All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2011 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:15:27
Edition 67 - 911 Special

On the tenth anniversary of the tragic events we speak with controversial 9/11 ResearcherJim Fetzer.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for all your emails, your guest suggestions, your thoughts on the show and those of you who've donated to the show, thank you very much.
Donations absolutely vital to take the work forward, to make sure that we cover the costs and also to allow me to develop what I want this to be.
And you know that I want this to be the new media.
And I am in the mainstream media.
That's where I do some work.
I want this to be the future because I believe it is for all of us.
So if you can support the show in that way, great.
If you can't, that's fine too.
Just enjoy it.
And thank you very much for the recent emails.
I did say this time round I was going to be doing some various shout outs and mentions for people and talking about your suggestions.
This time round, if you don't mind, I'm going to leave that until next time because of what we're about to talk about.
We're about to do what could turn out to be one of the most controversial shows we've ever done here.
And I think at this time, it's important that we do it.
But we have to do it respectfully and we have to ask the questions that have to be asked.
So that is why I'm embarking on this.
We're going to talk about 9-11, something that has burned very deeply into my consciousness and into my heart for reasons that I will explain.
You might think it's odd that a guy who lives in London and is English, born and bred despite American connections and connections all around the world, you know, I'm a Brit.
But this is part of my life for this reason.
Back in 2001, on that September day, I was working on the biggest commercial radio show in the UK, the Chris Tarrant Breakfast Show.
A big entertainment show here.
I was the news guy, so I covered all the stories and was part of the show.
And just like people on, I don't know, Scott and Todd in New York or the Howard Stern show, whoever does news there, you have to do the serious news.
I wrote it and produced it as well.
And also be a light-hearted member of the team when it was called for.
But also, the job entailed reacting to difficult and hard events like the death of Princess Diana, which I was also involved in, and 9-11.
Now, what happened for us over here was that, of course, that happened breakfast time for you in the States, but for us here in London, this happened in the afternoon time.
So I was on a train on my way home after a day's work.
And the phone went, and somebody very close to me, very upset, told me that planes had gone into the Twin Towers.
Actually, I think it was one plane at that time, and I needed to get home and turn on CNN, which I did.
And the unfolding drama that was 9-11 played itself out in front of my eyes.
I couldn't believe what I'd seen.
And my friend who phoned me had friends in those towers, and she was, of course, hugely upset, and I'm sure remains so about the terrible, terrible events of that day, which are still really hard to take in.
The statistics of it, the people who died, the people who tried to effect rescues and failed, but valiantly battled.
The 200-odd people who leapt from the building because presumably the flames were so intense that there was no choice.
A terrible day for the entire world.
And it wasn't long before people started asking questions about that.
I, of course, was working on it.
For a little while, you know, it was very hard to get connections to the United States.
It was hard to get ISDN hookups, as they call them, for quality contributions into programs.
And it was really hard to find reporters.
So for a while, I relied on a guy I knew at ESPN Radio, the sports network in the States, a friend of mine, who used to do me updates from Connecticut about what he was hearing from New York, because for a couple of days, New York City was in complete turmoil after this.
Then a good friend of mine from Independent Radio News in London, Kevin Murphy, one of the finest reporters on radio that we've ever produced in this country, went to the States and did special dedicated reports for me on Capitol Radio about what happened there.
And some of those were absolutely heart-rending to hear as Kevin, who is a fine reporter and a guy with a heart, walked through the wreckage and rubble and dust and described what he saw.
I'll never forget those reports and I'll never forget what Kevin did on that day.
And as for me, it became a part of my life so much so that one year later I was sent to Ground Zero.
I stayed in the Marriott Financial Hotel, which had only just reopened, met the staff and broadcast from there.
And I met a lot of the rescuers, the people who'd lost loved ones and everybody connected with 9-11 and covered the commemoration ceremony there where President Bush, I believe, was part of it, wasn't he, and Giuliani, the mayor, started the reading of names of all the victims of that day.
I then went back for the second anniversary.
I was working for LBC Radio then and did something similar, and we saw how things developed.
So it is part of my life.
And for that reason, we're going to talk about 9-11 on this show.
We're going to talk to somebody who would hate to be called a conspiracy theorist, I think.
But the world probably sees him that way.
His name is Jim Fetzer.
You might know that name anyway.
He's had a lot of coverage over the last decade.
Jim Fetzer is a man who's researched many subjects, including the assassination of JFK and has made a large part of his life recently, what happened on 9-11.
So we're going to cross to Wisconsin, to Madison in the United States in just a moment, and talk with Jim Fetzer about his theories about what happened.
Now, this is controversial stuff, and if you're easily annoyed or upset by it, I understand.
You don't have to listen to this show.
That's okay.
But if you want to hear the other side of the coin and a different view, maybe you should.
You make the choice.
Tell me what you think about the show.
Go to the website www.theunexplained.tv.theunexplained.tv.
Designed by Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
Let me know what you think about the show and react with it.
Always good to hear from you.
Okay, before we hear from Jim Fetzer in the States, I'd like to play for you now something that I've only just recently rediscovered.
It's what I did, and I was very nervous because I realized the gravity of the event broadcasting live to London during the first anniversary commemorations.
I was on the rooftop of the Marriott Financial.
Here's that recording.
This is Howard Hughes, live at Ground Zero.
Exactly a year ago, an event happened that changed everything.
After September the 11th, 2001.
We all hope that terrorism can be beaten, but nobody will ever be sure.
365 days have passed, but the voices from Ground Zero now are as clear as they were then.
Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.
We, therefore, here in Britain, stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends.
I want to let you all know that I love you very, very much in case I don't see you again.
The firemen were saying that if they could hear them to bang twice, I matter which they did, we're gonna rebuild.
We're not only gonna rebuild, we're gonna come out of this stronger.
Here in New York today, people vowed, as they vowed on that day, to carry on and not be beaten by this.
My attitude is that if you stop your life the way it is, you're gonna actually let them win.
Because that's what they want.
They want to disrupt our lives.
I just went on, I mean, it was a tragic event, but I just went on like nothing happened.
That's Jen at work on Wall Street one year ago and at her desk right now.
And these people on Fifth Avenue today defy the fear as well.
I still feel safe.
I haven't felt safe all year, really.
The fact that everyone's a little more tense to their surroundings and what's going on makes everyone else safer.
I feel safe.
I feel safe everywhere I go.
This 9-11 rescuer here today from Indiana because he says he has to be here told me how he can never see life through the same eyes now.
It has affected me in a long-lasting way.
In some ways, I'm a much harder individual on some subjects, but on the other hand, there's areas that I'm a softer individual.
It's changed me forever.
So here in New York from Ground Zero, the most moving memorial of all now, first, the reading of the Gettysburg Address, the symbol of America's freedom.
And then the reading out of the names of every victim, 2,800 people or more, started by ex-Mayor Giuliani.
So the world can never forget.
William F. Abrahamson.
Richard Anthony Asito.
And later here, President Bush will speak, and then there'll be the lighting of an eternal flame.
Well, that recording I haven't heard for a few years.
That is me standing on the top of a hotel adjacent to Ground Zero, a hotel that was closed for the better part of a year and had only just reopened when I went there on the first anniversary.
I stayed in the hotel.
I got to know the staff very, very well.
In fact, they made me one of their own for that amazing week in New York, the Marriott Financial Hotel.
And I covered what you've just heard, the beginning of the commemorations from the rooftop there.
And I can remember standing on that rooftop, clutching a microphone, very nervous as I talked back to London because I realized how momentous these events were.
And the whole eyes of the world were on us.
And the eyes of the Secret Service were definitely on me from adjacent rooftops.
It was something that I will never forget.
And I will never forget the commemorations followed by the ending of that ceremony.
And all of us filed away.
Most of us were dressed in black or dark colours.
I certainly was out of respect.
And we filed away in total silence.
If you can imagine, thousands of people all walking away from this thing in complete silence.
And a very eerie thing happened on that day, the first anniversary.
A strange Chirocco-style wind blew up around New York within minutes of the ending of it.
The sky darkened a little, and the dust which was still lying on the ground there was whipped all around our feet.
And we walked, most of us, through buildings that hadn't changed in that year.
There was a cafe that I saw on my walk to where I was going that was stationary in time.
The clock had stopped when the towers came down, and there were menus on the floor.
That was New York on the first anniversary.
Now, one of the reasons we're here now talking is because The Unexplained, both on radio and online, has covered many conspiracy theories.
We have, of course, talked many times.
About 9-11, we had David von Kriest on on the radio show and on the highlights, the greatest hitch show a few months back here online.
I put a little bit of him on there for you to hear.
He made a video presentation and a book called In Plain Sight.
Well, now for this 10th anniversary, I thought it might be appropriate to get somebody else on from the U.S. This man's name is Jim Fetzer, and Jim is connected to us here at The Unexplained now from Madison, Wisconsin.
Jim, thank you very much for being patient and listening to all of that, and welcome to The Unexplained.
Oh, Howard, I'm extremely pleased to be here, and the very emotions and symbolism that you have depicted so artfully have been used to instill fear into the American people and to manipulate us for the sake of a political agenda.
I'm very sorry to say.
Now, that is an amazing thing to hear from a man I know has an academic background.
So tell me just a little bit about you, because you're not just some Joe on the street.
You are an academic.
Well, I spent 35 years as a university professor, Howard, mostly offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
My background, my PhD is in the history and the philosophy of science.
I've made extensive contributions to the theoretical foundation of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and more recently, the evolution of mentality.
But when the events of 9-11 took place, I was really quite floored.
The circumstances for us were that I was lying in bed in our home in Duluth, and a daughter in Sarasota, Brayden, called to tell us to turn on the television.
And when we did, we saw the smoking North Tower.
We would subsequently watch the purported second hit on the south.
And of course, the destruction and everything else that took place.
I was particularly struck by the image of Palestinians rejoicing over these events, which I was quite certain couldn't possibly be the case.
And indeed, it turns out to have been a propagandistic aspect trying to impose an indelible impression of, in a negative fashion, about Palestinians rejoicing over grief being struck by.
Well, that image, I remember that image very clearly.
And it just seemed to me, I never thought of it in the terms that you thought of it, but it seemed to me when I saw it, how did they get that so clearly and so quickly?
It just appeared.
It was as if it almost looked staged.
Now, I don't buy into necessarily the conspiracy theories, but that part of it was just too packed, it seemed.
Well, that's very good, Howard.
It wasn't staged so much as it was archival footage from a festive or religious event in Palestine and had nothing to do with 9-11.
how do you know that, by the way, Jim?
Well, we have done some research into the background.
I don't know that we found that specific footage, but the response in Palestine, Howard, was very much like the response all over the world, silence and disbelief that something like this could have taken place.
But there turned out to be other indications of an attempt to pin the tail on Palestinians initially, even though, of course, it wouldn't fly.
One was that the anchor on, I believe I was watching NBC at the time, was saying that the responsibility for the attack had been claimed by a Democratic Front for Palestine, which of course was not true.
And later, when the five so-called dancing Israelis, this group of five apparently Mossad agents who were at Liberty State Park in New Jersey, who were filming the destruction of the Twin Towers and celebrating, were arrested in a white van from urban moving systems, which also turns out to be a Mossad asset.
The driver said to the officer, we are not your problem.
We are Israelis.
Your problem is our problem.
The problem is the Palestinians.
Now, these five young men were kept incarcerated for some 71 days until they were released at the instruction of an assistant to then Attorney General John Ashcroft.
They returned to Israel and went on television.
Three of them went on Israeli television and explained they had been there to document the destruction of the World Trade Center, which obviously could not have happened had they not had advanced knowledge that this was going to take place, where the assistant to then Attorney General Ashcroft was none other than Michael Chertoff,
who had become the Director of Homeland Security, who, like so many of those in the Department of Defense and supporters of the Project for the New American Century, whose ideology appears to have underlaid the scheme for 9-11 as a joint U.S.-Israeli citizen,
where I, in my first political speech, Howard, at a freedom rally, a Ron Paul freedom rally on the 15th of April in 2008 on the grass in front of the steps of the Capitol of the United States, I called for the resignation from office of any who held policy positions who had joint citizenship with any country, because who could know that their loyalty to the other nation did not outweigh their loyalty to the United States?
Here, I'm very sorry to say that we have a great deal of evidence that implicates very high-level members of the Department of Defense, where those who appear to have played key roles include Dick Cheney,
the Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Fife, Pearl, others, General Richard Meyer, Rudy Giuliani, even the mayor of New York, and of course, Larry Silverstein, who had taken possession of the World Trade Center just six weeks before these events, Howard.
It's an astonishing history when you follow it because the World Trade Center had been functioning since 1970 when the towers were first opened.
And the first thing that Larry Silverstein did was to fire the security company that had been providing security for the buildings in that entire interval of time and obtaining insurance policies against terrorist attacks, where when the two alleged planes hit the building, he claimed double indemnity and wound up settling for something like $4.4 billion on a $114 million investment.
But the arrangements you've just talked about, Jim, aren't they the kind of things that any new proprietor of any building, whether it be London, New York, you know, Los Angeles, Rome, wherever, that's something that a new proprietor would do.
They'd take a look at how things are done.
They'd go through the paperwork and they'd make some changes.
That doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.
Well, Howard, it's one piece of a very complex puzzle.
Put in isolation, you might think that it's insignificant, just as if you put in isolation a change in the standard operating procedure implemented by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in June, which denied area commanders the right to take actions against hijacked aircraft, which heretofore had been at their discretion.
Now it had to go through the Secretary of Defense for his personal approval, where it just so happens that during 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld, during these crucial intervals of time, was for two hours absent.
No one knew where he was.
No one could contact him.
And no one could have obtained permission had any action been taking place.
Now, I heard that period was 25 minutes, and the reason that he was absent was that he was helping out with the rescue recovery operation, helping to get people onto stretchers.
Well, that was a PR stunt, Howard.
I mean, how could the Secretary of Defense during what's alleged to be an attack on the United States be out in the lawn removing debris or the injured?
I mean, that's absurd.
We have what's known as a division of labor.
That's a task that would have fallen to the enlisted men supervised by their commissioned officers.
And as a former captain in the United States Marine Corps, I can assure you that the idea that the Secretary of Defense would be out in the lawn cleaning up the debris is a manifest absurdity.
But what about the pictures of him helping Tota Stretcher, which I've seen?
Oh, sure.
I've seen the pictures.
Yes, he was there.
What I'm saying is it was a stunt.
It was a public relations stunt to have him out there on the lawn where he could be photographed as though he had this enormous concern for what had happened, when in fact he was instrumental in his planning and execution.
Let me give you another illustration of what was going on at the Pentagon so you begin to get the idea.
Later, although two civilian lime green firetrucks had shown up almost immediately to extinguish the relatively modest fires, which appear to have been explosions that were set off at the building while a Boeing 757 Flew toward the building and then swerved over it, for which we have copious data and eyewitness reports.
The lawn, the Pentagon lawn at the time, was perfectly clear, green, smooth, unblemished.
There wasn't a speck of debris.
Debris only started showing up later.
And I have speculated that since it would have been very awkward to have enlisted men or officers carrying debris out onto the lawn, that if it came floating down from the air, that would be far less obtrusive.
And a C-130, which was circling the building, appears to me to have been the source of that debris.
Now, it's interesting you say that, though, Jim, because I saw a television documentary in this country only last night where they talked to the man who said he was the pilot of the C-130 and felt rather affronted that anybody could even suggest such a thing.
Well, if you saw the documentary, Howard, then you saw me in the flesh because I was, of course, featured in that documentary along with Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and Niels Herrett.
Many of what we might call the usual suspects on both sides of the case, of course, were in that show.
In fact, I have several points to make about that documentary, which was a very deft piece of disinformation because among other aspects of the program, I described to Mike Rudin, who's the producer of the series, just as I described to Guy Smith three years previously, who was the director, that the hit point at the Pentagon is often misdescribed.
It's actually right on the and misrepresented in photographs.
It's actually on the ground floor, Howard.
It's about 10 feet high, 16 or 17 feet wide.
There's chain link fench there.
There are two cars, two enormous spools of cable, unbroken windows.
What you don't have is a massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner.
What you don't have are the wings or the tail, body, seats, or luggage.
Can you imagine how or not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, recovered from that website?
And as Major General Albert Stumblwein has observed in interviews he has given, he who used to be in charge of all American image analysis, so this guy is qualifications are beyond dispute.
No plane hit the building because, as he reports, there's no image of any impression of any wing from any aircraft there.
And one of the weirdest things that I've often said on radio, and nobody's ever really counted it, is that if a plane hit that part of the building in that way, as we are told, and I still don't know what to think about this.
I'm not sure, and that's why you and I are talking now.
Where's the video?
In one of the most camera-up locations, surely the Pentagon must have more cameras per square mile, per square foot, per square meter, whatever, than anywhere else because of its high security designation.
Where are the pictures from every angle of that plane approaching and hitting?
We don't see them.
Would you believe that the FBI was out at the Sitko station within 15 minutes of the event collecting the videos that they happened to have?
And as you astutely observed, there must be as many as 80 videos.
The Pentagon is just crammed with cameras for the purpose of surveillance.
They must have over 80 videos that would show what actually happened.
Jim, I came up with two thoughts about it, and I wonder what your feelings about them are.
Maybe they're just very silly thoughts, but I'll tell you what they are.
Number one, perhaps those videos have been withheld because of the sensibilities of people who suffered on that day, or alternatively, for security reasons, they don't want to give clues to anybody who might be thinking of something similar in future.
What do you think about that?
Those are both indefensible excuses, Howard, for the following reason.
I mean, there is no higher form of respect to those who died that day, and we have 125 casualties inside the building, separate and apart from the alleged passengers on the aircraft, which we can discuss at some length, because there's a lot of evidence that those flights were manufactured or fabricated.
Just as was the billowing black smoke I was about to mention, by the way, before it slips my mind, and I'll return immediately to this topic, but when the Congress was given the rumor that the Capitol might be next, the members of Congress poured out onto the steps in front of the Capitol, looked across the Potomac and saw billowing black smoke coming from the building, from the Pentagon, or apparently so.
And yet, as I have already explained, those civilian lime green firetrucks had already extinguished the very modest fires.
So I began to inquire as to where it had come from.
And I've discovered that there was a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the Pentagon, and the billowing black smoke was coming from those dumpsters, which means this was a Hollywood-style special effect, Howard.
And who told you that?
Who told you that the smoke came from those dumpsters?
Nobody told me.
I discovered it.
I found three frames in which you can actually see the dumpster smoke, which I initially had put up on one of my websites at assassination science.com, but which I've also featured in two articles I've published where you can look at them for yourself, which is What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon, where you can see a photograph of the actual hit site that I have been describing.
You can see another photograph of those two lime green civilian fire trucks putting out the modest fires, and you can see the clear green unblemished lawn.
What didn't happen at the Pentagon is one, and another is seven questions about 9-11, which is at Veterans Today, where I am now a columnist, and where I would mention that anyone who would like to see some of my most recent studies about 9-11, they should just do a search on Veterans Today,
Jim Fetzer, and they're going to turn up about eight columns of mine, a new one of which will appear this weekend, Howard, which is a critique of this BBC's conspiracy file piece that you just saw.
So returning to the question about whether they didn't use the security cameras because they didn't want to reveal security information or offend the sensibilities, I've actually addressed the sensibility question, but so many questions, you know, issues have arisen in relation to this Where it's very obvious to me and others who have studied this, and where the evidence speaks very eloquently for itself.
If you look at what I present, which I document with photographs, mind you, of the dumpsters, of the clear unblemished lawn, of the original hit site, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, which they could have very easily resolved had they released to one or another.
If they got 84 choices, Howard, suppose there actually were a bona fide security issue here, which I frankly disbelieve.
But suppose there actually were, well, they could carefully select between the 80 or more videos they have and release one or another that was of no security significance.
What they did do was release five different frames that had the wrong date time stamp on them that showed four of which were an enormous fireball allegedly occurring because of the plane hitting the building.
And then another image that was conveniently labeled plane, where just above the gate mechanism, you can see what appears to be a very small silhouette of a very small aircraft with a white plume extending from it.
I had a friend from JFK Research, whose name is Jack White, who's very skilled at doing these things, size the image of a Boeing 757 to the tail, which is sufficiently distinctive.
And you find that a 757, which is 155 feet long, was more than twice as long as the plane seen in this image.
And the white smoke, the white plume, both pilots and aeronautical engineers have assured me is not from the exhaust from a jet, but appears to be from a missile that may have been fired at the building.
In fact, a current internet sensation, if you haven't run across it yet, is that we have what may or may not be leaked footage that shows a missile being fired into a building, the building, and you can actually see in the track of the missile's wake a plane, a small plane following up, which is certainly consistent with what we see in that one frame.
Let me mention, by the way, that there's a dispute over the authenticity of the footage about the missile, but there are those who have presented it, including Gordon Duff, who's the senior editor for Veterans Today, who has assured me that this missile image is actually authentic and that he's had it studied in several different ways, that the missile image itself only represents eight pixels.
Of course, you see it as a slight blur moving, you know, in stages frame by frame into the building.
But this is certainly consistent with a previous analysis I had done in my first serious study about 9-11, which is entitled Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, 9-11 and JFK, which anyone can access just by doing a Google on the title.
Jim, can I take you down a very, very quick cul-de-sac here?
Because I think it's important we get this out of the way now.
It is a very important point, I think.
And if I don't ask it, I'm going to get emails from people asking me why.
You described your academic background.
You are clearly a man who's been involved in the business of thinking, very literally, all your working life, and you think very deeply about things.
I'm curious to know why a man in your position would want to put his credibility, one, sanity perhaps, two, on the line for this for so long, because it is seen by many people as so wacko and way out there that it's something you're potentially going to have to defend as a viewpoint if you want to for the rest of your life.
Why?
Well, just a short answer and then a slightly longer explanation.
I mean, I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in December of 2005, and I have been, you know, engaged in collaborative research with physicists, pilots, structural engineers, aeronautical engineers, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, ever since.
So that the results of our research, including, for example, 20 refutations, you know, based upon extensive research, which are scientific in their character, of the official account can be found at 911scholars.org in the upper left-hand corner under the heading, Why Doubt 9-11, where I elaborate those 20 key points of refutation.
And while you're there, notice in the upper right-hand corner that there's a logo that will take you to PatriotsQuestion911.com, which is a marvelous website, Howard.
If you've never visited, you must go there soon, where you find thousands of professionals across many different disciplines, academicians from the physical sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, but also professionals who are engineers,
physicists, chemists, biologists, the like, and also members who past or present involved in the government intelligence agencies and military service.
So here you have thousands of individuals where you'll find not only their biosketches, but their photographs and statements about 9-11 who are convinced completely justifiably that the government has been spinning yarns, tall tales, fairy tales, if you like, because the whole of 9-11 was a hoax.
It was a staged event, Howard.
It was a masquerade for the sake of instilling fear into the American people to make us susceptible to manipulation, to promote a political agenda, including these wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and even U.S. Constitution.
And since the use of violence or acts of violence to instill fear into a population for political purposes is the classic characterization of terrorism, what we have discovered here, and it grieves me to say this, is that the American government has been practicing terrorism on the American people.
Now, if you want to know why I have become so deeply involved, this story relates to my having lived through the assassination of JFK.
I was a young Marine Corps officer anchored out in Kaohsiung Harbor in Formosa aboard the LPH Iwo Jima, where an LPH is a helicopter platform.
Carrier has got a shallow draft, unlike a regular carrier, where you need this very firm, long, smooth surface for planes to take off and land.
But helicopters, because they have a vertical ascent and landing, don't require that degree of stability.
When I was awakened at 4.30 in the morning by the officer of the deck, Fred Rensseler, who happened to be my executive officer in the mortar battery, of which I was the fire direction officer, to tell me that the president had been shot.
And then an hour later, he told me, he awakened me again and told me they'd caught the fellow who'd done it, who had been a communist.
Well, I thought then that was pretty fast work.
And of course, what I know now has confirmed it in a voluminous fashion.
But what happened to me also involved lying in bed.
In this case, I was reading a newspaper, drinking a cup of coffee when my wife came in and said, you won't believe this, flipped on our TV.
This was in 1993, in the wake of the release of Oliver Stone's superb documentary, quasi-documentary film, JFK, which my research and that of the experts with whom I have collaborated has shown to be the most accurate, complete, and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened to JFK and Dee Lee Plaza ever presented to the public through the mass media.
So it was more than just good entertainment.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
He was being savaged by columnists and commentators long before it had been released to the public.
They didn't even know what they were actually literally talking about.
It turns out Oliver's film is too simple by half since he only shows three shooting teams when actually there turned out to have been six.
JFK himself alone was hit four different times.
He was hit in the back by a shallow shot fired from the top of the county records building that entered his back five and a half inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column.
A shallow shot only went in about as far as a second knuckle on your little finger.
He was hit in the throat by a shot fired from the left front from an above-ground sewer opening halfway between the roadway and the top of the triple underpass that actually passed through the windshield en route to striking him in the throat where it appears to have fragmented, a part going downward into his right lung, another part upward and rupturing a very tough membrane that covers a cerebellum, a very compact part of the brain.
And wasn't there a story of a magic bullet that went through him at a bizarre angle and then hit somebody else in the car, which theoretically is not possible, they say.
Howard, let me get to it by just adding one or two more points about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza, and then I'll address it, which is that then the driver actually, after shots had begun to be fired, after shots had already been fired, the driver, William Greer, was the oldest member of the Secret Service contingent and who was a Protestant from Ireland, pulled the limousine to a halt and to the left to make sure Jack would be killed.
He was hit in the head twice in the back of the head by a shot fired from the Daltex building, from a closet belonging to a uranium mining company that was an asset for the CIA, where the shooter in this case appears to have been an anti-Castro Cumin by the name of Nestor Tony Escadero.
And Jack fell forward.
Jackie's him back up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right front by a shot fired from the symmetrically located north side sewer opening halfway between the ground and the top of the upper of the triple underpass by a person who I believe was an Air Force expert, hit him in the right temple.
It was a frangible or exploding bullet, whose shockwaves blew his brains out the back of his head with such force that they impacted a motorcycle patrolman to the left rear by the name of Hargis, who thought he himself had been hit and where a triangular chunk of Jack's brain that's now known as the Harper fragment would be found in the grass there the next day.
Now, this event was such a stunning indictment of the complicity of the Secret Service, where we have found more than 15 other indications, Howard, of the complicity of the Secret Service in setting him up for the hit, that it had to be removed.
I mean, no one seeing the limestop would believe for a second that this wasn't a conspiracy, so that they had to redo the whole movies of the assassination, the most famous of which is known as the Pruder film.
Yeah, where a couple of others also had to be edited to conform to it.
We know about how this was done, where it was done in great detail.
I mean, it's astonishing.
In the wake of Oliver's film, by the way, there was such a resurgence of interest in JFK that Congress actually was under public pressure and passed a JFK Records Act that created a five-person civilian board with a mandate to declassify documents and records from the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and so forth, which the Warren Commission had originally kept secret for 75 years.
And the choice of that time span, Howard, is no coincidence.
The average lifespan of an American citizen is around 75 years.
So their plan was to ensure that when these documents and records would eventually be released, that no one had been alive at the time could contest them.
Too, too late.
All right.
So we know that JFK had enemies.
History shows us that.
Of course he had them.
The Cubans, for one, Fidel Castro didn't like him because of the Bay of Pigs, etc.
The mob certainly didn't like him because of what he and his brother were doing to them.
The Secret Service didn't have a lot of time for him, so lots of potential smoking guards there.
The more important, and I'm going to return to your question, by the way, because I gave a presentation at Cambridge.
As I recall, it was actually in 2008 on the very topic of the magic bullet.
So that, you know, what happened is this, Howard.
The day of the assassination, the official account was that there had been three shots.
This was broadcast immediately, even though there had been no investigation.
Dealey Plaza has lots of echoes.
It would have been, you know, extremely difficult to know how many shots had or had not been fired, particularly when all the weapons, with possibly the exception of the one fired from the Daltechs, appear to have been silenced.
And that weapon, by the way, appears to have been a Mandliker Carcano, which is not a very accurate or reliable weapon, where three shots seem to have been fired from the location, one of which, as I mentioned, hit Jack in the head, but the two others missed.
One injured, hit a curving and injured a distant bystander by the name of James Taig, who actually had blood from his cheek from a chip from the concrete.
And the other missed and hit the chrome strip above the limousine windshield.
So that when the Secret Service and the FBI concluded the day of the assassination that there had been three shots with three hits, that Jack had been hit in the back, five and a half inches below the collar to the right of his spinal column, as I described, that Conley had been hit in the back, a bullet that passed through his chest, broke a rib, exited his chest, hit his right wrist and wound up in his left thigh.
And the third hitting Jack in the back of the head and killing him.
Now, there was a shot that hit Jack in the back of the head.
And of course, there was a wound to Conley.
But when it turned out that this one shot had missed and the bystander James Taig had actually suffered an injury from it, the Warren Commission was thrown into a quandary.
They'd already done a reconstruction.
They had stand-ins for JFK with a large patch on his back where the bullet had actually hit him in the back.
They had a smaller patch in the back of the head where a bullet had hit him in the back of the head.
But they had, you know, Conley was a whole separate matter.
So now what they had to do was some fancy footwork, which fell largely to be the responsibility of Arlen Specter, who was then a junior counsel, to fabricate this theory that the bullet that hit him in the back, which was well established and for which we have multiple indications, as I explained in the study I presented at Cambridge, which you can access under the title Reasoning About Assassinations.
They had to do some fancy footwork and redescribe the wound to the back as though it had hit the base of the back of the neck, traversed his neck without hitting any bony structure, exited his throat.
You see, so now you got a throat wound that was an entry, which you're now going to explain away as an exit, and going to Connolly's back.
So by making subtle shifts in where they were located relative to one another, by doing a reconstruction using the Secret Service Cadillac instead of the Lincoln limousine, which of course meant it had no forensic significance whatsoever, they fabricated this phony theory where we now know that in fact Gerald Ford,
who was then a Republican representative from Michigan and a member of the commission, had the description of the wound changed from his uppermost back, which was already an exaggeration, to the base of the back of the neck.
But we have all kinds of evidence that refutes it that I present in reasoning about assassination, including diagrams, autopsy diagrams, and a diagram by FBI agents who were there, the death certificate by Admiral George Berkeley, who is the president's personal physician who described the second wound as at the level of the third thoraxic vertebrae, which just happens to correspond to five and a half inches below the collar and to the right of the spinal column.
We have the reenactment photographs.
I mean, the evidence here is really quite massive.
Okay, so we have, to cut to the chase with this one, this proved to you, you thought, that dark forces could be at work in your country.
And this, by the sounds of it, was a bit of a revelation back then to you, as it is probably still to an awful lot of people.
So when you believe that governments can do that kind of thing and dark forces can conspire to do that kind of thing, don't you then start trying to find conspiracy theories in everything?
Well, I'm not going out and looking for them.
They sort of drop in my lap.
I mean, look, I was working with the best qualified individuals to ever study the assassination.
I put together a research group, including a world authority on the human brain, who was also an expert in wound ballistics, a PhD in physics, who is also board-certified in radiation oncology, who would discover almost immediately when he entered the National Archives with the permission of the Kennedy family that the autopsy x-rays had been altered to conceal that blowout to the back of the head.
I mean, the quality of research sounds amazing.
And I want to talk to you nearer the time of that anniversary about this because that's a whole other mine of information.
But I think we need to get it back to you.
Absolutely correct.
When I began to see signs that something was wrong about 9-11, you know, I knew based upon my previous research on JFK, where I published three collections of studies by experts on the case, assassination, science, murder, and Deely Plaza, the great Zapruder film hoax, and had given, you know, hundreds of interviews, even produced a four and a half hour documentary of my own chair, co-chaired Four National Conference.
I knew the government does this.
I know.
What I'm trying to say is that having a background in this, you wake up to the terrible day that 9-11 happens and you're conditioned to think, my God, there goes another one.
Well, no, I'm not conditioned.
It's just that if I look at the evidence, I know how to read the signs.
It's like people who are students of tree rings or geographical, geological strata.
You have to have an expert background to understand what they mean.
And because of my background in the techniques of subterfuge of deception and deceit, including phony photographs such as the backyard photographs, which were fake, the planning weapon that couldn't even have fired the bullets that killed the president, on and on and on.
Where you can find a nice summary overview in Dealey Plaza Revisited What Happened at JFK, which has been published as Chapter 30 of a book from a national conference at the University of North Carolina where Theodore Sorensen was the keynote speaker and where John Toonheim,
who had become the head of the five-person civilian panel, the Assassination Records Review Board that declassified 60,000 documents and record, introduced me at that meeting.
You can find a summary overview that puts the evidence together.
I don't go out looking for these things, Howard, but if they are happening before my eyes, because I know how these things are done, it Is relatively effortless.
And I say that compared to the average citizen for me to discern the signs that we are being deceived.
Okay, okay.
So 9-11 happens.
You're there watching it on the TV.
At what stage did you decide?
Okay, I smell a rat here pretty quickly by the sounds of it.
At what stage did you decide to start researching it?
Well, those are two different separable issues, it turns out, because, I mean, watching those buildings being destroyed and then later being described as collapses when they manifestly are not collapses.
I mean, these two buildings are being destroyed from the top down.
All the floors are remaining stationary, waiting their turn to be blown to kingdom come.
This required an enormous amount of energy.
According to the government account, the only sources of energy were the plane impacts and the relatively modest fires, which didn't burn long enough or hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.
Below the hit points, those were stone-cold steel.
The steel was tapered six inches at the base up to a quarter inch at the top.
The mass of the upper portions was minuscule compared to the mass of the lower portions.
If you take the North Tower as an illustration, but haven't, Jim, haven't scientists subsequently said, in refutation of what you've just said, that the fires caused by the intense heat of the burning jet fuel didn't have to be sufficient to melt the steel.
They just had to weaken it enough for the floors to start collapsing like dominoes going down, one on top of another?
Yeah, but it's not scientifically sustainable, Howard.
I mean, that's why I put together this research group to bring experts together, just as I had done in the case of JFK to demonstrate that this is flim-flam, that this is you're being bamboozled, you're being conned.
I mean, you know, this will work for the gullible and the weak-minded, but once you begin to study the evidence, I mean, I'm laying out those 20 key points in why Doubt 9-11 on 9-11scholars.org.
I think no one who understands those 20 key points could continue to be taken in.
Think of it this way, Howard.
Suppose the thesis you're advancing, which was a government account, were true, since those fires were distributed asymmetrically, then if they had weakened the steel, which is preposterous because the steel actually had been certified to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for three to four hours without suffering any damage, a proposition that was tested, by the way, by a fire in the North Tower in 1975, where there was a fire of that degree of intensity that lasted that duration, and yet they did not have to replace any of the steel.
It was at that point, by the way, that they made the decision to install a sprinkler system in the entire, you know, all the buildings.
Not only was the fire distributed asymmetrically, but if it had burned hot enough to weaken the steel, which is not possible given the quality of the steel and the modest temperature of the fires, which even NIST confirmed when it studied 236 samples of the steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit, which corresponds to that of an ordinary office fire and the other three not above 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit.
So in other words, the towers should not have come down.
If that was what was happening, the towers would not have collapsed.
Absolutely.
Not only that, but their intricate lattice structure was such that the impact of planes on the towers would have had negligible effects, you know, some local damage, but it wouldn't have had any catastrophic effects whatsoever.
It wouldn't have threatened the integrity of the buildings at all.
Jim, I want to ask you a question that's nothing to do with mechanics or to do with the construction of the building, but I think is crucial to all of this because it's been on my mind a lot since my visits to New York and in the years that I've thought about this.
It is undeniable that there were people who were not at the buildings on that day who might ordinarily have been there.
The population of the buildings was smaller on the day than perhaps it ought to have been.
Have you researched why certain people were not there?
And if you have, what have you found out?
Well, let me just mention, there was a wonderful restaurant.
I think it was at the top of the south, but it may have been the top of the north tower called Windows on the World.
Larry Silverstein would go there for breakfast every morning, but on 9-11, he didn't show up.
His daughter, actually, who also worked at the World Trade Center, didn't show up.
I had a little old Jewish lady call me from Brooklyn to tell me that their rabbi had told them in their synagogue that they should not go into Lower Manhattan that day, and a very
Well, let me, yes, go one step further, which is this, an internationally celebrated concert pianist, Evie Martin, who travels widely, has pointed out to me, and she's Greek, that articles were published in Greek newspapers that were based on Israeli newspapers, which were reporting that some 3,000 Jewish lives had been saved that day by warnings that they not go into the Twin Towers.
I have copies of the newspapers.
Could they just have been leaks from security warnings that were filtering through, but the dots were never joined up properly?
And that's one of the failings of 9-11, that the security warnings were not heeded properly and acted upon properly.
Could that just be part of that process?
That's the official rubbish line that we're being sold.
In fact, Richard Clark, at the end of the BBC documentary you just watch is trying to resuscitate the theory that it was incompetence in communication between the CIA, the FBI, and so forth.
But we know that in history, if you look at British history, for one, our history and yours too is full of what they call the cock-up theory of history here, the theory that stuff happens because it's messed up, not because somebody planned it.
Well, this is where the cover-up is so revealing.
I mean, the official stories we've been given are not only false, they're provably false, and they even violate laws of physics, laws of engineering, and laws of aerodynamics.
I mean, that's one of the points I make in that summary document, Why Doubt 9-11.
Now, remember, Howard, my PhD is in the history of science and the philosophy of science.
I have now published 29 books and, you know, hundreds of articles.
I founded an international journal, Minds and Machines, which I edited for 10 years, an international society for machines and mentality, And an international library called Studies in Cognitive Systems.
I mean, listen, if I'm going to get involved in a research project, I'm going to do it right.
I know the limits of my own background and capabilities, which is why I bring in experts on other areas, such as a world authority on the human brain, and an expert on wound ballistics, and an expert on x-rays and all that.
In the case of JFK here, I brought in physicists and engineers and pilots.
I mean, I don't make up any of this.
It doesn't depend on my authority.
My arguments are very well-founded, and they have been subjected to many attacks, none of which have been successful.
So it's one of those cases where, you know, there's been an ongoing assault by the government, which does not want the public to understand what happened.
I mean, just ask yourself, Howard, why have they not released any of those more than 80 videos from the Pentagon?
I mean, what could be more obvious than that they do not show what the government wants you to believe, and therefore the government would be providing the rope to hang itself with regard to its official account in 9-11?
Why have they given a false account about what happened to these buildings?
The fires, objectively, did not burn long enough or hot enough to cause the steel to weaken.
John Skilling, by the way, told us, he was a principal in the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers, that they were built with a 20 times safety factor.
That means every level of those two buildings could support 20 times their expected weight.
So if the top 100 floors was going to support, you know, 100th floor was going to support the 10 floors above it, they could actually support 20 times those 10 floors, which would be 200 floors of equivalent mass.
And as we said, even so, the building still collapsed.
Jim, can I ask you, because our time is limited and I could talk to you all day and all night about this, but in this format, our time is limited.
I want to ask you a human question because the TV here has been rerunning footage of George W. Bush's reaction to what happened when he was with those kids in Florida.
It was a scheduled engagement, something he'd been booked to do, so he had to see it through.
The Secret Service people got wind of what was going on as they arrived at that school in Florida.
Bush is sitting there in front of the little kids, and he is told a little bit more.
He's told that the second tower has now been hit.
It's whispered to him by a Secret Service man who then steps back and lets him take in that knowledge.
Bush looks shocked as I would look shocked.
How could you fake that?
If you were part of a conspiracy, how could you put that on?
Howard, I used to live in Bradenton, Florida, near that school, Booker Elementary.
The person who is whispering in his ear is Andy Card, who was actually his chief of staff at the time.
He's telling him America is under attack.
And I invite you to go back and re-look.
Bush's expression does not change one iota, not a flicker, not a twitch.
It doesn't change at all, which is simply stupefying given the information he's being given.
Plus, he remains no less than seven more minutes in that schoolroom.
But aren't there human reasons?
I'm sorry to interrupt him, but aren't there human reasons for that?
Ily, he looked, to my mind, he looked dumbfounded.
The other thing is he's in front of a lot of small kids.
He can't rush out of there.
He's got to find an exit strategy.
And more importantly, he's a human being like you or I am.
He's got to take in the enormity of what's just happened.
The man was a dolt.
The fact is that they didn't inform him in advance of all the details of this, but he was told not to overreact, so he didn't react at all.
And of course, he could have easily excused himself and say, students, I'm so glad I was here, but I have matters I must attend to.
You'll learn about them later and exited.
In fact, he didn't, and his performance was quite preposterous from precisely the point of view you're introducing, Howard, from a human point of view.
His presence and demeanor after being told America was under attack when he's the commander-in-chief was preposterous.
Let me make an addition.
On two different occasions at public meetings, he explained his reaction after he saw the plane hit the North Tower, the first strike.
He said, he thought to himself, man, what a terrible pilot.
Now, let me make this observation.
He said this on two different public occasions.
No one would make that remark after the second hit because it would have been obvious that it wasn't an accident and therefore it wasn't a terrible pilot.
Now, the sincerity with which he makes this remark has convinced me that he actually watched it happen.
But since that first strike was not broadcast on television for at least another day, it was captured by a French film crew by the name of the Nauté brothers.
And there are many peculiar aspects to it, which I discuss in columns on Veterans Today.
One entitled More Proof of 9-11 Duplicity, for example.
You can find a summary of findings about.
So you're saying that he was betraying knowledge of something that he couldn't really have known about had he not had other ways of knowing about it.
That's exactly right, Howard, which appears to have been a closed secret service television circuit that was trained on the North Tower because, of course, they knew what was going to happen.
And Bush just happened to see it.
And because he is such a mental midget, he blurted it out on these two occasions, just as he did not react appropriately when he was told that America is under attack.
So do you believe, let's just say this very clearly, that he was on some level part of this.
You believe that he was a part of this conspiracy?
Absolutely, which is also revealed by Stalling on the creation of a 9-11 commission.
Can you imagine a trauma, an atrocity of this dimension occurring?
And he and Dick Cheney resisted creating a commission to investigate it for 441 days under pressure from the Jersey girls, the widows of four of those who died on 9-11.
And even then, he would not testify under oath.
He went together with Dick Cheney to hold his hand so that he wouldn't make any slips, where, as Michael Rupert has concluded, based upon his research reported in crossing the Rubicon, Dick Cheney appears to be the person who was actually executing the attacks on 9-11, which involved duplicity and collusion from the Department of Defense and the military at the highest levels with assistance from the Mossad, which appears to have had a key role in several different aspects of this.
I mean, how can you put it off for that period of time?
Then he appointed an inside insider named Philip Zelikow, whose academic background, if you check it, Howard, and I was astonished to make this discovery, is the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S.
And that's what the 9-11 Commission report gave us.
We have been investigating all the claims that the Commission has made.
We have, if you treat it as a theory suspended in space with little threads that come down to the ground to connect it, such as the alleged crashes, the alleged passengers, the alleged hijackers, the alleged phone calls, and on and on and on.
We have found that all of those threads, without exception, is capable of refutation.
There is no, for example, David Ray Griffin published a very important article in Global Research showing that all of the phone calls from those four planes were fake.
They never took place.
And Elias Davidson, who is a very impressive, thorough, painstaking scholar now located in Germany, has published a very important piece showing that the government has never been able to prove that any of those hijackers were aboard any of those planes.
What about all the people who had family, have family, who were aboard Flight 93?
What about those people?
You're hinting at something that is such an elaborate thing to construct that I wonder if anybody really could construct that.
Well, it wasn't that elaborate.
If you stop and think about it, we had a member of the House of Representatives here in the United States about six weeks ago who was calling on the government to explain why the names of 3,000 alleged victims of 9-11 have not shown up in the Social Security Death Index.
The flights appear to have been phantom flights, which were concealed by massive air defense drills, as many as 17, according to Webster Tarkley in the revised version of his book, 9-11, Synthetic Terror Made in the USA.
Experts have told me that as soon as they learned that there was something live going on, all the blips from the phony drill should have disappeared, but they were left on the screen to continue the confusion.
Air traffic controllers, by the way, gave oral reports of their experience that day, which were all put together on a single tape, which was then cut up into hundreds of pieces and distributed all over the place.
Howard, if you get into this, it's a deep, dark, black abyss.
But don't some of the air traffic controllers also say that what happened on that day was simply in the skies, honest confusion.
There were so many blips up there that it was hard to know what the hell was going on.
Well, that's the beauty about a heavily classified and compartmentalized operation.
Most of those participating have no idea that they're involved as pieces in a larger plot, Howard.
And that was certainly true of the sincere air traffic controllers who were reporting their actual experience.
It was confusion that was induced by the Department of Defense using these phony drill tapes.
So what do they call it?
Plausible deniability.
These people are part of the chain, you say, but they don't know it.
Yeah, and I'll tell you, Howard, if someone wants an overview of the intricacy with which this was done and how many false leads or red herrings have been planted, they want to look at a piece that I recently published with Preston James entitled Peeling the 9-11 Onion, Layers of Plots Within Plots, also on Veterans Today.
Then you'll begin to get a sense of the full dimensions of this operation.
We haven't got a lot of time, and boy, do I wish we had.
I want to get into two things.
Number one, Building 7.
Now, Building 7 is often seen to be the smoking gun because Building 7 wasn't one of the Twin Towers, wasn't hit by a plane, but still collapsed.
And the security services were based, some of them, in Building 7.
Well, I'm very glad you bring up Building 7 because it's a nice illustration of the BBC's complicity in promoting the official myth.
The BBC has a piece on conspiracy theories.
Let's be honest about this.
You know, I've been talking about Building 7 and many, many other people have been talking about Building 7 in broadcast form long before that documentary to which you refer.
So that's been out there before they got involved in this.
No, no, I'm not talking about the documentary now.
I'm talking about a website that the BBC has entitled Conspiracy Theories.
No, of course, you're talking about the conspiracy files on 9-11 10 years on.
But now I'm turning to the fact that they also have a website entitled Conspiracy Theories, where they talk about what they claim are five different conspiracy theories.
And what they really are talking about are five different claims that have been made, such as that collapse of World Trade Center Building No.
7, which you ask about.
And of course, this is a fascinating case because, as you have correctly observed, it wasn't hit by any planes, had no jet fuel base fires.
It came down at 520 in a classic controlled demolition.
You can actually see explosion sequence go off from the base up the side to the top.
There's that characteristic kink from removing a key support column.
All the floors fall at the same time.
This is a collapse, unlike buildings one and two, which are being dustified or converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
And when it's all over, are destroyed below ground level.
In the case of building seven, we have a classic controlled demolition.
It takes place at about the speed of free fall or 6.5 or 6.6 seconds, implying there was no resistance to the collapse of the building.
When it's over, you have a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the height of the building, which would be, since it was 47 stories, 4.7 plus another 2%, about 5.5 floors, which is correct and just what we would expect.
It is interesting, isn't it, Jim, because a year on I toured the whole site.
In fact, I did several tours.
I did one at midnight when there weren't many people around of all the buildings around there.
And there were other buildings weakened by the collapse of the Twin Towers, but they did not come down.
Well, they can't have been weakened by the collapse of the Twin Towers because the Twin Towers did not collapse.
The Twin Towers was turned into dust.
And the reason was if any significant portion of those 500,000-ton buildings had impacted with what's known as the bathtub, which was this moat within which the Twin Towers were constructed, it would have allowed Hudson River water to flow in.
It would have gone underneath the most valuable real estate in the world in lower Manhattan, flooded the subway tunnels and the bathtub tunnels.
It would have been a huge mess.
So they had to design a very clever method for their destruction that was, so far as I know, completely novel in the history of demolitions that ensured that that would not happen, Howard.
I mean, even when they were doing the cleanup and they pulled down a part of building six, which was only eight stories high, using a cable and a bulldozer, they did it, they said, very gently because they didn't want to damage the bathtub.
Well, imagine these massive buildings now.
So it's false that other buildings were affected by the collapse of the buildings.
The buildings did not collapse.
They were actually destroyed.
You see, the beauty of converting them into very fine dust is it remains suspended in the air and doesn't hit the ground.
And in fact, you know, you look at all the photos, go to new 9-11 photos released on my blog, new 9-11 photos released on my blog, and you'll see the sequence for the North Tower.
And it's so obvious that this is no kind of collapse.
Howard, it doesn't look remotely like a collapse.
If the official account of the weakening of the steel were true, you would have had gradual tilting or sagging, but there would have been no collapse.
If there had been a collapse, you would have been a massive stack of floors at the bottom.
You wouldn't have had millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
You wouldn't have been destroyed below ground level.
The whole thing is a hoax.
It's a sham.
Now, Building 7 is a fascinating contrast.
And it has to have been a classic controlled demolition.
As Denny Jenkow, who was an expert on demolitions from Denmark, observed without knowing that this building had been destroyed on 9-11.
And now Jenny Jenkow is dead, from what's supposed to be an automobile accident.
But there are those involved in these things who take no prisoners.
For example, Barry Jennings, who was a New York City emergency management guy, went to Building 7 because it had two floors that were Rudy Giuliani's command and control outpost.
It had its own air and water supply.
It was supposed to be very secure.
Judy, however, Giuliani, however, did not go there, which is very curious all by itself, claimed that others, someone had told him that the towers were going to collapse since that was a physical impossibility.
It had never happened before.
Isn't it logical that you wouldn't want the mayor in harm's way on that day?
Well, presumably, the command and control center was the least in harm's way.
But let me not, let's just not distract from what Barry Jennings experienced.
He actually went up there.
He found steaming hot coffee.
He found half-eaten sandwiches in the command and control center.
A fireman came along and said, we got to get you out of here.
He said, well, he was there in the morning.
Explosions were going off.
A stairway fell out from under him at one point.
It was in the dark.
But he felt himself stepping over dead bodies.
When he got out, he gave interviews and he talked about all this.
And you can find them on YouTube, but you may have to look at several of the interviews of Barry Jennings to find where he's talking about this because some others appear to have been edited and make it look as though what he said was quite innocuous.
It wasn't innocuous at all.
It was devastating.
And then just a few days before the NIST, which is not, where the Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission report, a few days before NIST is releasing its final study about Building 7, Barry Jennings is found dead.
And they say, this is a serious business.
I had a trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, and a guy's name was Dave Ball.
My friend's name was Roy Schaefer, who told me that Dave told him how he was in a truck in front of the Pentagon.
He watched a big plane come toward the building and then swerve over it.
And I said, well, Roy, look, I'd really like to get this guy on the radio to talk about this.
So he asked Dave, but Dave was reluctant to do it.
You know, he was worried about his safety.
I told Roy to tell him, look, he's much more safe if he comes forward and gives his story than if he doesn't.
And would you believe within weeks, he was found dead in an abandoned building.
So do you think you're safe because you're saying these things?
Well, you know, look, if I weren't willing to run whatever risks are involved in speaking out the truth on behalf of the future of my nation, I wouldn't be doing this.
As a philosopher, I care about the truth.
As a Marine Corps officer, I care about my country.
As a philosopher of science, I know science is our most reliable method for determining what the truth is.
But when we get back to Building 7, Howard, you know, Larry Silverstein gave an interview where he said he had a conversation with the ER fire commander, and I think he knew this guy under a different designation, that there had been so much death and devastation, maybe the best thing to do is to pull it.
They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building come down.
Now, that's a classic construction term for destroying by demolition, to pull a building.
You bring it down by control demolition.
Others have tried to apologize for his having said this by saying, well, no, actually, he was talking about pulling the firemen out of the building.
That's what the BBC says about Larry Silverstein's remark.
And I've heard others say that too.
I've had people on the show that I did on the radio say that.
Time is limited, and I know that, you know, we could talk for two, three, four hours.
I've said that, and that's a fact.
And we have to come back to this, Jim.
I want to ask you this, because this is important, I think, and I'm sure people have said this to you, that at this time, but at any time, perhaps, there are those who are saying that it's a bit of an insult to the memories of those who died on 9-11 that you are saying this, that you're stirring up something that may or may not be true, and it's only hurtful in the end.
You know, you're never going to prove any of this.
It's only going to hurt people.
What do you say?
Well, not only is it false that we're never going to prove it, we've already proven it.
Go and read Why Doubt 9-11, which concludes with the observation that it is the highest form of respect to those who died and their survivors to determine how and why their lives were taken, which our government manifestly has not done.
And just as there were no firemen in the building when Larry Silverstein made his observation to pull it, and therefore he could not have been instructing them to pull firemen out of the building when there were no firemen out of the building, the government has done nothing but to suborn perjury,
promote lies, falsehoods, deceptions about 9-11, which in my opinion is the greatest insult, the greatest form of desecration that could be perpetrated by a government on the citizens of Its own country.
I'm very sorry to say, Howard, but this is another in a long string of offenses committed by the American government against the American people.
Very finely, Jim, and it's been good to talk to you.
What you have said is controversial, and you know, some people listening to this are not going to like it.
Some people are going to say right on, absolutely.
How would you like to be remembered?
I'd like to be remembered as Thurgood Marshall wanted, the great justice of the Supreme Court wanted to be remembered.
He did what he could with what he had.
But the fact of the matter is, Howard, that these things are only controversial if you haven't looked at the evidence.
If you study the evidence, you'll discover every claim I have made on this program is not only true, but provably true, and that the government's official account is such a manifest absurdity that it even violates laws of physics, of engineering, and aerodynamics, which puts it.
But isn't the fundamental law of physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
For every argument that you put up, there's a counter, and it's always going to be that way.
Well, you know, not all opinions are on a par, Howard.
You know, I do my homework and I collaborate with experts on every aspect of these issues.
And our arguments are so much more powerful and so much better substantiated by the evidence that the only way in which you can dispute our conclusions is by feigning ignorance of the evidence or else deliberately distorting it.
Forgive the question.
What do your family think about the work that you do?
Well, by and large, my family is supported, but my wife does look at me now and then, you know, with a cocked eye, you know, not again, you know, not again.
Are we going back?
Well, Jim Fetzer, good to talk with you.
Thank you very much for talking with me.
If people want to know more about you, what do they do?
Where do they go?
Oh, my.
Okay, my academic website.
Just put in Jim Fetzer and you're going to get two items right off the bat.
You get my academic website at the University of Minnesota Buluth, and you get a Wikipedia article, which actually in this instance is pretty accurate.
So you can go there.
Yeah, you can go there to check me out.
In fact, let me tell you, when I searched you, I got a damn sight more than two references, but there you are.
Jim, thank you very much.
Take care.
Thank you.
Howard, you're super.
Thanks so much.
The controversial views of Jim Fetzer.
I did warn you that it would be contentious, and it certainly was.
I hope I asked him the right questions.
Tell me what you think about the show, and thank you very much for keeping the faith with the unexplained.
You can get in touch with me at going to the website, www.theunexplained.tv, www.theunexplained.tv.
And there you can send me email, guest suggestions, let me know what you think about the show, or even make a donation, which would be very gratefully received.
Any donation, vital for the work that we do here, because we do want to develop this.
I'll just say it once, we are the new media.
We're part of this new wave, and we have to keep that ball rolling because it's important.
Let's just pause for a moment now, though, on this occasion to remember those people who perished on that day in the Twin Towers or in that field in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon or wherever.
And the rescuers and the families.
All of those people who will have lives indelibly marked by that day, as many of us did.
But those directly connected to it, of course, will take it forward for the rest of their lives and maybe their children's lives and their children's lives.
So let's not forget the victims of 9-11 on this day.
Whatever arguments go on about what caused it and why and how it happened, let's not forget the people.
My name is Howard Hughes.
Thank you very much for being part of The Unexplained.
Thank you to Adam in Liverpool at Creative Hotspot for making this website and getting the show out to you.
Martin, thank you for the theme tune.
And thank you very much to you for being part of the show and for listening to it.
I'll see you soon again on another edition of The Unexplained.
▲
Export Selection