Thursday, September 15, 2011

9/11 Interview with IRNA (The Islamic Republic News Agency)

9/11 Interview with IRNA (The Islamic Republic News Agency)

Jim Fetzer

Perhaps the most interesting of my 9/11 interviews was one with IRNA (The Islamic Republic News Agency) of Iran, which came in the form of a series of written interrogatories. I have discussed it and the problems entailed by its translation into Farsi and then back into English in a column on Veterans Today. Here I want to present the bare bones of the questions asked and answers given, for those who may be searching for an overview about 9/11.

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and retired professional scholar, I have expended considerable time and effort interacting with those in professions complementary to my own in the history and philosophy of science, including pilots, physicists, engineers (aeronautical, structural, mechanical) and many other disciplines. A summary of our scientific findings about 9/11 may be found at this link and of our analysis of the politics of 9/11 here.

This interview has been published in Farsi here. I would be most grateful to anyone fluent in that language if they could compare my submission with the translation provided there. The limitations of machine translation (from Farsi into English) are, at this point in time, rather severe, which means that the gross inadequacy of such a translation does not mean that this was not translated properly by IRNA. Here are the questions I was asked and the answers I gave.

Hello Mr James Fetzer
Again I thank you for this interview.


1- Has this incident been faked or terrorist? What are your reasons?

The events of 9/11 were elaborately staged to instill fear into the American people to make them easier to manipulate for political purposes, especially by supporting a "War on Terror" involving invasions of countries that never attacked us, including Afghanistan and Iraq, especially. See "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots", Veterans Today.

2- Despite the strong security system in the USA, is it possible for such an incident to occur?

Because elements at the highest levels of the Department of Defense and the Pentagon--no doubt including the CIA were involved in planning and executing these events, including the 17 "anti-terrorism" drills that were taking place that morning. They completely defeated any possibility of a military response to these "hijackings". And because the American press has been bought--lock, stock, and barrel--by powerful corporations who no longer have the dedication to investigation and integrity to expose the truth about 9/11.

3- What are the goals behind the incident?

They were to seize the opportunity created by the demise of the USSR that left the USA as the sole remaining superpower. Those who were involved in the Project for the New American Century believed they could create a world in which the United States would dominate the world for the next 100 years--if only the American people could be convinced there existed a threat justifying the restriction of civil liberties and massive expenditures to support wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan--and potentially Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and even Iran. It was a diabolical plan.

4. What do you think about existence of Al Qaeda? Is it a fictional group or a real?

Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA for the purpose of funding resistance to the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. The US provided missiles to the resistance that enabled them to shoot down Russian helicopters, which made the incursion too costly to continue. The role of Osama bin Laden as an American operative in that operation has been conveniently omitted from the history books and films like "Charlie Wilson's War".

5. What about it's leader, Ben Laden? In 2002 Mr Alex Jones, Film Producer Radio host, announced, he was dead. Do you think that is true?

Yes, Osama bin Laden died on or about 15 December 2001. He was buried in an unmarked grave in Afghanistan. David Ray Griffin has a book about it, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? (2009), which lays out evidence of his death at that time. In "Seven Questions about 9/11", Veterans Today, I quote experts who were not only told that Osama by the nation's highest ranking general at the time that Osama died in 2001 but that the events of 9/11 were a "false flag" attack, as I have described it above.

6. Please explain your theory about 9/11?

My most extensive discussion may be found in "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots", Veterans Today. There were many forms of deception. The first was to suggest that the Palestinians were involved. The second that it was done by 19 Islamic fundamentalists. The third that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were involved. The fourth that it happened by accident because the US intelligence agencies were not communicating, all to cover up that it was arranged by the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the Israeli Mossad. No one gained more from 9/11 than did Israel, which I also address in that article and in "The BBC's instrument of 9/11 misinformation", which is also archived at Veterans Today.

7. What is the connection between 9/11 and financial crisis?

These wars of aggression have undermined the national security of the United States, which depends upon economic vitality, military strength and moral standing. We are not only depleting our military strength by conducting too many wars at the same time with repeated rotations of the same troops, over and over, but they are depleting the national treasury of trillions of dollars, while the world stands in dismay at the corruption of the standing of America, which used to be a beacon of truth and justice for the people of the world. Sad to say, that is no longer the case today.

8. Some say that before 9/11 certain shareholders traded their shares because they were aware of this incident. What is your opinion?

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of The 9/11 Commission, have indicated that they know who placed those short-options, but that they could not have had anything to do with 9/11. Apparently, they traced it back to the CIA. If these guys had no more understand that this, they had no business being co-chairs of that commission, since they had no grasp of the depth of duplicity of the CIA, the FBI, and other federal agencies.

9. Who are the winners and the losers of 9/11?

The greatest beneficiary, no doubt, has been Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, when first asked about 9/11, said it was good--then realized his blunder and added, "Well, it's not good. But at least the Americans will know what it's like to have to deal with terrorism". There are many indications that the Mossad was involved, from 200 "art students" in this country, many of whom were following those who would be cast as the "patsies", to "the Dancing Israelis", to the dual US-Israeli citizens who dominated the Department of Defense, to Dov Zakheim, who was the comptroller of the Pentagon when $2.3 trillion when missing, to Michael Chertoff, who directed the release of "the Dancing Israelis" (who returned to Israel, where three of them went on television to report that they were there to "document" the destruction of the World Trade Center), to Urban Moving Systems, a Mossad asset, and much, much more.

US military force is being used to destroy the integrity of Arab states for the benefit of Israel by turning them into smaller "statelets" based upon religious and ethic affiliations, where Iraq will dissolve into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish mini-states, and similar consequences will occur throughout the region, which will leave Israel as the most dominant state in the Middle East--except for Iran, which is why they are trying to promote a war with Iran. The US has been the big loser, where the depletion of its national treasury, the sapping of its military strength, and the damage to its standing as a beacon of truth, justice, and morality has taken a massive hit--which has become even more costly with the corrupt and immoral use of NATO as an instrument of aggression in attacking Libya, another state that has never attacked the US.

10. Could this be related to Zionism?

Yes, without doubt. Virtually all the principals involved in 9/11 were fervent Zionists, who believe in Jewish superiority and the entitlement of Israel to the lands of Palestine, which rests upon dubious historical precedents. I regard Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Donald Feith, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Gen. Richard Myers, Rudi Giuliani, and Larry Silverstein as among the principals behind 9/11. Dick Cheney even appears to have been the one coordinating events at least at the Pentagon, if not in New York as well. Bush deserves honorable mention, but he was too dumb to be informed of what was really going in, where Michael Ruppert, CROSSING THE RUBICON (2004), has drawn the same conclusion.

11. How do you assess the future repercussions of this incident?

Enormous and enduring. The loss of civil liberties in the US because of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other insults to the integrity of the American people, including the absurd screening processes being employed at airports across the country, are intended to induce more fear into the public. Indeed, the use of violence and threats of violence to induce fear in a population to make it more amenable to political manipulation is a defining characteristic of terrorism. So it turns out that the US government (under Bush and Cheney) was practicing terrorism on the American people, which has not been undone by Obama and Biden. So we appear to have crossed the Rubicon, indeed, by shifting this country toward a neo-fascist police state where the rich and powerful rule in their own interests and not those of the American people.

Best Regard

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Mike Palacek's "New American Dream" — Post 9/11

Presented on the occasion of Minnesota 9/11 Truth's 10th year observance of 9/11 in the Rotunda of the Capitol in St. Paul, MN, 11 September 2011.

We have a dream ...

Mike Palacek

... of bringing the United States politicians, journalists and generals who have brought about this long ten-year war and debacle to trial — and put on TV just like O.J. — every goddamned afternoon — so every American can watch ... just like the McCarthy Hearings and the JFK funeral procession ...


What we need is a New American Dream.

Not of new homes and toasters and microwaves, but of becoming the type of country we always thought we were.

And part of that is becoming the quality of people who are capable of telling the truth.

Right now we live on lies. We subsist on lies, but it's not really living.

We lie to ourselves about how we deserve this country and we deserve to shut others out after we took the land from others.

We lie to ourselves and our children about all aspects of our history.

The New American Dream means never having to say some question or idea is not valid. We are allowed to ask any questions that we have ... there are no wrong questions. There is no hidden black military budget, there are no UFO files Americans cannot see, no JFK documents that will not be opened during our lifetimes, no destroyed RFK murder photos by the L.A. police, no evidence from Ground Zero taken away before we can even look at it — we are not the Soviet Union of the 1960s — this is supposed to be America. That is our dream, to become America, The New America, the real hope of the world.

I believe that 911 was an inside job.

bush, cheney, rice, powell, rumsfeld, ashcroft


bill clinton

hillary clinton

Joe Biden

They all know that and yet they refuse to acknowledge what they know. They kill and continue to kill. They allow others to die and continue to send others to their deaths for a lie.

What we need in America is a Truth Commission like they had in South Africa to heal their broken country.

Our country is surely broken as well.

We need a Truth Commission. We need to put certain people on the stand and we need to be allowed to ask questions.

We are not even allowed to ask questions.

Those who are supposed to ask questions for us refuse to do so. Can you honestly say that Brian Williams or Matt Lauer or Katie Couric or Amy Goodman or Jon Stewart or The New York Times or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune asks the questions that need to be asked?

The United States of America is also supposed to be based on the constitution. It is not based on the constitution. The president does not ask anyone before he goes to war, bombing, killing people.

It is rather based on those in power being focused like a laser beam not on truth and social justice and doing the right thing - which is why we voted for them - but rather on doing whatever it takes for them to remain in power.

It is based rather on the shooting of Jack Kennedy from perhaps as many as six vantages in Dealey Plaza. That is the Big Boom – the Big Boom theory of the creation of this country.

Before that instant we had a chance to fight poverty and racism and war, get the truth, the truth about whatever, because before that moment everything seemed bright and possible, even probable.

But after that Big Boom, the dustbowl clouds of power and greed and violence came out and blotted the sun.

The United States of America is not based in the Constitution or the teachings of Jesus as we proclaim that it is.

It is based on the collaboration of the U.S. Army, FBI, CIA and Memphis police to murder Martin Luther King. It is also based on the shooting of Robert Kennedy from behind his ear, rather than from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was standing.

We do not make cars anymore in America but we do psy-ops like the Greeks and Romans did philosophy, astronomy and speeches and literature.

These Great Misdeeds are where we honed our master craft, where those who rule founded this country, where our gears, our tool and die were cast.

Forget about the Liberty Bell. Forget about Mount Rushmore. Forget about the Grand Canyon. They are as much window dressing as CNN or NBC News or National Public Radio.

The Lorraine Motel in Memphis is our true Plymouth Rock.

Dallas’ Dealey Plaza is our real Mount Rushmore.

The Ambassador Hotel pantry is our actual Grand Canyon.

Waco is our Arlington Cemetery.

Oklahoma City is our Yellowstone Park.

The woods near Eveleth, Minnesota where Paul Wellstone’s plane went down is our National Mall.

And with the confidence and experience gained in the 1960s our actual Founding Fathers, whoever they are, were able to tack on a Bill of Rights to their version of the Constitution on Sept. 11, 2001. ...

... We have fake history.

Our junior high and high school history books should be in italics --- handed out by the teacher on the first day with a wink – Remember the Maine – Pearl Harbor – Gulf of Tonkin – Waco – Oklahoma City bombing – Waco – moon landings – stolen elections.

Because we accepted the Warren Commission we got the “911 What Controlled Demolition Commission” and our children will get the “XYZ Non-Investigation by Rich People Covering Up For Other Rich People.”

I believe 9-11 was an inside job ----- they got the new Pearl Harbor they wanted to invade Iraq and take the oil.

The troops are not protecting us. That is someone’s spin on the day’s news – somebody’s advertising slogan --- someone else’s sermon.

The troops serve the empire. They are not heroes. They kill and plunder for the empire. The heroes in our country are the protesters, the ones who go face to face with the empire, those who will begin to gather in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 6.

... the Obama election, believing in Hope – I had hope. I had hope that we might enter a brand-new period of openness, no wrong questions, Truth – becoming the type of people, nation that we always thought we were.

It didn’t happen. And we have to ask ourselves why?

It’s one of those questions that we are allowed to ask—that we should ask.

You have to know that Barack Obama knows the whole truth about the 9/11 attacks. He is complicit. He has lied. He has continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on a lie. And he knows he is lying.

He lied right to our faces on national television when he said that Osama bin Laden had been killed ... and buried at sea. ... Osama bin Laden was buried at sea ... and Jessica Lynch was rescued heroically, the U.S.A. does not torture, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, George Bush won the 2000 election, see, there is a plane there in that hole in Shanksville, it went all the way into that hole and no, there is no blood and no bodies and no luggage scattered ... or plane parts ... and Osama bin Laden ... was buried at sea. ...

... Can you believe the Warren Commission? I mean believe that it really happened, and we did not have riots because of it, but rather we just say, oh, well … and so … Bush fought the 9/11 commission. He did not want to testify alone … was the commission meeting in the dark, with spiders? ... after 9/11 all the propaganda to promote the war – terror alerts – where did those go? Osama Bin Laden tapes in the middle of the afternoon on Fox and CNN and NBC … 9/11 Commission – finally, and then what a supreme joke that was and we settled for it. Building 7 – controlled demolition – where’s the plane in the Pentagon – Shanksville – dancing Israelis? … and still the Bushes ride in a golf cart down the third baseline waving to the crowd and are greeted by cheers rather than tomatoes, fists and handcuffs … Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney walk free … Condoleeza Rice teaches at Stanford --- rather than being locked up forever in one of these high-tech concentration camps we have, like in Florence, Colorado, and shuffling off to the shower each morning wearing ankle shackles and a waist chain and fluorescent orange pajamas … for the rest of their lives. If we’re going to have these insane places, we might as well put the worst of the worst there, and that would be George and George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and whatever other dozens have conspired, continue to conspire, to overthrow this country – who know the truth and don’t tell the rest of us: FBI director Moeller, General Tommy Franks and all the other generals who acted as commentators on NPR and Fox, ensuring us that the coming war was so cool, so good, so right …, and now we have how many hundreds of thousands of dead human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just people who were living their lives and found themselves in the way of the American quest for gold, for dominance. And the thousands of young Americans who have died or had their lives ruined because of a lie, a huge, amazing lie, perpetrated by men and women we asked in good faith to lead us on our way.

Bush, Obama … Card, Clinton, Fleischer …

Wolfowitz, Aschcroft, Pearl, O’Reilly, Hannity, Couric, Lauer, Williams, Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Limbaugh, Blitzer, Sawyer, Rivera --- all those names, who, if history ever rights itself, will be synonymous with Goebbels, Goering, Himmler. …

Back when I was a kid growing up in Nebraska, we thought Lyndon Johnson was just a big, boring dude. — Well, we all need to read LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip F. Nelson. — It turns out that the vice-president of the United States planned and carried through the murder of John F. Kennedy. Never in one hundred years would my hometown newspaper, radio station, teachers, coaches, or parents have let us even consider such a thing.

The term “grassy knoll” was said with the same sneer that “liberal” gets today — and even today, almost fifty years later – that seems like a bold statement. …All the while we pointed fingers at the Soviet Union, declaring them a closed society and pointing back at ourselves, boasting forever of a free and open society … we are anything but, have been anything but. The ones who ruled the Soviet Union, well, they had nothing on the ones who rule us.

Yes, these successful lies are …

More profound than anything else in World History ... ever.

It’s just all so very well done. It’s who we are.

And so the most profound, big thing about this big thing called America is that it is a highly successful lie.

… and you can say that’s conspiracy tinfoil, to think like that, about the Bushes and the assassinations and such, but I say it’s just paying attention.

Remember the Anthrax letters, which said “Are You Afraid?” Those were not written with a rock and chisel like Fred Flintstone from the recesses of some cave in Afghanistan. Those letters came from persons within our own government.

Like a horror movie and the killer is in the same house with us.

These killers are right here, with us and “they” want us to be afraid.

“We cannot be afraid."

“... the great city sprawls with people, some smartly dressed, many of them shabby, a few beautiful but most not, all reduced by the towering structures around them to the size of insects, but scuttling, hurrying, intent in the milky morning sun upon some plan or scheme or hope they are hugging to themselves, their reason for living another day, each one of them impaled live upon the pin of consciousness, fixed upon self-advancement and self-preservation. That, and only that. — John Updike, “The Terrorist”

That's perhaps the human condition.

[... forced with having to find a reason for living another day, impaled live upon the pin of consciousness ... to become fixed upon self-advancement and self-preservation]

But the human condition also means knowing when there is something wrong, something not quite right and having the spirit to refuse to live like that, to live within a lie.

That's why so many people have worked for so long, for ten years, against all sorts of obstacles, to find the truth, to make this the country and we the people who can truly make this country great.

People like Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer, who have been working almost non-stop for years and years to give us that New American Dream.

They are not afraid.

We take courage from their example.

We also cannot be afraid.

Mike Palecek — author, radio host, former federal prisoner for peace, former Iowa Congressional candidate, seminarian, newspaper reporter, editor, publisher — lives near Duluth.


Saturday, September 3, 2011

The BBC's Instrument of 9/11 Misinformation

The BBC's Instrument of 9/11 Misinformation

Jim Fetzer (with Joshua Blakeney)

The BBC's "Instrument"

For a second time, the BBC television network has produced a documentary about 9/11 featuring Dylan Avery, the producer of “Loose Change”’; Alex Jones, the talk show host; and me, the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth—this time accompanied by Neils Harrit, a chemistry professor from Denmark. The program is part of the BBC’s “Conspiracy Files” series. The first installment is available here. This one, now entitled, “The Conspiracy Files: '9/11: Ten Years On'”, was initially accessible at the following link: Interestingly, not long after it had been posted, the “user” had it removed from YouTube, which is not an effective method for disseminating your message. Presumably, it will soon be up and running again, which we will archive and then link to this column.

The inclusion of Neils Harrit is especially striking, since he was the lead author on the nanothermite study published in the Bentham Science Open Chemical Physics Journal, which T. Mark Hightower and I have discussed in several articles here at VT, including "Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?" and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Since I believe there are real problems with (what Mark Hightower and I have called) “the myth of explosive nanothermite”, the BBC may have missed an opportunity to pit us against one another. Neil's statements about the use of nanothermite, however, have actually been more responsible than those that have come from and been supported by the "hard science" group. So the focus of this discussion will be on some of the more blatant problems with “9/11: Ten Years On”.

Here I (and Joshua Blakeney) will offer several striking illustrations of the BBC’s "sleight-of-hand" in misrepresenting key points that I explained to Guy Smith and to Mike Rudin, which they cannot possibly have misunderstood, where cases like these leave no doubt of that the BBC in its “Conspiracy Files” series functions as an instrument of disinformation. We will also cite examples that exemplify other especially notable demonstrations that the BBC’s duplicity is not limited to its presentation of ersatz documentaries like these but extends into its reporting of news as it happens, which we illustrate with Jane Standley’s premature reporting of the collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11 and the introduction of Richard Clarke’s efforts to revive the indefensible theory that “9/11 was due to incompetence”.

With the BBC for a 2nd round

[NOTE: I use the first-person pronoun to accent that “I was there” and know these things based upon my “up close and personal” experience, but I am grateful to Joshua Blakeney for his contributions here, especially relative to the so-called “Global War on Terror”. Joshua recently drew to my attention a seminal text edited by Benjamin Netanyahu entitled Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1986), which we discussed during our two-hour interview on my 31 August 2011 radio show (and will be archived at I agree with Joshua that this book appears to be offering a blueprint for the “Global War on Terror” already in 1986, which should quality as a central piece of evidence about the true origins of that war and a hint of whom it most benefits. (A version of this article with active links can be found here.)]

BBC’s “Conspiracy Files”

This was my second encounter with the BBC, whose director, Guy Smith, came to Madison and interviewed me for eight hours for its previous segment on 9/11, which also featured Dylan, Alex, and me. This segment has also been archived at, where there can be little doubt that the BBC is attempting to trade in stereotypes and that Dylan is supposed to be the obnoxious kid, Alex a messianic preacher, and me the kooky professor. While some may even agree, especially about me, this is an obvious attempt to suggest the only possible reasons that anyone would dissent from the “official account” of 9/11 are emotional needs or cognitive impairments. The 9/11 movement is actually highly eclectic with members of varied backgrounds and qualifications. That we might actually be right and the official account wrong was tacitly denied.

During both interviews, I presented literally dozens and dozens of arguments about why the “official account” of 9/11 is not only indefensible but actually violates laws of physics, engineering and aerodynamics. The fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to have caused the steel to weaken, much less melt. WTC-7 displays all the features of a classic “controlled demolition”. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 crashed in Pennsylvania and clear and convincing proof that the Pentagon “hit” was a fabrication, which appears to include the flyover by a plane simulating Flight 77 at the same time as the detonation of explosions. Later in the day, the Hollywood-style production of billowing black smoke from fires deliberately set in a series of dumpsters was deployed in order to intimidate the members of Congress. (See “Seven Questions about 9/11”, Veterans Today.)

Michael Shermer at Lethbridge

For the first show, the BBC extracted about 7.5 minutes they wanted to use from my interview, which it combined with about 4 minutes of Alex and 3.5 minutes of Dylan. The rest of the program was used to misrepresent and undermine what we had told them, where logic and evidence were not their concern. By offering psychoanalyses of 9/11 skeptics, rather than engaging the evidence that refutes the official story of 9/11, the makers of the BBC’s 9/11 documentary harnessed the same tactics employed by journalist Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers (2011), and by Michael Shermer, an ersatz-professor, who was exposed for having mischaracterized his credentials by Anthony Hall and Joshua Blakeney. Their focus was upon the psychology of beliefs that are, according to their point of view, not merely weird but even bizarre—which is certainly true, unless you take a serious look at the evidence. (See “Why doubt 9/11?” for 20 counter-examples.)

The Ground Floor “Hit”

The Pentagon is an especially nice example, where I explained in both interviews that the alleged “hit” point is on the ground floor and not the second as has often been alleged. Both programs, nevertheless, misrepresented its location by using photos of the second floor, which has to have been intentional, given that I had explained this point to Guy Smith and to Mike Rudin during their separate visits. They even use animations of this inaccurate location in their animations of its occurrence, which is inconsistent with the photos that are presented correctly in both “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and in “Seven Questions about 9/11”.

The second floor "hit point"

It makes an enormous difference to understanding what happened there, since, at the ground-floor location, we find a chain-link fence, two huge spools of cable, two somewhat damaged cars and unbroken windows beside and above the entry hole, which is only about 10’ high and 16-17’ wide—far too small for a 100-ton airliner that is 155’ long with a 125’ wingspan, and a tail that stands 44’ above the ground. There is no debris: no wings, no tail, no fuselage, no bodies, seats or luggage. Neither of the virtually indestructible engines was recovered. But the fact that this mass of debris is missing is obfuscated by the simple but effective technique of presenting the wrong photos. You have to admire the elegance of the plan.

The ground floor "hit point"

It has been said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which is true—except in those cases where it is false. If you were to inspect the living room of your home, for example, the absence of evidence of the presence of an elephant would properly qualify as evidence of the absence of an elephant from your living room. Similarly, the absence of evidence that a plane—in particular, a Boeing 757—crashed at the Pentagon is evidence that no Boeing 757 crashed there. So one of the most important indications of BBC duplicity is that, although I had explained to Guy Smith and to Mike Rudin that the actual “hit point” was on the ground floor, they continued to use images of the second floor in their work.

The clear, green lawn

The unblemished lawn

Think of the simplicity of the deception involved here. Have your target speak about the hit point (where he is talking about the ground floor “hit”) but present images of another location (as if that were what he was actually discussing). And it is a technique that can be used again and again. During both interviews, I also emphasized a photo that was taken even as the civilian lime-green fire trucks were extinguishing the very modest fires, which shows a completely clear, green, unblemished lawn, entirely free from debris of any kind. You can see that the upper portion of the building has not yet collapsed, which means it was not the effect of the alleged impact. This collapse appears to have been contrived to enhance the apparent damage to resemble more like what a hit might have caused.

Debris begins to appear

In this case, the BBC contracted the time line and claimed that the upper floors had collapsed “within minutes” of the hit, showing images of building AFTER the collapse. Since 25-30 minutes is “within minutes”, there was a flimsy pretext to justify using that phrase. But there is now considerable debris in the foreground and the lawn is no longer pristine. The effect, once again, was to use my voice explaining what is visible in the photo that I was discussing but juxtaposed with film from the subsequent collapse of the upper floors that I was not discussing, which was clearly intended to convey the impression that I did not know what I was talking about—a simple but effective technique, which they employed repeatedly.

Inadvertent confirmation

Ironically, some of the BBC's own footage substantiated my observations about the completely clear, green, unblemished lawn, entirely free from debris of any kind. But it would have taken a discerning viewer to overcome the emphasis imparted by the soothing, confident voice of the BBC's commentator, who conveyed the impression of objectivity and impartiality while nevertheless debunking what I had said in nuanced and subtle ways. That this footage actually appeared in this documentary came as a surprise to me, once I had sorted out their technique of implicitly contradicting what I had to say by the presentation of images other than those that I was addressing, since this one actually confirmed what I had explained.

Lt. Col. O'Brien and the C-130

More debris shows up later

The difference between the originally clear, green and unblemished lawn, which was free from debris, and the subsequent appearance of debris across a broad swath of the Pentagon lawn led me to speculate as to its origins. It would have been awkward and obvious to have enlisted men and officers carry debris out onto the lawn. It had to have been done in a more subtle fashion. A C-130 had been circling the building, which led me to consider the possibility that perhaps the debris had been dropped from the plane, where its settling down from above would be something that many observers might regard as an effect from the hit, where it would not be unexpected for at least some debris to have been airborne.

So the BBC featured Lt. Col. O’Brien, USAF, who was presented as the captain of the C-130, who feigned to be disgusted with the implication that he could have been involved in the cover-up by having debris dropped from his plane. Since it was circling as the allegedly hijacked plane approached the building, it appears to be a good question why the Pentagon was surprised by the hit. Surely the Lt. Colonel could have warned them, insofar as he reported that he had watched its approach. Apparently, the evidential value of his claiming to have seen the plane outweighed the implied admission that he had failed to warn his superiors, since all sides alleged that the Pentagon had no idea it was going to be hit—when the plane would most certainly have been shot down, had such a warning occurred.

The pilot of the C-130

If there is a better explanation of the source of the debris, what could it possibly be? Those who harbor lingering doubts about the role of the BBC as a purveyor of disinformation should study these photographs and compare them to “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon?” and “Seven Questions about 9/11”. Then watch the show, when it is accessible again—perhaps in a new version in response to the public’s reaction to the original, which I am discussing here. We all have to appreciate the role of the mass media in distorting 9/11, where the phrase “info wars” has been used by Alex Jones to convey exactly the right impression. And this is not the first time that the BBC has been "caught with its pants down”, since an earlier and possibly even more spectacular illustration occurred on 9/11 itself.

Jane Standley on WTC-7

Jane Standley with WTC-7

One of the most remarkable events of the day of 9/11 was the premature report by Jane Standley of the BBC that “the Solomon Brothers Building”—another name for WTC-7—had collapsed, which of course did happen that day, but she claimed it had happened at 4:57 PM/ET, when in fact that did not occur until 5:20 PM/ET, 23 minutes later! This has to be one of the most stunning illustrations of the dual role of the mass media in presenting news as it happens but with a spin dictated by the intelligence assets and the government agencies who control access to what the public is going to see and hear. Since WTC-7 can actually be seen over her left shoulder (to the right as a viewer watches her presentation), there can be no doubt that the BBC got “ahead of the script”, which may even be the single most glaring example of complicity between MI-5 and the BBC in the nation’s history.

A most unusual "collapse"

Another example of the spin that the BBC was offering in its “Conspiracy Files: '9/11: Ten Years On'” program, is that, toward its conclusion, Richard Clarke, the Bush/Cheney administration’s “anti-terrorism” expert, attempts to revive the long-discounted theory that these attacks occurred only because of incompetence by the agencies who were responsible for protecting the country from terrorist attacks like these, including communication and cooperation failures by the CIA and the FBI. But this theory cannot account for the physical impossibility of the Twin Towers to have been destroyed by the purported plane crashes, the resulting (very modest) fires, and the weakening of the steel, none of which—even had they happened as the official account proclaims—could have brought about the complete, total, and abrupt demolition sequence that would occur, which can be viewed relative to the North Tower in “New 9/11 Photos Released”, for example, on my blog.

Three "Dancers" on TV

9/11 was clearly cleverly planned, including a variety of false leads, some of which were discernible in the original broadcasts from the networks that day. As Preston James and I explain in “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”, the first suggestions presented by the media were intended to lay blame on Palestinians, of which we have three major indications: the image of cheering Palestinians broadcast as these events were unfolding; anchors reporting that “The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine” was claiming credit; and the statements to the officers arresting the “Dancing Israelis” in their white van from Urban Moving Systems, a Mossad asset, whose driver said, “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.” That was hokum then and remains hokum now, where three of the five would return to Israel and explain on TV that they were there “to document” the destruction of the Twin Towers, which obviously implies prior knowledge that it was going to occur.

The “Global War on Terrorism”

The BBC’s propaganda for the 9/11 wars largely rests on the empirically flawed-assumption that there is a disproportionate threat posed to citizens of the U.S., Britain, Canada and elsewhere by Islamist terrorists. Yet, data posted on the FBI’s official website demonstrates that actual cases of Islamic terrorism are rare, making it a virtually negligible phenomenon. According to FBI statistics, between 1980 and 2005, for example, only 6% of reported terrorist acts in the U.S. were committed by Muslims, compared to 7% by Jewish extremists, 42% by Latino extremists, and 24% by extreme right-wing groups (sometimes misidentified as “left wing”, but including local and state-wide militias). The BBC has been highly instrumental in reinforcing the falsehood that Islamists were responsible for the events of 9/11, which in turn justifies their scrutinizing of Muslims at home and abroad. Bear in mind that, if there were no planes to hijack, there would have been no hijackers, and if there were no Islamic hijackers, then 9/11 could not have been used to justify the “War on Terror” and a “clash of civilizations” pitting the Judeo-Christian West against radical Islam.

Elias Davidsson has demonstrated that the American government has not been able to prove that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of these planes, where Flight 11 and Flight 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day. The BBC has done its part by persistently covering-up evidence demonstrating that those alleged hijackers engaged in egregiously un-Islamic activities in the months prior to 9/11, including snorting cocaine, attending strip clubs, eating pork and drinking Vodka. These activities imply that either they were not Muslim at all or, at least, if they were, they were not devote Muslims and therefore most unlikely to engage in fanatical acts on behalf of their religion. Suicidal hijackings are not the kind of actions we would expect from Muslims who take pleasure in strip shows, eating pork and snorting coke! As the phrase has it, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

Blueprint for the "War on Terror"

Wayne Madsen has released British intelligence documents purporting to prove that “the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon”, which is very plausible, given what we know about the motives that appear to have contributed to its planning and execution, which involve oil, Israel, and ideology, which were interrelated. Reconfiguring the Middle East through the implementation of the Sharon Doctrine could then result in the construction of a pipeline through Israel to the Mediterranean Sea —which it could tap to solve its energy needs—and facilitate the despoliation of Iraqi oil. Taking out Saddam Hussein and converting Iraq into smaller states (or "statelets") based on ethnic and religious sectarianism, moreover, appears to be part and parcel of a master plan for the destabilization of the Middle East to create a new reign of Israeli supremacy and domination.

What does it mean?

Reluctance to report well-documented Israeli involvement in 9/11 may explain the metamorphosis of the once highly respected BBC into a propaganda organ of the Likudnik right and its allies. The network, officially an agency of the British state, lost many of its best reporters as a consequence of the BBC’s role in dealing with reports about and the subsequent death of Dr. David Kelley. Its erstwhile Director General (DG), Greg Dyke, appears to have been ousted and replaced in 2004 by the highly pro-Israel Mark Thompson, who, upon assuming office, made a trip to Israel with his Jewish wife to work out with Ariel Sharon the “softening” of the BBC’s editorial line about the State of Israel. A nice indication of the BBC’s pro-Israel bias, by the way, was its refusal to allow a “Gaza Appeal” phone-line number to be broadcast during the 2008-2009 massacre in Gaza. With 9/11 being used primarily to facilitate the epochal process identified by sociologist James Petras as “The Globalization of Zionist Power”, the BBC’s infiltration by likely Mossad affiliates makes perfect sense. Thompson is now the highest paid public servant in Britain—and he influences the BBC to support the “Global War on Terror”.

Explosions and dead bodies in WTC-7

In doing research about the BBC and its “Conspiracy Files” series, I discovered a web page devoted to “Conspiracy Theories”, in which five familiar arguments are presented and then “debunked”. To offer one instructive example, it dismisses concerns about WTC-7 arising from Larry Silverstein’s use of the phrase, “pull it”, and the alleged ground that he was actually requesting that firemen be “pulled” from the building. Not only were there no firemen in the building at the time, but “pull it” is a term of art in the construction business. Barry Jennings was actually in the building that morning and witnessed explosions taking place to prime it for demolition. It appears to me that any source that promotes falsehoods as blatant as these about 9/11 is unworthy of belief—which we now know includes the BBC!

The BBC’s own attempt to debunk “conspiracy theories” has had an unexpected and mildly encouraging effect. More than 700 comments were posted before the comments were closed, where I found many reflecting genuine understanding of the role of the BBC in promoting false information about 9/11. As we have found, in its biased documentaries about 9/11, its live reporting at the time, and even on a web page it has published to debunk those who are speaking the truth, the BBC has abandoned its commitment to objective and independent journalism and has become a shill for false theories and government ops. More is the pity, because it once stood as a beacon of truth that was widely admired around the world, which, as we have seen, can no longer be said on behalf of this once-great UK institution.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Joshua Blakeney is a Staff Writer at VT, a 9/11 activist, and a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge working on a thesis entitled, “The Origins of the Global War on Terror.”