Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

July 12, 2011

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity.html

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

Jim Fetzer

My 4th of July article, “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”, raised questions about the events of 9/11 and whether more may have been involved than the official account of nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial carriers, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrating these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB. An FBI official, when asked why not, replied, “It wasn’t necessary because we saw them on television.” But we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville “on television”—and what we have seen on TV does not look right.

We have no videos of the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville and only the five frames from the Pentagon of Flight 77. We have familiar footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower and less familiar footage of Flight 11 impacting with the North Tower. Since it was not broadcast that day, that footage raises interesting questions about George W. Bush’s public remarks that, when he watched the plane hit the North Tower, he thought to himself, “There’s one terrible pilot!”

His comment, after all, only makes sense assuming it occurred before the second hit, after which anyone should have realized this was no accident but a deliberate occurrence. Bush added that “the TV was obviously on”, but since the public broadcasts did not show it at that time, the thought has crossed my mind that he may have actually seen it “live” on a closed Secret Service channel, which would be stunning evidence that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

Since I’ve made several observations about the Pentagon, I want to discuss some troubling aspects of the other crash sites. For those who want more on the Pentagon, I recommend “Pandora’s Black Box”, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as well as “National Security Alter” from Citizens Investigation Team, both of which support the existence of a large plane—presumably, a Boeing 757—that flew toward the Pentagon but did not crash into it, consistent with my earlier study.

(1) Flight 11 hitting the North Tower

(a) Remarkably Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”. As <a href="http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm">Leslie Raphael</a> has explained, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, it’s improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object <a href="http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/index.htm">makes contact</a> with the building:

( While the image is <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html">too blurry and indistinct</a> to be identifiable as a 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—prepared by Rosalee Grable—does not bear even a faint resemblance:

© And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. So the question arises, why not?

(2) Flight 175 hitting the South Tower

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 passes 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. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

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 shows here, that is not what the videos display:

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since 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, it did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack's studies reveals:

So how can a Boeing 767 travel at am impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has <a href="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed">confirmed</a>), 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? It looks as though, in this respect, Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than Flight 175 fakery.

(3) Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125' and a tail that stands 44' above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from <a href="http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html

">bona fide crash sites</a> to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. "This is the most errie thing", the coroner observed at the scene. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

( The reporter for FOX News had <a href="http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/old/flight93_2.htm">similar observations,</a> which I have also verified from the taped interview:

<i>FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..."</i> - FOX (09/11/01)

© An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from <a href="http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html">detonation explosions </a>more than it does fires from crash sites--and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

Planes or No-Planes?

Serious students of 9/11 are therefore placed in a dilemma. If they are committed to truth, as the name "9/11 Truth" implies, then they have to confront the evidence that supports the conclusion that all four of the plane crashes--one way or another--appear to have been faked. To put it more precisely, there is no credible evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville nor at the Pentagon, while the evidence for the New York events appears to support video fakery. In a circumstance like this, the best move may be to take a step back and ask yourself if there is any circumstantial evidence that might help to resolve the question in your own mind. Here I would observe that the following considerations be borne in mind, namely:

(i) Elias Davidsson, <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-no-evidence-that-by-Elias-Davidsson-100811-366.html

">"There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"</a>, has shown that the government has never actually proven that the hijackers were aboard any of those planes;

(ii) David Ray Griffin, <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

">"Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"</a>, has shown that the evidence shows that all of the alleged phone calls from all four of the airplanes were faked;

(iii) Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifable component parts from those four airplanes, the government has yet to produce even one;

(iv) John Lear, among our nation's most distinguished pilots, has observed that, before a pilot can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an envelope (with a flight plane, check list, and passenger data), yet none of those envelopes has ever been produced; and,

(v) FAA Registry data shows that, for the four planes allegedly involved in crashed on 9/11, the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 01/14/2002 and those for Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005, which suggests that at least two of those planes were still in the air long after 9/11.

What this suggests to me (and others more expert than I in matters of this kind) is that 9/11 was a staged event designed as a psy-op that was intended to instill fear in the American people to manipulate us to support political policies--including wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq--that we otherwise would never have considered. Since that is the objective of terrorism, the weight of the evidence that students of 9/11 have discovered supports the conclusion that the Bush/Cheney administration has been practicing terrorism on the American people. So take your time and sort this out for yourself. We are talking about the pivotal event of the 21st Century, whose effects--for better or for worse--are enduring to this day.

Jim Fetzer founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and maintains its web site at http://911scholars.org.

Evan Burton · July 13, 2011

Doesn't matter how many times those things have been answered or proven wrong, you just love re-running them up don't you?

Ron Ecker · July 13, 2011

So how can a Boeing 767... 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?

Evan, what is the explanation of this? I must have missed it previously, and still do not believe what I see on the tape (the plane simply passing into the building like a ghost through a wall in the movies).

Peter McKenna · July 13, 2011

So how can a Boeing 767... 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?

Evan, what is the explanation of this? I must have missed it previously, and still do not believe what I see on the tape (the plane simply passing into the building like a ghost through a wall in the movies).

From The NIST website:

"The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces."

NIST comprehensively modeled and analysed the impact and subsequent collapses. Their website is open and navigable. The analyses may be a bit complex.

Ron Ecker · July 13, 2011

From The NIST website:

"The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces."

NIST comprehensively modeled and analysed the impact and subsequent collapses. Their website is open and navigable. The analyses may be a bit complex.

That talks about the damage to the building, not the plane. In the video there is no damage to the plane, which strikes me as ridiculous. Does the NIST tell us why the plane, jet fuel and all, dissolves into the building unscathed? I was never very good at physics, but I'm not an idiot.

Beyond that, the government's NIST, with its foregone conclusions about the WTC on 9/11 and modeling everything to fit those conclusions and nothing else, is worthless as science. But that's just my opinion.

Greg Burnham · July 13, 2011

Although I used this clip to demonstrate a different point on a separate subject, it also works well here. That the film clips of the plane entering the building look contrived could be because they were contrived! The techniques used to create illusions have obviously been improved since this clip was made in 1928, but there is an almost spooky similarity. The section of interest is between the 2:50 -- 3:00 minute marker.

Ron Ecker · July 13, 2011

Greg,

Very good. The wagon going into the wall looks identical to the plane going into the building.

Now if NIST or any other government agency looked at that clip of the plane, do you think they would say, "That looks like it could be contrived, let's investigate that"? Not in our lifetimes they wouldn't. They would then have to ask who contrived it. Forget it! Yep, that clip is legit!

Bill Sherwood · July 13, 2011

That talks about the damage to the building, not the plane. In the video there is no damage to the plane, which strikes me as ridiculous.

Is there a clear video handy of that please? I had a quick look on Youtube and got all sorts of stuff that didn't seem quite right.

Ron Ecker · July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity.html

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

Jim Fetzer

My 4th of July article, “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”, raised questions about the events of 9/11 and whether more may have been involved than the official account of nineteen Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial carriers, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrating these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB. An FBI official, when asked why not, replied, “It wasn’t necessary because we saw them on television.” But we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville “on television”—and what we have seen on TV does not look right.

We have no videos of the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville and only the five frames from the Pentagon of Flight 77. We have familiar footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower and less familiar footage of Flight 11 impacting with the North Tower. Since it was not broadcast that day, that footage raises interesting questions about George W. Bush’s public remarks that, when he watched the plane hit the North Tower, he thought to himself, “There’s one terrible pilot!”

His comment, after all, only makes sense assuming it occurred before the second hit, after which anyone should have realized this was no accident but a deliberate occurrence. Bush added that “the TV was obviously on”, but since the public broadcasts did not show it at that time, the thought has crossed my mind that he may have actually seen it “live” on a closed Secret Service channel, which would be stunning evidence that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

Since I’ve made several observations about the Pentagon, I want to discuss some troubling aspects of the other crash sites. For those who want more on the Pentagon, I recommend “Pandora’s Black Box”, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, as well as “National Security Alter” from Citizens Investigation Team, both of which support the existence of a large plane—presumably, a Boeing 757—that flew toward the Pentagon but did not crash into it, consistent with my earlier study.

(1) Flight 11 hitting the North Tower

(a) Remarkably Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”. As Leslie Raphael has explained, http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, it’s improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/index.htm:

( While the image is too blurry and indistinct to be identifiable as a 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower--prepared by Rosalee Grable--does not bear even a faint resemblance (see too http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html:

(continued)

Edited July 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

July 14, 2011

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity:

© And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. So the question arises, why not?

(2) Flight 175 hitting the South Tower

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 passes 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. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

(continued)

Edited July 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

Bill Sherwood · July 14, 2011

Perfect, thanks

That looks exactly how you'd expect it enter the building of that type of construction - the outer shell is relatively soft, unlike the Pentagon, so very little aircraft would get blown-back from the impact point and virtually all of it keep pushing into the building. The fuel, as I have mentioned a number of times, has quite a lot of mess and so as a soft mass would keep moving forwards at quite high speed as it started to ignite and burn. The really heavy stuff in the plane (engines, etc) would hardly be slowed by anything and as the plane looks like it impacts in fairly level flight then things like desks, people, thin walls and so-on will not provide any real impediment to the motion of a five or six tonne engine that's also still making a bit of thrust.

July 14, 2011

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity:

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 shows here, that is not what the videos display:

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, since 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, it did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack's studies reveals:

So how can a Boeing 767 travel at am impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed (see http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed, 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? It looks as though, in this respect, Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than Flight 175 fakery.

(continued)

Edited July 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

July 14, 2011

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity:

(3) Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville

(a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125' and a tail that stands 44' above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites--http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html--to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. "This is the most errie thing", the coroner observed at the scene. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

( The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview: http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/old/flight93_2.htm:

FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..." - FOX (09/11/01)

[continued)

Edited July 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

July 14, 2011

More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity:

© An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. Like the smoke coming from the series of dumpsters at the Pentagon, alas, there are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked. The plume resembles those from detonation explosions more than it does fires from crash sites--http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html--and estimates of the location of the plume place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

Planes or No-Planes?

Serious students of 9/11 are therefore placed in a dilemma. If they are committed to truth, as the name "9/11 Truth" implies, then they have to confront the evidence that supports the conclusion that all four of the plane crashes--one way or another--appear to have been faked. To put it more precisely, there is no credible evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville nor at the Pentagon, while the evidence for the New York events appears to support video fakery. In a circumstance like this, the best move may be to take a step back and ask yourself if there is any circumstantial evidence that might help to resolve the question in your own mind. Here I would observe that the following considerations be borne in mind, namely:

(i) Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11", has shown that the government has never actually proven that the hijackers were aboard any of those planes;

(ii) David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners", has shown that the evidence shows that all of the alleged phone calls from all four of the airplanes were faked;

(iii) Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifable component parts from those four airplanes, the government has yet to produce even one;

(iv) John Lear, among our nation's most distinguished pilots, has observed that, before a pilot can pull away from a terminal, he must submit an envelope (with a flight plane, check list, and passenger data), yet none of those envelopes has ever been produced; and,

(v) FAA Registry data shows that, for the four planes allegedly involved in crashed on 9/11, the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not deregistered until 01/14/2002 and those for Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005, which suggests that at least two of those planes were still in the air long after 9/11.

What this suggests to me (and others more expert than I in matters of this kind) is that 9/11 was a staged event designed as a psy-op that was intended to instill fear in the American people to manipulate us to support political policies--including wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq--that we otherwise would never have considered. Since that is the objective of terrorism, the weight of the evidence that students of 9/11 have discovered supports the conclusion that the Bush/Cheney administration has been practicing terrorism on the American people. So take your time and sort this out for yourself. We are talking about the pivotal event of the 21st Century, whose effects--for better or for worse--are enduring to this day.

Jim Fetzer founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and maintains its web site at http://911scholars.org.

Edited July 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment