by Jim Fetzer, Dennis Cimino and Mike Sparks
“Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters”–37 Am Jur 2d, Section 8
“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” (FVE) is the legal principle that, once it has been shown shown that one party has lied or committed a deliberate misrepresentation, their whole case is thereby compromised and no longer defensible in a court of law.
37 Am Jur 2d, Section 8, states, “Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
Were that principle applied to the government’s case for 9/11, the demonstration of fraud and deliberate deception would warrant its dismissal in it’s entirely, since it’s entire case has been built upon nothing but fraud and deliberate deception. Here we are going to present ten examples of fraud and deliberate deception in relation to 9/11, five of which derive from the Pentagon, the other five from events in New York City. Given the principle that “Fraud vitiates everything” (FVE), each of these is sufficient, by itself, to warrant the dismissal of the official account of 9/11.
In the case of the Pentagon, they range from the relatively obvious–that the plane seen in the Pentagon frame labeled “plane” turns out to be too small to be a Boeing 757, but could be a Global Hawk delivering a missile to the building–to the far more subtle and complex case of the image that Frank Legge touts as his “conclusive proof”, which has been photoshopped–in the case of the Pentagon.
In New York City, they range from the impossible speed and impossible entry of a Boeing 767 to planting an engine component that did not come from the plane to the impossible “collapse” of the Twin Towers and the blatant controlled demolition of WTC-7. These are “ten top” cases, which warrant dismissing the government’s case in its totality because of fraud and deliberate deception, where there are many, many more.
AT THE PENTAGON
There are dozens of arguments against the official account that a B-757 hit the Pentagon, which is a fantasy. They include that the “plane” seen in the Pentagon frame is too small to be a Boeing 757; that the “hit point” could not have accommodated a 100-ton airliner with a 125′ wingspan and a tail standing 44′ above the ground; that debris from a Boeing 757 which should have been present is not there–no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage and no tail–where not even the engines, which are made of titanium and steel, were recovered; that one piece of debris, which did come from a Boeing 757, has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995; and that the smoke observed by members of Congress rushing out of the Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters, a blatant act of fakery.
(1) The Pentagon “plane”
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped its wings open and caused the plane to burst into flame. The aerodynamics of flight, including “downwash”, moreover, would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which means that the official account is neither physically nor aerodynamically possible. But here is an even simpler disproof:
When the image of a Boeing 757 is sized to the tail of “the plane”, it turns out to be more than twice as long as what the frame shows, which means it cannot possibly be a Boeing 757. But, as Dennis Cimino has observed, it could have been a Global Hawk, which may have fired a missile into the building, where the white plume is not from the exhaust of any jet engine but from the solid-propellant engine of a Maverick. The fragile composition of the Global Hawk would have made it an ideal delivery system, since it would have been obliterated into tiny parts upon impact with the Pentagon.
(2) The lack of debris
Although many Americans are unaware, the hit point on the Pentagon is a hole about 10’ high and 16-17’ wide, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence, two enormous spools of cable and a pair of cars, where there are unbroken windows beside and above the opening. What we do not see is an enormous pile of aluminum debris, broken wings or the tail, bodies, seats or luggage. Remarkably, not even the engines were recovered from the crash site—although a part of a compressor, which was too small to have come from a 757 and too large for a cruise missile—was later reported there. Even more striking to me, however, is this photo of the civilian lime-green fire-trucks as they extinguish the fires:
Since these fire trucks arrived after the crash and spent fifteen minutes or so putting it out, I have been struck by the clear, green, unblemished Pentagon lawn. There is no indication that a Boeing 757 hit the building–NONE! Nor in any of the other photographs we have featured about the Pentagon. And, as Dennis Cimino has observed, if a plane had flown into the building, then why are these supports blown outward? No plane hit the building.
(3) The planted fuselage
Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to think of real alternatives. One piece of debris has been used to cement the case for the crash of Flight 77, where Frank Legge, for example, has argued that no one has been able to show it did not come from a 757:
One of the oddities about this debris is that it shows no signs of having been involved in a violent crash or exposed to the intense heat of those fireballs–and it includes a piece of vine. Another student of the Pentagon, James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. “It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact.” That this piece was on the Pentagon lawn is an obvious case of fraud and deliberate deception vitiating the official account.
(4) The dumpster fires
As though that were not disturbing enough, I was also puzzled why, later in the day, when rumors were circulating that the Capitol might be next and the members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the building, when they looked across the Potomac, they witnesses billowing black clouds of smoke. That struck me as rather odd, since the lime green fire trucks had put out the modest fires long ago. When I took a closer look, I discovered that these black clouds of smoke were not coming from the Pentagon itself but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building:
When I was still living in Duluth before my retirement in June of 2006, another student of the Pentagon came by and showed me forty-four (44) more frames of the same thing, where you could actually see light between the dumpsters and the building. If a plane has actually crashed there, it would not have been necessary to fake fires coming from the Pentagon, which appears to have been contrived to induce members of Congress to support requests for new funding Donald Rumsfeld would present the next day–another instance of fraud and deception vitiating the official account.
(5) The photoshopped images
When we turn to the photograph that Frank Legge cites as “proof positive” of the presence of an airliner, a B-757, specifically, inside the Pentagon, not only do you not notice no debris associated with an airliner, but it turns out that the photo has been altered extensively–it has been photoshopped!–to obfuscate details in it (see the next photo with the cyan marking and the magenta bottom line) In this photograph, the cyan area (expanded in the final photo) clearly reveals that photoshopping was crudely used to add the extremely lighter area into the image:
Even closer examination in the debris field mostly in the upper half shows demarcation lines of cut and paste having been performed in more than one area inside it. In his original upper ceiling beam (left-hand side), you can see where they pasted in over the beam to obfuscate something that happened on the beam itself in an attempt to hide that from us. The shading of the reverse “E” area shows, beyond any doubt, that this photo was heavily retouched and altered.
However they were not able to paste any airliner parts into it without having issues with perspective and sizing very obvious to the naked eye. This photo, which Legge himself emphasizes, is bogus and hence “non-authentic”. He thus picked a very sad and poor choice from Jim Hoffman’s web site. A very good question to ask Frank Legge, therefore, is, “Why did you pick a photograph that had been altered and is also bereft of any sign of aircraft wreckage?”
That this photo was shopped may or may not have been something of which the Journal of 9/11 Studies was aware when it accepted his article for publication. But that means its vaunted “peer-review” process, upon which Steven Jones has placed so much emphasis, failed in this instance. As I have explained elsewhere, Jones also advocates an inadequate mode of scientific reasoning, which means that the procedures he endorses as “scientific” are not those that properly qualify. But something is terribly wrong when a faked photo appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
IN NEW YORK
(6) The Impossible speed
Indeed, as John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, has observed, the plane in these videos does not even have strobe lights, which are required of every commercial carrier. But how can a Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), where the estimates of its speed run as high as 560 mph or more, which is aerodynamically impossible at the altitude of 700-1,000′ at which this flight trajectory was taking place?
(7) The Impossible entry
The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air.
Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors. Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns.
They were filled with 4-8” of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18” wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane should have entered via them. But as Jack White has shown here, that is not what the videos display:
No real plane–commercial, military or otherwise–could enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice. Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? And no real plane could have passed through and its nose come out the other side. It looks as though the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery. But both involved massive fraud and deception.
(8) The planted engine
Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, insofar as most of its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine found at Church & Murray Streets, those who were fabricating evidence in this case did not get it right: what we have is a JTD9 engine with a cooling duct assembly from a Boeing aircraft manufactured in the 1970s, not the plane allegedly used for Flight 175:
Since this is the wrong engine component and was off-loaded as a prop, how can anyone be so gullible as to believe that it supports the official account, especially when its under a steel scaffolding and sitting on a sidewalk, where if something that massive had hit there at high velocity (having come from the South Tower as alleged), it would have been buried half-way into the concrete, not sitting on top of it? There is even a dolly present, which–although not heavy-duty–may have played a role in moving it from the white van to its location on the sidewalk. This a blatant case of deliberate deception and fakery that completely vitiates the official account.
(9) The impossible collapse
The Twin Towers were masterpieces of architecture and engineering, which received multiple awards at the time. By using an innovative design known as “a tube within a tube”–which was innovative with regard to the elevator systems (using a combination of express and local elevators) and by adopting 47 massive core columns at the center connected to 238 external steel support columns by steel trusses–the architect, Minoru Yamaski, created enormous open space unobstructed by walls and support columns. Here you can see the 47 core columns at the center, where the external steel support columns–which would be added to what is shown–created the equivalent of “a steel beam 209′ deep”:
As Chuck Boldwyn has shown, the thickness of the steel varied from six inches thick in the subbasements to a quarter-inch thick at the top, which meant that the overwhelming mass of the steel was below the level at which “the plane” is alleged to have hit the North Tower. By his calculation, the fourteen floors above the “hit point” represented 1.4% of the mass of the steel, where it is preposterous to suppose that its collapse could have overcome the 98.6% of the mass of the steel below it. Indeed, as John Skilling observed, the towers were build with a safety factor of 20, which means that each floor could support 20 times its expected live load (dead load + furniture, facilities and human personnel):
The claim that the jet fuel from the plane strikes burned so intensely it caused the steel to weaken cannot withstand critical scrutiny. The steel used in the building was certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., to 2,000*F for three to four hours without suffering any adverse effects. NIST studied 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. Plus the fires in the South Tower lasted less than an hour, in the North less than an hour-and-a-half. The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to affect the steel. It was physically impossible for them to collapse.
As Jesse Ventura has observed, propane burns hotter than kerosene (the constituent of “jet fuel”), yet his camping stove, which is made of steel, does not melt when he uses it on a camping trip. Far from collapsing, both buildings are being blown apart in every direction by enormous sources of energy, where they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and, when destruction is complete, there is no massive pile of debris in their footprint, which is a classic sign of a building’s collapse. Unlike WTC-7, the Twin Towers did not collapse, which means that the official account characterizing them as having “collapsed” is another blatant fabrication and deliberate deception.
(10) The controlled demolition
Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC-7 came down in a classic “controlled demolition” at 5:20 PM that day, about seven hours after the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC-2, which I prefer to refer to as “demolitions under control”, since they were clearly not classic controlled demolitions. You can see the penthouse kink, where all the floors fall at the same time and, after about 6.5 seconds, there is a stack of debris (mostly floors) equal to about 12% of the height of the original. By contrast, the floors of the Twin Towers remain stationary, waiting their turn to be “blown to kingdom come” (in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds). Compare the below video with those for the towers above:
Almost everyone knows that Larry Silverstein acknowledge authorizing the building to be “pulled”, which is a term for taking it down by controlled demolition. Far fewer are aware that Barry Jennings (from the New York City Emergency Management Division) was in WTC-7 that morning, where he went to the Command and Control Center, which had its own air and water supply, and found half-eaten sandwiches and still-steaming cups of coffee. A fireman found him and escorted him out of the building, while explosions were going off and a stairway was blown out from under him. At one point, he felt himself stepping over dead bodies, which he could feel but because of the darkness, he could not see:
Richard Gage and A&E911 focus on WTC-7, where Barry Jennings was inside the building that day. His story is very compelling and makes the case that this was not a consequence of the destruction of the Twin Towers but an entirely separate event involving the use of explosives. It would have made for compelling television on C-SPAN when Gage made his recent appearance, but the best he could do was talking about nanothermite for the umpteenth time. I am sorry, but Barry Jenning’s story would have made an impact on the public, especially by observing that he died a few days before NIST would release its report on WTC-7, which he was in the position to contradict on the basis of his own personal experience. Consider the options that we have enumerated here and ask, “Why didn’t he talk about them?”
The principle that fraud vitiates everything devastates the official account of 9/11, which, by virtue of appealing to 19 alleged collaborators (plus a guy in a cave in Afghanistan), itself qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”, which is the most outrageous and easily disproven. Nothing we have been told by the government can be trusted once we realize they are no longer acting in good faith but are instead perpetrating “reality fraud” upon us, the people. The challenge then becomes to do our best to get things right.
We should be tolerant of reasonable differences but not of cover-ups or limited hang-outs. Even the three of us are not of the same mind about the image seen in the Pentagon frame, where Mike believes it more closely resembles an A-3 Skywarrior (as I myself have argued in the past), which may have been painted to resemble an American Airlines plane, because the high vertical fin looks more like that of an A-3D, whose length at 76′ is about half that of a Boeing 757, where future research should enable us to reduce our differences even further:
If 19 Islamic fundamentalists had hijacked airliners and committed these atrocities, there would have been no reason to plant and fake evidence, which demonstrates guilty demeanor and makes the government complicit before and accessory after the fact. 9/11 was a blatant “False Flag Attack”, which puts the ball in the American public’s court to create a grand jury to indict members of the Bush/Cheney administration and make them talk, where a good place to start would be the cell-phone faker, former Solicitor General, Ted Olson. Because until the American people reclaim reality by actual investigation/verification, we will continue to be mislead and manipulated by one administration after another, as we have been discovering with Biden and Obama.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]
Dennis Cimino has extensive engineering and support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to work for Raytheon in the 1980s.
Mike Sparks, a former 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve, has published articles in Air Defense, Armor, Artillery Online, Armed Forces Journal International, and Behind the Lines. He is the author of James Bond is Real (2011).
Please follow and like us: