video right there in hand to play over national television.
	The 19 purported hijackers, these guys were Patsys.
	They were the Lee Oswalds, the Surhan Sirhans, the James Earl Rays of 9-11.
	They had nothing to do with it.
	They couldn't have flown the planes.
	They were Patsys.
	And in fact, a half a dozen of them made contact.
	They turned up alive and well the following day, including Mohammed Atta, who called his father and said he had nothing to do with it, but he was scared for his life as well as he should be, because they were going to track him down and kill him.
	Here we have no evidence any 9-11 hijackers boarded any plane.
	This was in Portland, Maine.
	This has not got to do with boarding one of the 9-11 aircraft.
	Turns out their passport were issued by CIA.
	Gee, I wonder how that could happen, that these alleged Islamic hijackers had their passports issued by CIA.
	Does that suggest anything?
	And as far as Osama, they were going to make a movie, Zero Dark 30.
	I published a blog about the deeper, darker truths.
	A film that may even take the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2012, raises serious moral issues, glorifies a political stunt, and is based on an historical fiction.
	It is the latest in Obama propaganda.
	Osama bin Lad was not killed on 2 May 211 during the raid on the compound in Pakistan.
	He actually died in Afghanistan on her about 15 December 2001, and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.
	Local obituaries reported Osama's death at the time.
	Even Fox subsequently confirmed it, as did CNN.
	He died on the 15th.
	CNN and Fox both reported his death on the 26th of December, 2001.
	Nick Kohlerstrom has published about it.
	Osama bin Laden, 1957-2001, right on my blog.
	David Ray Griffin has a book about it.
	Osama bin Laden, Dead or Alive, and Scholars for 9-11 Truth has written about it.
	Here's from Nick's, Osama bin Laden.
	In Orwell's novel, 1984, there's a figure called Emmanuel Goldstein who functions as an all-purpose enemy, even though we gather he may actually have died some time ago.
	Osama bin Laden had been used in a similar manner by the powers that be by a process of identity theft during the last days of his life.
	In reality, there have been no sightings or reports of him since 2001.
	I here argue that he died on or around December 15, 2001, in consequence of the intensive bombing of his then residents in the Torator caves of eastern Afghanistan, and that he had no involvement in the events of 9-11.
	They were nevertheless putting up propaganda videos with various obvious not Osamas and claiming it was Osama.
	As I've mentioned before, he actually was an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman, an official from the agency, visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death from his medical maladies.
	It's tough to get dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
	You may remember when Bush and Cheney were demanding the Taliban turn over Osama, and they said they'd be glad to do that if there were any evidence that he'd been involved in 9-11.
	And of course, we produced none because he had nothing to do with it.
	But it was very convenient for Barack Obama to fake an attack on a compound in Pakistan so he could campaign for re-election with the triumphal motif of having got the most wanted man in the world.
	Meanwhile, the origin of 9-11 traced back to a conference on terrorism held in Jerusalem around the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, where Brieby Netho even published a book about it.
	Paul Wolfabitz and Richard Burrough were among those who promoted the project for a new American century, which was suggesting that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States was now the sole remaining superpower and could create an empire worldwide destined to endure the next hundred years.
	It was ridiculous.
	It was untrue, but they promoted it.
	The Soviet Union had collapsed.
	Thus, they were worried that the American people wouldn't pick up on this unique historical opportunity.
	Thus, they wrote in rebuilding America's defenses.
	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 basic Content of the transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
	So, right off the bat, these figures, these politicians, were calling it a new Pearl Harbor.
	Meanwhile, Wesley Clark would eventually reveal what he learned at the Pentagon, namely that Rumsfeld had originally designated an attack on Afghanistan and even on Iraq.
	Wesley Clark went to the Pentagon shortly after 9-11, encountered a general of his acquaintance, asked what was going on.
	And the general explained we're planning to attack Iraq.
	And they were both puzzled because they agreed Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
	Rumsfeld would later say, Afghanistan doesn't have any targets, but Iraq has lots of targets.
	It was a target-rich environment.
	He wanted to go into Iraq.
	And of course, they were after the oil.
	In any case, Clark came back months later and encountered the same general.
	He says, have there been any developments?
	Oh, yes, sir.
	And Glark said, well, what's going on?
	He said, well, now, sir, the Secretary of Defense has thus issued a directive to take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years.
	And Clark said, well, is it classified?
	And he says, oh, yes, sir.
	And Glark said, well, then don't show it to me because I may want to talk about it later.
	And he did.
	On 2007, October 3rd at the Commonwealth Club, Wesley Clark revealed a plan to take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years, including Libya and Iraq, ending with Syria and Iran.
	Many believe what's going on right now, since Syria is falling, is the completion of the plan to create the Greater Israel using the United States as its mechanism.
	Not for nothing is it said that the national anthem of Israel is Onward Christian Soldiers.
	Philip Zelikow became the executive director of the 9-11 Commission after Henry Kissinger declined the honor because he didn't want to reveal his financial entanglements.
	Philip Zelikow had his area of specialization in the academy prior to government service of being an expert on the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S.
	And I give you the man who, in my opinion, wrote the script for 9-11, Philip Zelikow.
	He's a professor of history at the University of Virginia now.
	I find that grievous.
	I taught at UV8 twice as a visiting associate in 87, 88, and as a visiting fall around 1990.
	And it was Mr. Jefferson's University of whom he, perhaps the greatest political figure in American history, was very proud.
	Well, Zelikow is there now.
	He had actually completed a draft of the 9-11 Commission report a year before he shared it with the staff.
	Why?
	Because he's the guy who wrote the script.
	Meanwhile, they bottled up efforts to get to the bottom of it legally, such as Judy's suit by means of a judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, who has defeated, quashed multiple high-profile 9-11 cases, where I was very supportive of what Judy and others were doing there.
	Meanwhile, we have Ehud Ulmert and Vibi Net Yahoo, who are the mastermind behind 9-11, aided and supported by Dick Cheney, who appears to have been the executive director on the ground here.
	As Michael Rupert explained in his magisterial book, Crossing the Rubicon, where from publicly available sources, he's been able to prove Dick Cheney was running the shop.
	Bush W. was such a gnomeskull that they kept him largely out of the loop.
	There are interesting stories that go along that reveal it, including his visit to Booker Elementary, not far from where he's residing at the time in Brayton, Florida.
	But I'll save that for another occasion.
	For those who want to go further, although six of my books have been banned by Amazon, this one has not.
	America Nuked on 9-11 compliments of the CIA, the Neocons and the DOD, and the Lossad.
	And I just want to say how grateful I am for this opportunity to join you here today.
	And I'd be very glad to take any questions or comments you may have.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You're muted, Sue.
	Thank you, thank you.
	Gene and Sandra had their hand raised for a very long time.
	So go ahead, Gene or and or Sandra.
	Yeah, Jim, I just want to thank you first of all.
	While I might not agree on everything, I just love your inquisitive nature and the fact that you're addressing this.
	You did a great job handling Hannity back in the day, and I greatly appreciated that.
	If you don't mind, I wanted to share my screen just for a second and ask a few questions.
	You had said about BB18 being, and I don't mean to be contrarian to you.
	I just want to clear up some things.
	In this picture, we see BB18 is a power feed lug.
	There is an associated part for fuse holders.
	And if we look at one of them, it's just, it's a fuse holder.
	So I was curious what you termed it.
	If it was what you said it was, what would it have been used for?
	Oh, I think it would have been used to position the explosive to create the cutouts of the planes.
	I mean, they're boxes, you know, these fuel holders are identified there.
	But that's my interpretation of their role and the function of the gelatin group in relation to the cutouts.
	Thank you for that one.
	Somewhere else, David Cold shared with me the BB18, he says, could be a Floor-mounted box.
	We don't know what it is, but that's just it's interesting.
	That's one thing.
	The other thing, you had said quarter-inch plate steel up on the top parts of the section.
	I agree with that.
	We look at the bottom of this, it says column type 120, quarter-inch plate steel.
	That's the whole thing.
	And floors 93 to 96 was column 120 or column type 120.
	So we could kind of see that.
	The makeup of the composition of the facade wasn't solid.
	So I got to take a little position against what you were saying because it wasn't like it was hitting a solid sheet of steel or a solid sheet of concrete.
	It was hitting 14-inch box columns of quarter-inch plate steel separated by two foot, one inches of glass.
	So it was more glass as a facade than it was something solid.
	You're talking about the planes hitting the twin towers, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Look, you got a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building, and there's no resistance.
	There's no diminution in the trajectory of the planes.
	That means that's not a real phenomenon.
	There had to have been a diminution in the velocity.
	There had to be parts falling to the ground, body seats, luggage, wing, and tail.
	None of that happened.
	These cannot have been real.
	Yeah, they planted some parts around.
	Frankly, count me not impressed, okay?
	You got to understand how easy it would be to plant some stuff like that.
	You do not have any bodies.
	You do not have any seats.
	You do not have any luggage.
	You don't have wings.
	You don't have a tail in the facades beneath the ground.
	But yeah, they put some stuff out there to play on the minds of the weak.
	It's like the force can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded.
	So can, you know, plants, movies.
	This basically was a made-for-TV movie with real destruction of the real World Trade Center.
	That I'm not disputing whatsoever.
	But most of the rest of it is fiction.
	Anybody could say they planted parts.
	Just kind regards.
	Thank you very much for what you planted.
	Sure, sure.
	I'm glad I don't object to anyone taking exception.
	I'm not asking you to believe.
	I'm telling you what.
	All the years of research I've done on this has resulted.
	And, you know, what can I say?
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate it all.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	More.
	Brian is next.
	Go ahead, Brian.
	Hi there.
	Am I audible?
	Can you hear me?
	Okay, great.
	So, Jim, I'm curious, how do you differentiate evidence from theory?
	If I see an apple fall from a tree, do I need a theory to state that observation?
	Well, it's interesting, actually.
	In a strict technical sense, every observation is theory-laden, even that it's an apple, because you're implying that it has a certain core, certain constituents, certain features.
	So even ordinary language is laden with theory.
	I think you're trying to make a different point.
	Your claim is that any statement of fact is a theory.
	Is that what you're saying?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Don't change the context on me.
	I said, in a technical sense, even attributing to an object that it were an apple is a theory because it implies a lot of ramification about the constituents.
	You can peel it, cut it into slices, all that sort of thing in an applicable.
	But let's simplify that.
	Listen, you're playing a semantic game here.
	No, I'm not.
	Let me.
	Characteristic in science, we test theories on the basis of observation, measurement, and experiment.
	That's classic.
	And I have been explaining the difference, the theory that was done with nanothermite, which doesn't even have the explosive capacity to destroy concrete, much less steel, or directed energy weapons,
	which would not have left this heat residue, for example, among other features, nor the elements that were find by the U.S. Geological Survey and the dust samples, which even include radioactive elements that would not have been present had it not been a nuclear event and the use of mini nukes.
	So, I mean, we use evidence, typically observation, measurement, experiment, that we don't treat as theoretical, but rather as objects, physical objects and so forth as evidence unless we have reason to think they're fabricated or fake.
	I just make the point that technically, technically, you see, everything is an arrangement of dispositions of properties.
	And to be that thing, it has to have all those properties.
	So when you make an attribution of even something that's as simple as an apple, you're making a lot of hypothetical attributions, which characteristically are fulfilled because it actually is an apple.
	But if it were on a prop on a stage, it might very well look like an apple, but actually be made out of plastic because it's just a prop.
	So go for there.
	Tell me.
	So can we at least agree that the buildings became dust in mid-air?
	Do we agree on that?
	Became dust in mid-air.
	Well, they were being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust as they were destroyed and they were not collapsing.
	They were being converted by the process of molecular dissolution.
	And I like that part of Judy's work.
	That part, I think, is good.
	Right.
	Is that a theory?
	Explain a whole host of other things.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Is that a theory?
	What you just stated?
	Is that a theory?
	As I said, you want to play a game about the word theory.
	Okay.
	No, no, no.
	No, You're playing a game because you're trying to say that Dr. Judy Wood, when she presents evidence and observes it and states her observation, you say that's a theory.
	That's incorrect.
	No, I'm not.
	How many times?
	What is her theory?
	Tell me what her theory is.
	Times have I praised Judy Wood for crime.
	What is her theory?
	You said she had a theory.
	She has a theory.
	What's her theory?
	Her theory is the destruction of Billy was done by directed energy weapons.
	No, that's not what she says.
	Where does she say that in her book?
	Can you point out anywhere in her book that she states that?
	Okay, you tell me.
	You inform me.
	What is Judy saying?
	What I just said and what you just agreed with, that the buildings became dust in midair.
	That's what she says.
	It's an observation.
	If that is all you claim, Judy's saying, I agree with that, of course.
	She has not said directed energy weapons.
	She speaks.
	Well, then, why would anyone then argue with her?
	Because we all agree.
	And in fact, we can explain the dust by means of nuclear devices, which she can't explain because she doesn't even try to explain it.
	This is something that always troubled me about Judy and architects and engineers.
	They don't give you any narrative.
	They won't talk about who is responsible or why 9-11 took place.
	And I think that's utterly irresponsible.
	There is a narrative.
	Dr. Wood has a narrative in her case.
	It's that ARA and SAIC did not effectively investigate how the towers became dust in mid-air, as we agree.
	Yeah, I agree to that.
	That's her narrative.
	And so she has a narrative.
	So I don't understand why Judy sticks.
	She smack me.
	sticks to the evidence.
	And the thing is that you're constantly you're constantly a Yeah, please, please.
	This is fruitless.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	You broadbrush her work and you call it a theory.
	It's not a theory.
	It's evidence.
	It's an observation.
	You're a philosopher of science.
	You should know better.
	You're being silly.
	Her theory is directed energy weapons.
	She's known for it.
	Everyone agrees about that, except you.
	Go ahead.
	Give me another question.
	Someone more useful to discuss.
	Let's remember that two minutes per question.
	Be respectful.
	Do not interrupt one another.
	Do not accuse one another.
	And that goes for a speaker, too.
	I agree.
	Let's be respectful and scientific.
	I agree.
	So Norman has his next question, please again.
	All questionnaire two minutes.
	No shouting, no interrupting, and no accusations.
	All right.
	Go ahead, Norman.
	Good day, Mr. Fetcher.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so I think you'd agree with me that disseminating propaganda in the U.S. should be made illegal again, correct?
	The trouble is, what's propaganda?
	You got to know the different way of truth and the problem.
	Okay, so let me remind you of the 1948 Smith-Munt Act.
	Obama repealed it in 2012, which then permitted propaganda to be disseminated and broadcasting, disseminating information then no longer said that it had to be credible.
	Now, I've seen on many discussions, forums, platforms, and everywhere where people talk about the Smith-Munt Act being in effect, but prior to 2012, before it was repealed, you and Richard Gage held your 9-11 hearings in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada.
	So the suggestion has been made that you and Richard Gage could have been charged with treason for disseminating propaganda, especially taking into consideration that thermite, molten metal, and nukes have never been filed in an RFC to NIST, or this claimed explosive evidence has ever been taken to court.
	So could you please address the reasons for holding your 9-11 hearings in Canada whilst the Smith-Munt Act was still in play?
	And when will you file your explosive nuke evidence to NIST or take it to court?
	Come on.
	This is a serious group.
	Look, I just organized it in Vancouver.
	It's a beautiful location.
	And we had the hearings there.
	I don't think at the time I was even aware of the Smithmund Act, much less the Smith Modernization Act, which hadn't been passed yet, just in time for Sandy Hook.
	That was really to give cover to the crisis actors and bring a Sandy Hook and a host of others.
	But I think you're making an extraordinarily contrived argument here.
	I don't find this a serious piece of exchange here.
	Thank you.
	Just ridiculous.
	Last question.
	I have published my work.
	I have widely announced it.
	I've been flown around the world to give lectures on 9-11.
	And I'm not going to.
	I've got another question.
	I don't want to hear how important you are in the 9-11 space because a lot of people have pointed out your shortcomings, especially with… Talk to my wife.
	She'll give you an expense.
	Corman, your next question, you have one minute left.
	Okay, so I would like you to then explain with your nuke theory the lack of seismic readings, the undamaged bathtub, and the anomalies with buildings three, four, five, and six that cannot be explained due to thermal or kinetic mechanisms.
	Also taking into account the strange anomalies with 1,400 cars that were basically spontaneously combusting blocks away with their engines melted away and all of that kind of aspects.
	And then also the missing firemen who just disappeared, but their locator alarms were still found.
	Listen, I've already suggested you want to go deeper on the use of new because I think Joe Olson would be a great guest for you to have.
	But I mean, you're elaborating the whole thing.
	Well, you have my email and my exchanges with Joe Olson on file, and it's also on my sub stack.
	And people have been reading that.
	So I haven't got time for him, but I haven't got time for you either because I think you're a disinforgen.
	God, you know, this isn't fascinating.
	I've probably done more to expose government publicity in JFK, 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston.
	Cover up, you mean?
	Covered it up.
	Covered it up.
	I'm exposing it again and again.
	And I publish my work.
	In fact, it's so exposive the government has to ban it.
	Six of my books have been.
	You don't deal with the evidence.
	You call it theory.
	But because we got it wrong.
	You know, I can't believe it would be reduced to this childish level.
	We're talking here about scientific issues and you're acting like little children calling names.
	That's great.
	You're the one throwing childish.
	You call it childish accusations from the company.
	Is talking about the seismic evidence childish, Mr. Fetzer?
	Maybe you should talk about the seismic evidence.
	Susan, these guys are way off base.
	Yeah, explosives have seismic signals.
	Liar.
	Whoops, I clicked the wrong mute.
	Sorry.
	That's okay.
	Yeah.
	I don't care.
	I didn't.
	Explain the anomalies with buildings three, four, five, and six.
	And the Bank of Trust.
	I lost five buildings.
	Listen, I didn't even think about Judy Partisans coming in to try to attack me.
	So I was.
	Yeah, well, you attacked her from the beginning.
	So you asked for the.
	Yeah, I did not.
	I featured her 15 times.
	Yes, you did.
	That's why I initially spoke.
	You people are ignoring the history.
	I featured Judy on my radio shows 15 times.
	I was pioneering interaction between the internet and the computer.
	We went to her website 15 times to talk about it.
	When I did the 9-11 hearings in Vancouver, I invited Judy to come.
	John Hutchison had already agreed, as had this physicist, and she talked them both out of not coming.
	I believe in representing all points of view.
	That's how we're going to discover the truth for open, unfettered debate, and not by calling names.
	Judy has done some pretty disgusting things at attacking me.
	And I don't want to go worth the time.
	But I assure you, you need to contemplate the points I've been making about why directed energy weapons cannot account for the data, including the vast underground heat that extended into mid-December, explicable on the nuke hypothesis, not on directed energy.
	Susan, next.
	Okay, Mike Shiga has his hand raised.
	Go ahead, Mike.
	Hi.
	Yeah, I had a question.
	This was only touched upon briefly, but the use of nukes, I was wondering what your opinion was on that.
	Did you actually say it was from the base?
	Do you believe that that would have been how it was actually taken down?
	Oh, yeah.
	And I gave a couple of the drawings from the Palmer report.
	Veterans Today has like 50 studies of the use of nukes.
	So, you know, they have a vast repository and archive, but the most important appears to be by Hans Palmer, P-O-M-M-E-R.
	And you must have just missed that part because I went into it in a fair amount of detail and the conversion of the buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	And now the U.S. Geological Survey sampled 35 from lower Manhattan and found all these elements that would not have been there had it not been a nuclear event.
	So I covered it.
	Yeah, well, yeah.
	I would like to state I can't rule out low-yield nuclear weapons as some aspect of the demolition.
	But from the basement, which obviously veterans today often pointed to, it is entirely incongruent with the evidence.
	I mean, we had a point of impact up and down destruction, and we even had survivors in the stairwell.
	So I'm trying to understand how you square squibs and molten metal pouring out of the side of the building with what is observable.
	Palmer goes into all, and it's a tube within a tube.
	It was destroyed from the bottom up, the inner tube, and it had the effect of destroying the outer tube from the top down.
	You simply haven't been paying attention, which rather surprises me.
	No, no, I heard that I heard Veterans Today, which has a huge amount of this out there, but I'm not at liberty to pursue it.
	I've told you where to go.
	The Palmer report.
	Oh, no, I've read in the Demetro.
	I've seen disinfo and misinfo people on Kevin Barrett's show and within Veterans Today.
	So I just have a question.
	How could people survive in a stairwell in many people, the lower floors when the entire building was nuked?
	And also, I'm really confused.
	I would like to know how you explain this.
	We saw a point of impact up and down demolition.
	Case in point, we had Squibbs.
	So I really find it laughable.
	I mean, I respect some of your work for sure, but I do not see how you think the basement was the means of demolition.
	Look, I've told you, there are better experts than I on the exact use of the nukes.
	I'm giving you the general reason why it appears to be correct.
	And yeah, the survivors, I mean, fluky things happen.
	It's like when Hiroshima Nagasaki, you got a church that's still standing.
	You say, well, how is that consistent?
	People will give all kinds of arguments about it.
	You don't dispute that there was some video fakery for the demolition, right?
	That was real.
	I'm trying to say from a very clear layman just graduated from high school or you have eyes, you can note that what we saw was the point of impact up and down.
	What do you mean by point of impact?
	Up and down.
	Okay, yes.
	I guess in your opinion, right, there was no impact.
	So sorry.
	You mean the planes?
	Do you still believe there were planes that hit the buildings?
	Yeah, 100%.
	Okay.
	But that's all right.
	But I'm still, I'm moving.
	You convinced me that you're not competent with regard to even elements.
	Okay, okay.
	Okay.
	Let's stop.
	No, let's not.
	let's agree to disagree.
	You're wasting time here with a silly.
	You know, I mean, I'm still trying to understand how you somebody.
	Honest to God, I'm really taken aback by this.
	Susan.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	So do you think it's possible multiple devices were used?
	No real planes were used.
	No real planes could have entered the buildings.
	You got Donald Trump saying that.
	You got all kinds of physicists saying this.
	No real planes were used.
	That was the original plan, Susan.
	They wanted to use remote control planes, but they found they couldn't get them into the building.
	And if they couldn't get into the building, they couldn't have them explode with pre-positioned explosive to make it look as though that had caused them to collapse.
	Well, they didn't collapse, and they weren't real planes, but they had Hollywood-style special effects.
	That's why I said 9-11 was a made-for-TV movie.
	Well, getting back to not the planes, not getting going there at all.
	Could there have been conventional control demolition devices as well as nukes?
	Could there have been explosives as well as nukes?
	Could there have been multiple devices?
	Yeah, sure.
	I'm open to that.
	Okay.
	That's all.
	No, actually, I do have another question.
	Your PhD, what's that in?
	Philosophy, history and philosophy of science.
	I graduated magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton in 1962.
	I was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps.
	I resigned my commission in 1966 as a captain to enter graduate school at Indiana in the history and the philosophy of science.
	I did my outside minor at Columbian Philosophy.
	I got my PhD in 1970.
	I have at this point hundreds of articles and 40 books.
	And, you know, most of my academic work, two dozen books, is on the theoretical foundation to scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
	And then I've done, especially in my retirement, all this work by promoting collaborative research, bringing together the best experts in areas where I am not.
	And that's why some of this taken after me on details of the news.
	There are other people who can do that.
	I'm giving you the big picture.
	I'm telling you how the whole thing was put together, who was responsible and why, that all the planes were fabricated, all the crash sites were fabricated and fake.
	Most of it was a fantasy scenario violating laws of physics, aerodynamics, and, you know, biology for that matter.
	So, I mean, I'm just saying I'm giving you the big picture and I welcome your pursuing more detailed pursuits about aspects of this with others whom I recommend.
	Joe Olson is very good.
	But the hands, Palmer, the studies of veterans today, I mean, there are others who are more competent than I by far on specific aspects.
	And what I was hoping was to get feedback, you know, on disagreements.
	And I guess I have because there's some here who want to hold out for Judy and defend her.
	I'm not attacking Judy.
	I'm explaining why the evidence is consistent with the Yusuf Dukes rather than directed energy.
	And then we have someone saying she doesn't even claim directed energy.
	Well, that's what she's known for.
	So let's just say, okay, a hypothetical or imaginary Judy would advocate directed energy.
	It doesn't work.
	It wasn't directed energy, whether Judy advocates it or not.
	And it was a nanothermite.
	But Susan, yes, they could have had multiple.
	They could have had other devices there.
	I would even rule out they might have had some directed energy, but the heavy lifting was done by mini nukes in the sub-basement.
	And there's an amount of evidence to support it.
	All four of the crash sites were fabricated.
	It was an Israeli hop supplemented by NeoCons, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the Mossad.
	There it is.
	That's the big picture of 9-11.
	And I want to thank you.
	Susan, you're a dear.
	It just kind of out of the blue.
	I discovered you had this Boston 9-11 truth group, and I just thought it would be fun to join and get feedback.
	It's been a mixed bag, but I'm delighted.
	I'm delighted nonetheless.
	And I want to thank you and all the members who came, even those who are arguing against me.
	I'm glad you were here.
	And I just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you.
	And if you want to go further, I do recommend Joe Olson, but there are others.
	Get the Palmer Report because I think the Palmer Report answers everything about the toasted cars, the squibs, a whole bit.
	It's all there.
	Check it out.
	I thank you very much.
	We've had Joe Olson on our podcast before.
	Oh, great.
	Excellent.
	Yeah.
	And another one who is not raising his hand, Maxwell Burgess, as well.
	So.
	All right.
	I think I'm sorry.
	We're really over time.
	Yeah, I get it.
	I appreciate the opportunity from the bottom of my heart.
	Thank you one and all.
	Oh, thank you.
	I'm glad you came and braved the storm, so to speak.
	It goes with the territory, Susan.
	Jim, when you say no nanothermite, you mean just not as the primary source, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	okay.
	Thank you for cleaning up.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	And it turns out, see, those nanothermite particles are created by interaction between the steel, the carbon, and the steel and the aluminum cliding.
	That's another aspect.
	So it cannot have been the primary mechanism for any aspect, but it was used in.
	Can I get some questions in or no?
	Can I get it down to one minute now because we're serious?
	Go ahead, Matthew.
	Yeah, well, it's one minute.
	Basically, if I could share my screen quickly, because he keeps talking about nukes and high heat, but the evidence shows there's very little heat.
	So what are your, God, how do I share with sound?
	How do you find where this is?
	Okay, so I can't, I'm not sure.
	I'm using a new computer, so I need to figure out which one I'm sharing.
	I get there for that.
	The question is, it's hard to share my screen.
	So basically, there's very little heat there.
	There's people walking on the parts where you're saying it's 1400 degrees.
	And the toasted cars, a lot of the toasted cars were before the towers fell, before the towers fell.
	Do you have any thoughts about that?
	Before any of this mystical nukes hit it.
	And also to a librarian, Ryan was saying it was basically Julio was saying that she gives evidence of cold directed energy weapons similar to the Hutchinson effect, which she actually said you threatened her.
	Once she got on the Hutchinson effect angle and you said, don't include that in your book, or else you know what happens to people like that.
	They end up usually end up dead and so on.
	So and that along with your dealings with Ace Baker faking his death on live radio.
	I'm just wanted to raise it up for those who don't know.
	What are you using this for a last minute smear?
	Susan.
	It's been one minute and I can't share my screen.
	But anyways, so the low heat.
	What's your thoughts on a low heat?
	What's your thoughts on a low heat?
	No Tiffany.
	It's posted until mid-December.
	And it's been explicable by any other hypothesis.
	There's thousands of people.
	Susan.
	Susan, please end it.
	Thank you.
	Once again, very much.
	I think you got it.
	And that was enough of that.
	Thanks, Susan.
	Last thing, you had started recording, and I thought we were recording.
	And so my recording started late.
	Oh, sure.
	I'll send you my recording.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	That's great.
	My pleasure.
	And the last portion of our meeting, our Zoom meeting, is our local Boston 9-11.
	You take care of that.
	I'll send you this.
	And I thank you, Susan, and one at all for being here.

▲