by Jim Fetzer
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I am of course greatly pleased at the prospect that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York should be taking initial steps to convene a 9/11 Grand Jury, as Richard Gage and A&E911 have reported. My concerns, however, arise over the prospect that this reinvestigation might be on a par with the 9/11 Commission investigation, which David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), so ably exposed.
I am especially concerned because Richard Gage has advanced a theory about the destruction of the Twin Towers using nanothermite that cannot possibly explain what happened; and, like Judy Wood and her theory of the use of Directed Energy Weapons, will not address the crucial questions of who was responsible and why. For reasons that I explain (in a blog that originally appeared on 4 August 2014), another cover-up, even in the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, would not advance the cause of 9/11 Truth.
So while I appreciate the very idea as an advance in the right direction, after years of dealing with Richard Gage and Judy Wood, I know all too well that their organizations represent “limited hangouts” that appear (to me) to have been created as manifestations of Cass Sunstein’s program of “cognitive infiltration”, which David Ray Griffin has also exposed in his brilliant book, COGNITIVE INFILTRATION: AN OBAMA APPOINTEE’S PLAN TO UNDERMINE THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY (2010), meaning the real one, not the fake.
by Jim Fetzer
“9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration”–Jim Fetzer
Everyone who’s committed to 9/11 Truth should welcome more coverage from C-SPAN. Perhaps the greatest coverage to reach the public in the past was also from C-SPAN, when it covered the panel discussion of the American Scholars Conference, Los Angeles, 24-25 June 2006. But this one might be an exception.
We heard then about nanothermite from Steve Jones, Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. And we heard it again from the founder of A&E911. But a major division has arisen between those who claim that nanothermite can have blown the buildings apart and those who maintain that it isn’t even theoretically possible. Recent intel dumps confirm the use of nukes and explain those small iron spheres as a consequence of the use of spe….
So what’s with Richard Gage and A&E911 that they are still promoting a theory that T. Mark Hightower and I proved was indefensible in three articles published on 1 May 2011, on 17 July 2011 and on 27 August 2011? Why did Gage squander this precious opportunity to advance 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN by endorsing a provably false theory?
The “big three” questions
Not only that, but there are three major questions in the public mind about 9/11, which are these:
(a) what happened on 9/11?
(b) how was it done?
(c) who was responsible and why?
We know the before and after of the World Trade Center in relation to 9/11, so the answer to (a) is trivial. But Richard Gage had no answer to (c), even though he was asked it several times, and his answer to (b) was false and misleading. Is this the best that Richard Gage and A&E911 can do? It was embarrassing when he was asked the all too obvious question and could not answer it:
A&E911 is not alone in attempting to place the how ahead of the who and the why, where Judy Wood and her DEW supporters adopt the very same stance. But the American public has limited patience with those who can’t produce answers to such obvious questions, especially more than a decade after the event. And that is why “Operation Terror”, Art Olivier’s reconstruction of the events of 9/11, is a more powerful instrument for opening the mind to what may have happened than the appeal to an obscure causal mechanism–especially when it is misconceived.
All three questions have justifiable answers, but Richard Gage did not deliver them. It was much worse than that, because the host had prepared to defeat any appeal he would make to “thermite”, using NIST as his authority and thereby begging the question, by assuming the position of NIST that is the position in doubt:
Most Americans are too gullible to realize that this is citing the very source that Gage is disputing. But it could have been worse. He could have pointed out that Neils Harrit, a proponent of the nanothermite hypothesis, has estimated that it would have required “hundreds of tons” to do the job (where Harrit has also offered the more precise calculation of from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 …) or that the lab Christopher Bollyn has cited Los Alamos as his source for “explosive nanothermite” told Gordon Duff “they couldn’t produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it coul….
Why nanothermite can’t cut it
If this had been an episode of “The Twilight Zone”, it might have made more sense where 9/11 Truth is caught in a time warp. Richard Gage must know by now that nanothermite cannot live up to its capabilities as advanced by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Nanothermite (or even “thermite”, which is the term Gage used) has only 1/13 the explosive force of TNT and, whatever contribution it may have made to the collapse of Building 7, cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers.
As Denis Spitzer et al., “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010), observes, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites: Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nanothermites are non-explosive. So Mark and I may have been overly generous.
Having published three articles explaining that nanothermite cannot have done it and to inform prominent researchers about this discovery, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.”
Listen here for yourself:
Dwain also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. This law requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel, which is far beyond the highest recorded detonation velocity of 895 m/s for nanothermite.
It came as no surprise when Richard Gage recommended “Explosive Evidence”, the A&E911 documentary about what happened to the World Trade Center, especially to WTC-7. Since it was published on 12 September 2012, while Mark and I published our studies in May-August 2011, A&E911 must have known that the theory they were presenting had already been shown to be indefensible on scientific grounds. While nanothermite proponents claim to be “scientific”, they violate the canons of science by not revising their views when new evidence or new hypotheses become available.
Indeed, during The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held in Urbana, IL, on 22 September 2013, we presented “Explosive Evidence” as the first hour of the conference, where I advanced a critique of its limitations and shortcomings during the second hour as follows and explained why the currently available evidence now supports the conclusion that the Twin Towers were taken out using a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, which appear to have been attached to the core columns of each:
Indeed, ample substantiation had already been presented during The Vancouver Hearings, which were held there 15-17 June 2012, including several presentations that supported the use of nukes on 9/11, the most significant of which was made by Jeff Prager (where Don Fox presented on his behalf). Jeff explained that, in 2002, he set out to prove that, on 9/11, 19 Muslims had hijacked four planes and attacked us. But by 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. (See his 9/11 America Nuked.)
How it was done
In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011, no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers. The elements found in the USGS dust samples provide a rather astonishing array of proof of nukes:
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.
New research on the use of nukes has provided further confirmation, including studies by Don Fox, Dr. Ed Ward and Jeff Prager, show these elements occur in patterns of correlation that make the … (not that Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage, among others, will not continue to deny it), where Gordon Duff has recently published that the actual number of New Yorkers who have incurred these unusual 9/….
And this is not a new issue. In his analysis of “The Pros and Cons of the Toronto Hearings”, for example, which was published 20 September 2011, Joshua Blakeney observed that Judge Richard Lee was concerned about Kevin Ryan’s appeals to nanothermite and asked whether it had ever been used to demolish a building. If there was even “an embarrassing moment” in the history of the 9/11 Truth movement, this must have been it. So why was Richard Gage repeating the blunder on C-SPAN? Wasn’t once bad enough?
It is ironic that the nanothermite theory, which was based on dust samples, has been superseded by new research based on more comprehensive dust samples, but that is characteristic of scientific research: the discovery of new data or of new alternatives can lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, to the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected and to leaving others in suspense, which is characteristic not only of science specifically but of rationality of belief in general.
What about Planes/No Planes?
If the impossibility of nanothermite having blown apart the Twin Towers drives Richard Gage, Steve Jones and Neils Harritt up the wall, questions that have arisen about the 9/11 crash sites and evidence suggests that all four of them were fabricated or faked (albeit in different ways). It was profoundly disturbing, therefore, when Richard Gage implied the 9/11 plane crashes were real, which contradicts the available evidence. But we have documentary proof that Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 … So how could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? and how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?
For many students of 9/11, their brains shut off at the very idea, even though Pilots for 9/11 Truth have established that Flight 93 was in the air that day, but that it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in…; and that Flight 175 was also in the air that day, but that it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had purpor…. This means that the videos we have seen of the planes hitting the North and the Sou…, as I have repeatedly explained.
It won’t do to suggest that real planes of any kind–such as drones … And, as Jack White, a legendary student of JFK, who turned his attention to 9/11, discovered, the engine component found at Church & Murray was under a steel scaffolding, sitting on a relatively undamaged sidewalk, and was the wrong make to have come from a Boeing 767. He also found FOX NEWS footage of men in FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white van, which would have come as sensational news, had Richard Gage made observations of this kind on C-SPAN:
That no plane crashed in Shanksville should be apparent to anyone who has seen what a real plane crash looks like, such as the downing of the “Malaysian 17″ in Ukraine. While that case is fascinating in its own right, the proof that we were mislead about the Pentagon extends from violation of laws of aerodynamics and physics entailed by the official flight trajectory to the more obvious consideration that the plane shown in the one frame that the Pentagon claims to show “the plane”, when compared to the image of a Boeing 757 (properly sized for comparison) was far too small to have been a Boeing 757:
Issues about the planes would be overwhelmingly more interesting to the public than talking about red-and-grey chips found in the dust, especially when–even if they were bona fide nanothermite–cannot possibly explain how the Twin Towers were destroyed. That none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed and none of the passengers aboard them died is an entirely different matter, because it proves the entire “War on Terror” was a fabrication. Too many in the movement seem to forget that a half-dozen or more o… Gage not only made none of the obvious points made here but implied that the 9/11 aircraft were real. Either way, issues are raised about his competence or his integrity.
Who was responsible and why?
More disturbing than his failure to discuss the planes that did not crash–and to imply that they were real–was his utter incapacity to answer simple, direct questions about who and why. 9/11 dates from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, which …. It involved collusion between the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel would come out of 9/11 as “the big winner”.
During The Vancouver Hearings, Susan Lindauer revealed inside information that 9/11 was an “inside job.” She served as the liaison between the CIA and Saddam Hussein, who was so eager to avoid war with the U.S. that he offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars per year for the next ten years. If that was not enough, he said, make it the next twenty! Imagine where the U.S. would be economically if we had only taken up his proposal? Instead, when Susan learned of plans to attack Iraq, she protested vigorously to President Bush. For taking that step, for speaking out about her concerns over the injustice of it all, she was harassed, intimidated, imprisoned and tortured.
9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration, which included the invasion of several nations in the Middle East to bring about the creation of a new century of American domination of the world for the next 100 years. The evidence supports the inference that 9/11 was a “national secur… It facilitated a reversal of US foreign policy and extraordinary constraints on the Constitution of the United States, which have dramatically increased the centralization of political power in the executive branch and dominating the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has been especially ominous, where DHS has now requisitioned more than 2 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo, which is not even permissible in the conduct of warfare under The Geneva Conventions. Combined with more than 300 FEMA camps around the country, every Am…. As a former Marine Corps officer, I am extremely apprehensive over the future of my country, which has been transformed from the most admired and respected nation in the world–along with our “gallant ally”‘ in the Middle East, Israel–to being the most despised and reviled. By 2014, Richard Gage should have known these things, which makes his silence about them all the more telling.
Jim Fetzer, “9/11: Who was responsible and why” (2018), provides a summary/overview of what we know about the who, how and why of 9/11:
Mike Palecek and Jim Fetzer, eds., AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: COMPLIMENTS OF THE CIA, THE NEOCONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE MOSSAD (2017) with contributions by 14 experts provides further confirmation:
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.