Jim Fetzer, What really happened on 9/11: America was Nuked!

Jim Fetzer

The Cambridge University Press journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, became an instant sensation by publishing target articles on specific, well-defined subjects and inviting experts from around the world to post critical commentaries about it, which has resulted in significant advances in research.  I suggest this new book about 9/11, which has 15 contributors, might serve a similar purpose and thereby similarly significantly advance 9/11 research. That provides a way to circumvent the 9/11 Truth movement, which, like the JFK research community, appears to have been massively infiltrated by the CIA.


Here are some of the important reasons to believe that we ought to adopt that suggestion. The book is divided into 28 chapters, where the core falls into 8 sections that, in reverse order, focus upon “9/11 Limited Hangouts”“The Myth of Nanothermite”“The 9/11 Crash Sites”“The Pentagon: What didn’t Happen”, “New York was Nuked on 9/11”, “What happened on 9/11”, and “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, Parts I and II, with three chapters each. It has a Preface and a Prologue as well as an Epilogue and an Afterword with an Index. Softcover, 458 pages, 338 photos. $20 B&W; $30 COLOR.

There are three major groups in 9/11 research–A&E911, which supports the use of nanothermite and focuses on Building 7; Judy Wood and DEWs, which promotes Directed Energy Weapons and no planes theory; and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which advances the use of mini or micro nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers and likewise contends that none of the official 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11. The contributors explain why A&E911 is right about Building 7 but wrong about nanothermite and why Judy Wood and DEWs is right about no planes but wrong about DEWs. Here is my latest video summary about the four 9/11 aircraft:

Because the arguments and evidence presented are specific and detailed, the book facilitates a level of intellectual engagement that is missing from most discussions about 9/11. In relation to nanothermite, for example, three chapters explain that it is a law of materials science that, in order for an explosive to blow apart a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, it is 6,100 m/s; but the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 m/s. And the three chapters in the book that make these points were originally published in 2011–more than 6 years ago! Here’s my latest on how the World Trade Center was destroyed:

The Latest from A&E911

That makes it obvious that those who want to defend the use of nanothermite in the destruction of the Twin Towers need to explain what else was used to bring that effect about. While it is certainly true that something else could have been added to make it explosive, A&E911 has been reluctant to say what that something else could have been. The same, of course, could be said of toothpaste, which is also non-explosive but could be made explosive by adding an explosive to it. After all these years, it is not unreasonable to expect that A&E911 should have an answer to that question. But that does not seem to be the case. Here is a report about the state of its research on 9/11, which has just appeared from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks about WTC-7 (aka “Building 7”):

This is a splendid development, but it only confirms what Dan Rather observed on television that day as he watched WTC-7 come down in a classic controlled demolition, namely, that it reminded him of how we have seen casinos and resorts taken down by planting dynamite at key locations to destroy them. This case, as the University of Alaska-Fairbanks reports, was a classic controlled demolition, with all the support column blow out at the same time and the building coming down perfectly symmetrically as planned, insuring that there would be no collateral damage to other structures in the vicinity, which they did not want to damage.


Judy Wood and DEWs

Indeed, some might be tempted to argue that the earlier article covered more ground that the latest from A&E911. But Judy Wood and DEWs have not been doing any better. Consider, for example, that a review of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I originally published on 20 May 2012, was subsequently downgraded from 5-star to 3-star on the basis of research presented during The Vancouver Hearings, which were held in June 2012. It has been subject to attack around 7,500 times now. But denouncing evidence of the use of nukes does not explain it away, where Judy has displayed the unscientific attitude of ignoring it. A scientist would instead take into account new evidence not previously considered and adapt their theory appropriately by accepting hypotheses that had been previously rejected, rejecting hypotheses previously accepted, leaving others in suspense:
The point is that the specificity of the arguments presented in this new book make it possible to make advances by citing specific propositions that are laid out in detail with the evidence supporting them, which enables those who disagree to explain what we have wrong and how they know. Otherwise, we are left in the muddle of having to deal with distorted versions of those arguments, which do not come to grips with the evidence and leaving issues hanging. That was exhibited perfectly during the 9/11 Truth Teleconference on 31 August 2016, when Adam Ruff and Wayne Costa challenged my explanation of how we know that this was a nuclear event, which were nice illustrations of the point that I am making here.

Demolitions Under Control


Compare the debris from WTC-7 (left) with that from WTC-1 (right), which should have been more than twice as high.
Indeed, while it is appropriate to describe the destruction of WTC-7 as a “controlled demolition”, it is not appropriate to use the same phrase for the Twin Towers, which were “demolitions under control” but lacked the characteristics of controlled demolitions. The reason for having to have used a novel technique for their destruction appears to have been to protect the bathtub, which was an enormous dike within which the towers were constructed to protect them from Hudson River water. Had the bathtub been breached, it would have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, including the subway and PATH train tunnels, which they wanted at all cost to avoid.
The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified as the use of “Directed Energy Weapons”, which, according to Judy Wood, are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be directed. Set at 100′ in the core columns, they would have had a diameter of 200′ for buildings that were 208′ on a side. Their use enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And this appears to be how it was done as the US Geological Survey dust studies substantiate.
Other arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.
For those who dispute characterizing A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs as “limited hangouts”, the argument is straightforward. We have three major problems to solve about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Both of those organizations only address the HOW and refuse to explain the WHO or the WHY. That is simply absurd for 9/11 Truth organizations. And even their explanations of HOW appear to be inadequate. Only Scholars for 9/11 Truth addresses all three. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016) lays out the evidence in detail.But we make no claims to infallibility–and the best test of the validity of our case is critical attempts to refute it, which can be accomplished if we make this book the target for scrutiny and criticism and thereby advance the cause of exposing 9/11 Truth. If you have something to contribute, then submit it to me and I will be very glad to consider it for publication here and elsewhere. When we have a critical mass of discussion and debate, I will edit another book to bring our knowledge and understanding of 9/11 further up-to-date.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and the co-founder of moonrockbooks.com.
Please follow and like us:

11 thoughts on “Jim Fetzer, What really happened on 9/11: America was Nuked!”

  1. Those of the most patriotic sounding will only talk about and keep us totally focused on monetary policy, foreign policy, and spending policy, all of the national and international level, but will strictly avoid utterances about…

    The dozens of “Deep State instigated” false flag events on US and foreign soil and their ramifications for the USA,

    And words specifically related to Israel and Israel-supporting entities

    We are allowed to carefully use the word “neocon” or “Zionist” or Israel but never a word to positively identify the controllers of the USA’s finance/banking, government, intelligence, judiciary, academia, and media.

  2. Here is the good audio WITH good video of


    Go there and give it a thumbs up.

    JIM FETZER ’The Raw Deal” (9-11-19) 9/11 Special Part 2 Dennis Cimino
    Gus Chambers

    Add to

    The Raw Deal (11 September 2019) my 9/11 Special, Part 2

    Category: 9/11 / WTC / Pentagon – 2001,Building 7, Salomon Brothers B,Shanksville Crash 2001,The Raw Deal
    Duration: 01:04:45
    Date: 2019-09-16 18:41:47

  3. Pingback: Jim Fetzer, What really happened on 9/11: America was Nuked! | Light On Conspiracies - Revealing the Agenda
  4. I read the post. Here’s my take from actually being on the construction crew of three high rise building projects over the course of summers off from engineering school. Think of the marrow of buildings. We built the wall forms. A deck crew was adjacent to us building the yin to our yang. It would take the deck crew a week to build a floor and take us the same amount of time for columns and walls. Then we would switch buildings with the deck crew as forms were switched as well. Super dangerous work. If the crane operator snoozes someone can die like a ripe watermelon dropped off a cliff. Risking your life for $6.50 an hour. The super structure of the building is over designed by factors not available to aircraft, should you want them to actually become airborne. The powers that be want you to believe that aircraft collisions can turn my structure to dust. I scoff at the claim. The damage bird collisions cause to planes is enough to make you laugh at the idea of them turning buildings to dust. People have been programmed to believe what I know is impossible. Not from some book I read. I’ve bled for these projects quite a few times. There’s a trade called rod buster you never heard of. The form carpenter foreman Rick was relentless in denigrating the rod buster trade. He would say that rodbusters were conceived by planting carpenters’ sons foreskins in the ground. But rodbusters provide the marrow of buildings. Also known as Iron Workers. How many of them are willing to call the 911 demolition what it was ? What if the kitchen sink was thrown at the world trade center? So it sent us in every direction and divided us into camps. The thermite camp, the DEW camp, mini nukes camp, the bombs all the fireman described hearing. No one considered the “all of the above” option. My view is the plan included more than one back up. They had to guarantee total destruction. severe damage would simply not have the same shocking effect.

  5. I agree with NUKE Lies, and nuke lies vids. There are no nukes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, like dozens of other cities. The damage was IDENTICAL. For propaganda and some argue for National Security reasons, the lie of nukes is still defended and claimed. I agree, some explosives were used on 9-11, but I also think DEW’s were used. How do you explain the dustification? I think it misses the main point. Who did it? It wasn’t those claimed according to the “official” version. Whoever really did it, got away with it, temporarily. God will judge them, eventually.

    1. GD…..I totally disagree with you. There were nukes used on 911. What else would explain the various massive amounts of nuclear particles that are ONLY associated with nuclear events? Why would NYC spread resin earth by the tons on Gound Zero many times….this is only used to soak up radiation.

      There is no evidence of DEW weapons being used on 911. Judy Woods has stated this many times but she has no proof of it.

      I am 100% convinced that nuclear mini nukes were used on 911.

  6. In July 1945 a plane crashed into the Empire State building 80th floor in NYC. It basically splattered on the side of the steel frame building and most of it landed on the sidewalk below. [read about it on wiki]

    Nothing like happened on 911. Why? because there were no planes on 911.

    Yes, NYC was nuked on 911….not once but at least two times.


Leave a Reply