9/11: The Who, the How and the Why by Jim Fetzer

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

9/11: The Who, the How and the Why

by Jim Fetzer

"(All) the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S"--Saudi Arabian Press

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia has blown the whistle on the US over 9/11

It was only a matter of time. Once the infamous 28 suppressed pages of The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), which report on Saudi Arabian funding for several of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers--15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, none of which were from Iraq--became the focus of public attention in the mass media and a bill had been introduced to allow US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia for its complicity in the atrocities of 9/11, it was only a matter of time before Saudi Arabia struck back by revealing that, on 9/11, the US had attacked the US in order to provide the pretext for perpetual war in the Middle East.

The plan for 9/11 appears to have originated in the fertile imagination of Benjamin Netanyahu, who was seeking a means for manipulating the United States into attacking the modern Arab states that served as a counter-balance to Israel's domination of the Middle East, which would pave the way for its eventual expansion to become "the Greater Israel" of historic Zionist aspirations that would extend from the Tigris-Euphrates to the Nile. He had already organized a conference held in Jerusalem on which Terrorism: How the West can Win (1987), long before the concept of terrorism had begun to exert its influence up the American mind.  Netanyahu has displayed political genius in bending America to do the dirty work for Israel.

Bibi at the top of his game

9/11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the Department of Defense (most of whom had come from the Project for a New American Century and were dual US-Israeli citizens) and the Mossad, with funding, it turns out, from Saudi Arabia. It should have struck a nerve in the US when a half-dozen or more of the alleged "hijackers" turned up alive and well the following day, making contact with the media in the UK, which David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2011), makes the first point in his classic demonstration of the deceit and deception of the 9/11 Commission by suppressing and misrepresenting key aspects of the atrocities of that day.

What this means is that the WHO and the WHY are easier to establish than the HOW, where the HOW becomes enormously important as proof about the WHO and the WHY. There are three major 9/11 research groups active today, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has long championed the use of nanothemite in the destruction of the Twin Towers) and the Judy Wood DEW group (which focuses on the use of directed energy weapons as the means that was deployed to attack the World Trade Center). Remarkably, neither A&E911 nor the DEW group has been willing to address the WHO and the WHY--where even their explanations of the HOW appear to suffer from serious inadequacies. Only those associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth--and, in the past, with veteranstoday.com--have addressed all three with success.

The importance of "the HOW"

The question of HOW it was done has to be the foundation for any serious investigation of the WHO and the WHY for the obvious reason: If the WTC was attacked by 19 Islamic terrorists who hijacked four commercial carriers and brought about the atrocities of 9/11 under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, as we have been told, then the case is closed! It is because the "official narrative" of 9/11 cannot be sustained that serious students have been driven to search for more adequate accounts of 9/11, which are consistent with the available relevant evidence and do not violate laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics. Indeed, these violations are among the most blatant refutations of The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), because they prove that it cannot possibly be true.

The 47 massive core columns vs the external support columns

The Twin Towers incorporated an innovative "tube within a tube" design, with 47 massive core columns at the center, which were connected to the external steel support columns by steel trusses, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete (where the variance reflects that the trusses had v-shaped groves that were 4" deep, so in some places, the concrete was 4" thick but in others 8" instead. The buildings were among the most robust in the history of architecture, exceeded perhaps only by WTC-7, the infamous "Building 7", which would undergo a bona fide collapse at 5:20 PM/ET, 7 hours after the Twin Towers were demolished, even though it was hit by no plane and endured no jet fuel fires.

In "20 Reasons the 'Official Account' of 9/11 is Wrong" (veteranstoday.com, 10 September 2000), I explained some of the most basic reasons we know that what we have been told is not only false but provably false and, in crucial respects, not even scientifically possible. The impact of the planes, for example, cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand even multiple impacts by aircraft (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as massive heat sinks dissipating the heat from building up at specific locations of the steel. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F, moreover, is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt, any steel. And if the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any ”collapse” sequence. And their collapse was not even physically possible.

The Destruction of the Twin Towers

The thickness of the steel from subbasements to top floors 

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A retired high-school physics, chemistry and math teacher, Charles Boldwyn, has calculated that, if you take the top 14 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it. Moreover, the relative thickness of the steel used in the core columns diminishes from 6" thick in the subbasements to 1/4" inch at the top, where the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, represented only 1.4% of the mass of the steel, where it is absurd to suppose that 1.4% of the mass of the steel could have caused the collapse of the lower 98.6%. 

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of an hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system. Rodriguez has observed that the North Tower explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a research by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, ”Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job”, in which they demonstrate that those explosions--both in the North Tower and also in the South--took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts, a point to which I shall return.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings, such as the Twin Towers, are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column had been simultaneously removed, floor by floor, as Charles N. Pegelow, who is a structural engineer, has observed. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings--their conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust--the government’s account cannot explain. There were no “pancakes”. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

How it was done

WTC-7 debris (upper left) vs. WTC-1 (mid-right)

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot have been any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition. As Fr. Frank Morales of St. Mark's Episcopal Church located near "Ground Zero" and a first responder, explained to me during two interviews on "The Real Deal", both buildings were actually destroyed to or even below ground level, as the photographic evidence confirms. Notice here, for example, that, to the left you can see the 5.5 stories of debris from WTC-7, but in the immediate foreground where WTC-1 had stood, there is nothing comparable--because these buildings did not collapse! 

But if the buildings did not collapse but were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust in about 10 seconds apiece (officially, 11 seconds for the North Tower; 9 for the South), how was it done? Judy Wood's comparison to two enormous trees turning to sawdust from the top down gives us some clues. Blowing them apart from the top down required some form of energy that delivered far more than conventional and that could be directed, where the apparent cause was a very sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes, directed upward, and initiated in a sequence that was intended to simulate the collapse of buildings by another means, one model for which would be to take them out one cube of 10-floors at a time, which, in the case of the North Tower, would have required 11 seconds and, in the case of the South, 9, which corresponds with NIST's own temporal estimates.

Anyone who studies the destruction pattern of the North Tower has to be struck by the complete and total demolition taking place, which proceeded in stages that correspond closely to the model. Here, for example, is a time sequence of the destruction of the North Tower as it took place on 9/11:

The North Tower being blown apart from the top down and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust 

While the photographic recored proves that the Twin Towers did not collapse, it does not explain HOW it was done, which has been established on the basis of other evidence, including especially the United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies of dust samples taken from 35 locations in lower Manhattan, which record the presence of an array of elements that would only been present in the quantities and correlations found had this been a nuclear event. Consider the following findings:

Elements found in USGS 9/11 dust studies

Indeed, the USGS data has been confirmed by the variety of incapacities incurred by the first responders and others in the vicinity of Ground Zero, which including multiple myeloma at the rate of 18 per 100,000 vs. 3-9 per 100,000 in the general population; non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers, which are highly associated with exposure to ironizing radiation. As of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers; more recent estimates put the number close to 70,000. 

What about the planes?

Since a half-dozen or more of the alleged hijackers turned up alive and well the following day, it ought to have crossed the mind of Americans that they cannot have died on 9/11 by causing four commercial carriers--two 767s in New York and two 575s in Shanksville and at the Pentagon--to have crashed in suicide missions. in The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on ”The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.

The clear, green, unblemished Pentagon lawn

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory “flying at high speed barely above ground level” physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 400 mph could not have come closer than about 60 or even feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible, an aeronautical engineer, explains here. Since the laws of aerodynamics, no less than the laws of physics and of engineering, cannot be violated and cannot be changed, we should have known from the beginning that something was drastically wrong with the official story of 9/11. But, as CIT (Citizens Investigative Team) has emphasized, we have multiple reports of a plane approaching the Pentagon on a different trajectory only to swerve over it with no impact.

Flight 93, which is alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, left no obvious aircraft debris. As both the reporters first on the scene reported, the eerie aspect of the crash site is that there was no sign that any plane had crashed there. To cope with the obvious, one variation has it that the plane disappeared into an abandoned mine shaft, which is absurd on its face. But then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis, which would have revealed that they had not been singed by any jet-fuel based fires.

The fascinating cases, therefore, are not the 757s in Shanksville or at the Pentagon, where the proof no planes crashed is simply overwhelming, but in New York, where we seem to have videos showing Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 hitting the South. Because we have so much more data related to Flight 175, let's take a closer look at what happened there, which appears to be a classic instance of the propter hoc fallacy,  which maintains that, because one event happened before another, we are entitled to infer that the second happened because of the first. As in the case of typical Hollywood special effects (such as Superman in flight or Spiderman spinning webs), things are not always as they appear to be. This may be the most stunning case in history.

Flight 175 and the South Tower

Flight 175 simply disappears into the Sosut Tower

There are some 52 videos of one or another portion of the trajectory of Flight 175 approaching the South Tower, which were broadcast again and again on 9/11 to create the virtually indelible visual impression of the plane hitting the building. It actually requires considerable concentration to see that the plane disappears effortlessly into the building with no collision effects!  So we are witnessing an impossible scenario in violation of the laws of physics and of engineering. The impact between a 120-ton aluminum aircraft and a massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete building should have caused the plane to crumple against the building, with wings and tail, bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground. The engines might have entered, but most of it not. Yet none of that appears to have happened.  It simply disappears into the building.

We have done frame-by-frame analysis of the two most important videos, the Michale Hezerkhani (taken from the side) and the Evan Fairbanks (taking looking up the side of the South Tower). In both cases, the plane disappears its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length through air. (Try it yourself, if you have any doubt! Do frame-by-frame advance and verify what I am reporting here.) Unless the resistance posed by a massive, 500,000-ton steel and concrete building to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight poses no more resistant than air, we cannot be viewing a real event. We know the formula, d = r x t, where d is the length of the plane and t is the time taken, which yields the rate of travel. They are the same. There is no diminution in velocity.

As if that were not sufficient proof, we know the structure of the facades of the Twin Towers, where Flight 11 was intersecting with seven floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208' on a side, that means each floor represented an acre of concrete. The horizontal resistance posed would have been simply enormous. We also have photos of the streets beneath those facades, which are bereft of any aircraft debris. You could have reclined in a lounge chair sipping Mai Tais and been perfectly safe at the times these events took place. 

These were not real collisions with real airplanes, where debates have raged over whether it was done with CGI (computer-generated images), VC (video compositing) or using sophisticated holograms. As if more proof were required, Jack White, legendary photo/film analyst with whom I collaborated in research on JFK, discovered video footage of a white van at the intersection of Church & Murray, where an antiquated engine from a Boeing 767 was found. Several agents wearing FBI vests are in the process of unloading something heavy, but they didn't know enough to get it right. It was under a steel scaffolding and resting on the sidewalk. Had anything so massive hit the sidewalk at high speed, it would have done tremendous damage. But there it sits. Incredibly, they even left a dolly behind!

Why did they have to fake it?

It sounds incredible until you put the pieces together to figure out why they had to fake it. The plan was to have these planes completely enter the buildings before they exploded to create the impression that the Twin Towers had collapsed because of the jet-fuel based fires. We already know that that was simply impossible, but the perps were counting on the media to endlessly repeat the video footage in the expectation that public would believe what it was seeing with its own eyes. The original plan had been to use drones under remote control, until they discovered that the intricate lattice structure of the steel and concrete buildings made that physically impossible. They had to fall back on "Plan B" by faking the images of the planes and using prepositioned explosives to simulate those explosions.

Explosions drained the water from the sprinkler systems.

An intense fire in the North Tower in 1975 had tested Underwriters Laboratories certification, burning at an estimated 2000 degrees F for four hours without causing the steel to weaken, much less melt. At that time the decision was made to install sprinkler systems in both of the towers, which would have extinguished the very modest fires that remained after the prepositioned jet fuel or napalm had been consumed in those spectacular fireballs. In order to nullify their effect and preserve the illusion that the buildings had collapsed because of the fires--where no steel structure high-rise has even collapsed from fire before or after 9/11, much less on 9/11 itself--they had to neutralize the sprinklers. Massive explosions were set off in the subbasements of both buildings in order to drain them of water. 

The problem was to "explain away" those explosions, which were timed to coincide with the apparent impact of the planes with the buildings, where they would be attributed to jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts. That was implausible, since the buildings had staggered elevators that ran for 30 floors, where you had to exit and take the next for another 30 to reach the ground. There were only a few maintenance elevators that went from the subbasements to the top. But who would even notice? It required precise timing, however, which made it all the more imperative that the planes should appear to impact with the buildings at just the right time to be responsible for the explosions in the subbasements. It did not work out as planned.

14 seconds too early at the North Tower; 17 at the South.

As Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an 'Inside Job'", have shown, there were hand/eye coordination discrepancies of 14 and 17 seconds in the detonation of the explosions in the subbasements and the apparent impacts of the planes--where the explosions occurred before the plane impacts! They have reviewed the data repeatedly, but have been unable to eliminate the time differential, which makes their research one more decisive proof that 9/11 was indeed "an inside job"--where this one does not depend upon any violations of the laws of physics, of engineering or of aerodynamics, which are, if anything, even more conclusive. They simply screwed up the timing, which, all by itself, proves that 9/11 was, indeed, "an inside job".

Where do things stand with 9/11?

There is more, especially about the alleged Islamic hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and that their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. But it's hard to defeat the fact that several of them turned up alive and well the following day, which ought to have raised suspicions in the minds of Americans that, if the hijackers did not die, then the planes cannot have crashed; and if the planes did not crash, then the passengers aboard them did not die because they had been hijacked and forced to crash by the 19 Islamic fundamentalists--which means that the entire "War on Terror" was based upon a lie by the American government to the American people.  The American government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft that they are alleged to have hijacked, which would have been easier to create than faking all four of the alleged aircraft crash sites. (For more of the evidence that supports this conclusion, see "The Real Deal Ep #100 The 9/11 Crash Sites" with Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.), who was formerly in charge of all US military signals and photographic intelligence, who not only agrees but offers some additional substantiation.)

As Wesley Clark informed us during his speech to The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2007, when he returned to the Pentagon from serving as Supreme Commander, Allied Forces Europe (the Commanding General of NATO), he learned of a plan to take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years, beginning with Iraq and Libya and ending with Syrian and Iran. The Russians have put an end to that by intervening at the request of the Syrian government, but it has not been for lack of trying. What most Americans do not appreciate to this day is that the plan Gen. Clark was outlining was not a response to 9/11 but the motivation for 9/11 by annihilating each of the nations that posed the least threat to Israel and its future aspirations.

When the 28 pages of The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) that have been suppressed became the inspiration for Congress to pass a bill that would allow American citizens to sue the Saudi Arabian government for its complicity in 9/11, the families and survivors of the victims of 9/11 were livid that the President of the United States would side with Saudi Arabia and lobby for its defeat. But Barack Obama is simply carrying out the policies and positions that he inherited from the previous administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who directed the CIA, the Neocons in the Department of Defense (most of whom had come from the Project for a New American Century and were joint US-Israeli citizens) and Mossad to conduct the operation to transform US foreign policy from one in which we, at least officially, never attacked any other nation that had not attacked us first to one in which we, to benefit our "ally" in the Middle East, have now become the greatest aggressor nation that the world has ever known.

The truth would have emerged by now but for the influence of 9/11 organizations that are functioning as gatekeepers by offering limited hangouts in lieu of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but about 9/11. A&E911, for example, continues to focus on nanothermite, even though it cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing the Twin Towers apart from the top down. They claim they know that other explosives may have been involved, but refuse to identify what they could possibly be. And, like Judy Wood and DEWs, they refuse to discuss WHO was responsible and WHY. Unfortunately, they do not even do an adequate job of explaining HOW it was done, where the nanothermite theory was inspired by the study of dust samples from an apartment near Ground Zero, which has now been superseded by the far more extensive research of the USGS. What lives by the dust, dies by the dust. You are not going to like what you read here, but it is your duty as an American citizen to absorb it.

This is the Prologue to America was Nuked on 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DoD and the Mossad (moonrockbooks.com, 2016 forthcoming)