Was 9/11 an “Inside Job”?

This Flash animation was presented by Dr. James H. Fetzer on September 11, 2009, at the International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice in Buenos Aires (Argentina). It reveals the basic discrepancies of the US official account of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Dr. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is a philosopher of science and public intellectual. He is Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Dr. Fetzer has pioneered a novel area of research he has labeled “assassination science”, which involves the application of principles of scientific reasoning, especially “inference to the best explanation”, to evaluate official reports to insure they are not serving the purpose of covering up crimes.

Please follow and like us:
error

One thought on “Was 9/11 an “Inside Job”?”

  1. http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html

    Thermite produces a blinding white light. The towers did not light up like sparklers on the Fourth of July! ? If they found chocolate chip cookie ? crumbs in the dust would that be the cause of destruction? ?

    Let me introduce you to Dr. J. Douglas Beason

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180823222442/https://www.af.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=858&Article=108539

    https://web.archive.org/web/20070317075918/http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/1011/spire1li0.jpg

    New weapons and how they may change war subject of talk Thursday at Museum

    Light-wave energy in the same spectrum of energy found in home appliances may soon be used in a new generation of weapons. On Thursday, the Laboratory’s Associate Director for Threat Reduction, Douglas Beason, will talk about America’s new directed energy weapons in a talk at the Laboratory’s Bradbury Science Museum.

    The talk is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and is free and open to the public. After the talk, Beason is scheduled to sign copies of his new book, “The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons will Change the Way Future Wars will be Fought,” at the Otowi Station Bookstore next to the museum.

    Beason, who was named Los Alamos’ Threat Reduction Directorate (ADTR) leader in January, is a leading expert in directed energy research. At the talk, he will describe the development of a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy. The technology that supplies the same spectrum of energy found in microwave ovens or television remote control devices is a revolution in weaponry, perhaps more profound than the atomic bomb. Beason will discuss these new weapons and answer the questions that everyone is asking: What is directed energy? How do these new weapons work? How lethal are they?

    According to Beason, the first directed energy weapons are being tested now and their deployment is being planned for today’s battlefields.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20081006044013/http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/7356

    The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed-Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will be Fought

    In science fiction, futuristic soldiers are often shown wielding light emitting weapons – Flash Gordon’s ray gun, Captain Kirk’s phaser, and Darth Vader’s light saber. Today, this imagined future of science fiction is on the road to reality. After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave or in your TV remote control. They’re called “directed-energy weapons” – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps, more profound than the atomic bomb.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20051119112050/http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev112905a.cfm

    Those who control the energy control the people. But those who control their perception control everything.

    The oil industry (leaded gas), tobacco industry (lung cancer), and more recently the NFL (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), have all spent millions and millions of dollars marginalizing scientific findings and the scientists that find them by way of “public relations” which is another word for propaganda. Lead in the food chain, carcinogens in the air, and brain damaged football players are all good for you, right?

    What Sound?

    The mass of each WTC tower was around 500,000 tons or 1,102,311,310.9 pounds.

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

    Garbage trucks weigh around 33,000 pounds empty.

    https://www.absoluterescue.com/vehicle/heavy-rescue/garbage-truck-weight-wet-dry/

    The destruction of each tower would equal the sound of 33,403 empty garbage trucks raining down. (a little over one quarter of all U.S. garbage trucks in service) That didn’t happen. The towers were turned into dust in mid air never hitting the ground. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

    Both the super-duper thermite gang ? and the super-duper nuclear gang ? are covering up the lack of high heat ? when a careful observation of ALL the evidence concludes that the destruction was cold molecular dissociation produced by a type of directed energy. There is also the CGI/Remote controlled plane coverup gangs ? – when it was actually image projection of some kind. There are also gangs ? that coverup both lack of high heat and image projection technology.

    https://vgy.me/NiTnPC.jpg

    What high heat?

    High heat is part of the government’s official conspiracy theory and is as relevant as “19 bad guys with box cutters”. Using water and dirt to quench cold molecular dissociation is not evidence of high heat.

    High heat? Why hasn’t the steam cooked these workmen alive? Why are the pressurized hydraulic hoses on the heavy equipment still working and not bursting under high heat?

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/groundzero/zero04.jpg

    Why is wet dirt fuming?

    https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1941.jpg

    Steam? If this were steam, these workers would have been cooked. If this were as hot as a grill, these people would become something that looked more like a grilled-cheese sandwich. The hoses to their torches would melt and ignite the fuel.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060613070347if_/http://hereisnewyork.org:80/jpegs/photos/5103.jpg

    On September 27, 2001, the four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.

    https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/a4104155-dee4-430e-b170-d4ed563d337c/5644_medium.jpg

    WHY WOULD THE DIRECTED ENERGY COVER-UP TEAM WANT 9/11 JUSTICE FOR ALL?

    https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/images/Richard-DavidG-StevenJ.jpg

    https://vgy.me/xixegK.jpg

    A fallacy is an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. Decredentializing a highly qualified expert like Dr. Wood by appealing to spite, ridicule, or willful ignorance does nothing to support a valid argument. Also, an opinion and an Internet connection does not qualify someone as an expert in forensic engineering and science, nor nuclear physics, nor structural engineering, nor materials engineering science, nor engineering mechanics (applied physics). The empirical research Dr. Wood performed is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience, not by performing experiments. Steven Jones [Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies or J.O.N.E.S.] and Greg Jenkins used to ridicule Dr. Wood by claiming that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL What experiments would Dr. Wood perform? What are the experiments for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence! A forensic scientific investigation involves the collection and analysis of ALL of the evidence. Even though A&E911truth appeals to authority and popularity, a controlled group is not synonymous with evidence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoAa_B2kRuo

    Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave at the University of California, Berkeley [available here at timestamp 1:53:47

    https://archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2 ],

    telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

    At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

    In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up

Leave a Reply