Demolition Presentation Video: Fetzer discusses the evidence

In this two-part presentation, Jim Fetzer gives an overview of the destruction at ground zero.

High-quality aerial photos and some interesting video are used to outline his working hypothesis.

Topics include WTC 6, a theory on WTC7 and an analysis of the destruction of the twin towers.

To watch the video:

dont spread disinfo

Dr Fetzer you cant tell me with your lie in eyes you actually beleive that shit. prove it!! any part of it. imagine goin into a court of law and telling a jury of 12 people it was a particle beam from outer space. get a life who ever posted this disinfo. we need to stick to the facts...

5 Minute Debunking of the

5 Minute Debunking of the 'Steel turned into dust'

Just to prove how little research it actually takes to debunk this junk science...

Woods, Reynolds (and now Fetzer) make use of the following clip to argue that the core turned into dust via space beams

They further their suggestion of steel turning into dust by using the following image series

The video clip is of low quality and the image series is deceptive in that it appears to show the steel turning into dust instead of the actual collapse of the spire, perhaps that is the reason why they are chosen to promote their exotic 'theory'. This could be considered intentional deception given the quickness at which higher quality clips and photos can be readily found on the web.

There are 2 other clips of the spires collapse which are much better quality. These clips are not used however. Perhaps that is because these clips clearly show the steel core collapsing, and NOT turning into dust.
To view the second clip you will need the 3ivx codec which you can find at

To judge just how poor quality the clip and image series are check out the following close up image of what the remaining spire actually looked like:

From that image it is very easy to see that there remained horizontal slabs which most assuredly would have collected concrete powder during the collapse. Therefor when the spire collapsed it released a large amount of this accumulated dust which obfuscated the view of the spires collapse to some degree. This is the dust which is seen, not the 'steel turning into dust'.

In honor of Fetzer's love for re-iterating what he believes is the 'obvious':
Woods, Reynolds, and Fetzer have no credibility
Woods, Reynolds, and Fetzer have no credibility
Woods, Reynolds, and Fetzer have no credibility

All Fetzer has done here-to-for in this movement is parrot whatever research others have done. He has done absolutely ZERO research on his own but instead has only re-iterated that which others have said. This is fine and dandy to some degree, but when it comes to reiterating junk like 'Barbara Olsen is alive' or 'steel turned into dust via space weapons' it becomes a problem. A BIG PROBLEM.

Show "The steel did turn into dust-" by Anonymous (not verified)

i posted 2 videos along with

i posted 2 videos along with 1 picture to show why dust puffed out when the spire collapsed. these 2 videos and 1 image debunk the intentionally deceptive animated gif perfectly fine.

the image isn't always

the image isn't always showing up so here are other links:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

the animated gif i reference

the animated gif i reference isn't always showing up either:

This animated gif is misleading given the better image and videos which I linked in my original 20 minute debunking.

We should listen to someone

We should listen to someone who be bother to create an account?

Can one of you erstwhile scientists explain 500,000 tons of steel turning to dust? Kerosene?


My fecking clay pizza oven runs at 300c.

Nothing hit the ground except dust. The building vapourised in mid-air.

Then where'd the big pile of steel come from?

Concrete and building contents were pulverized. The steel fell down into piles.

nice work


In Theory

In theory this particle beam tachnology does have merit.... I hate to say it.... I really hate to say it.

Can this be proven?.... not in Fetzers lifetime..... Sorry to say.

Could they have used this technology on 9/11.... Possibly.... but if it was used it was used in combination with several other methods.

Were steel columns turned to dust by these weapons? I really cant say.

Can Microwave energy be directed in weapon form.... It's been proven..... It's actually a very simple concept.

What is the effect of microwave energy on steel?... ever put a fork in the microwave?.... microwaves heat the water molecules.... depending on the wavelength of those microwaves.... it affects the rate at wich those water molecules are energized.... the faster they are energized.... the more violent the reaction....

Concrete and even steel have water molecules suspended in their make-up..... if you can superheat concrete at a rapid rate using high powered microwaves.... in theory the concrete could violently explode as the excited water vapor tries to escape.... thus the pulverization.

possibly the same reaction from the steel..... steel could also be greatly affected by resonance.... another product of the properly tuned frequency..... Every material has it's own unique frequency. If you can faing that frequency... you simply need to amplify that frequency and in theory... the excited molecules will be dramaticly altered..... most likely weakened.

These theories are not impossible but they are well beyond the realm of thought of the average person. These are not concepts taught in your average physical sciences classes.

If you pay attention to their arguments you will see in the photographs of the charred vehicles that the engine blocks of these cars and abulances and fire tricks were the areas most affected..... these engine blocks composition most closely resembles the composition of structural steel. If they had a resonator in the area and they could somehow direct this resonant energy.... they could have excited the molecules in that steel... affecting its structuaral integrity..... the engines would have been more greatly affected because they were not grounded in the way the structures were.... thus the engines would have had more opportunity for vibration.... enough to cause explosion?...microwave energy could have aided as well....

I don't know what could happen if you put gasoline or steel belted radials in a microwave.

In theory.... this is all possible.... but to try and propel this as a main contributing factor in the collapse of the WTC complex on 9/11.... just too big a mountain to climb.

Should we be aware of the future of microwave weapons..... without a doubt..... we could all be cooked.... Literally!

awaiting a negative rating on this post

"awaiting a negative rating on this post"

Well, I'd expect it, but it won't be from me. I save my 'negatives' for troublemakers or the inexcusably deluded, not the reflective.

Fetzer makes a couple of excellent points--the bedrock"bath tub" construction, the energy deficit. But it's bad science to leap from energy deficit to "energy weapons".

Using Occam's razor, the simpest explanation for the energy deficit would be a mechanizm that caused simultaneous structural failure-- and at this point the best model is CD.

Having said that, there are many features of the collapse of WTC 1&2 that are not consistant with CD--the upward explosions, the pools of moltel metal, among others. There is definately something more going on, but I think it can still be explained in terms of a non-standard CD. WTC 7, on the other hand, was a classic CD, straight from the book.

I do wonder what Fetzer is hoping to accomplish. As a person who's interested in tesla coils and high frequency hobbies, I know better than to confuse people with the very strange that technology has to offer when they're having a hard enough time with the basics. Fetzer's not very savvy or he'd understand presenting these possibilituiies in this context, without documentation to back them up, is a liability to the truth movement.

well one thing we know

for damn certain is that a plane of some sort in combination with what was clearly a low heat short duration fire DID NOT in anyway cause those buildings to collapse at near freefall speed.

THAT hypothesis is impossible and doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it.

Even IF it is possible for any energy beam, particle beam or whatever beam to have done or "helped" this to happen, unless there is a way to Scientifically prove it then it is best to leave it in the fringe.

We KNOW that explosives were used because many loud explosions were heard, felt, and recorded on seismographs.
The CD hypothesis fits ALL of what we know happened, answers most all of the questions concerning collapse & why or how 1150 bodies vaporized and 1700+ others were blown into 20,000+ tiny little fragments, many of which were found on buildings "Across the street several hundred feet away".
So whether or not any beams of any kind were used in "conjunction" with explosives is really moot and does nothing but taint the provable evidence unless there is a way to scientifically prove such a hypothesis.

Yep. And given all that I

Yep. And given all that I wonder what he"s trying to accomplish.

Watch steel being transformed into some kind of dust by directed

energy beam. Start at 4min.

we need a site that does not get bunged up with the latest BS

du jour. Perhaps this site is outliving its usefulness, in that at this point discussion would be more fruitful on boards where people agree on some basics.

So what does 9/11 blogger offer us? A vast audience? If that's the case then surely we need periodic posts to prevent it from becoming primarily a source of disinfo. Maybe someone could do a site that aggregates different 9/11 related discussion boards somehow.

I dunno. I mean this as constructive criticism, and am very sympathetic to those who run the site and know they are working on moderation features, etc.

But having these clowns come back with a new BS theory every time their old one ceases to be tolerated seems like a sisyphean task...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Real Truther- did you watch?

You previous post indicate you are intelligent and open minded.

What part of Fetzer's theory (other than the still undefined energy weapon) do you object to?

I agree he's not the smoothest operator, but most of his evidence appears solid.

Who are the clowns?

it's the energy weapon, and the association with noplaners

Wood and Reynolds are clowns. The way they back up their "theories" with selected lo-res photos is just the beginning. Nobody likes being taken for a fool, which is what these attempts are, IMO. It was very disappointing to find out that Fetzer, with whom I had previously corresponded and whom I believed perhaps wishfully to be an honest person, came out in support of this obvious nonsense.

Let me say what I believe brought down the towers. I believe that it was a combination of high power explosives like RDX combined with thermite/thermate based cutter charges used to cut certain columns. The exact method is not as important as the obvious intent, which was to create the illusion that the planes' impacts and resulting fires were the sole cause of collapse. This was entirely premeditated. If you watch 9/11 Mysteries, you'll see a shill on the streets of NYC explaining to a reporter what he witnessed. He says "then the towers collapsed, obviously due to structural failure since the fires were so intense". Huh? How did this doofus wearing a Harley Davidson tshirt and matching cap come to that incorrect conclusion so quickly, and with such similarity to the government's eventual BS?

That's why it's not entirely accurate to call the towers, as opposed to Building 7, an actual controlled demolition (as so many shills like to point out) the truth is that it WAS controlled, but not for the purpose of avoiding damage to surrounding buildings as in the case of WTC 7. It was controlled in order to create an illusion of the responsibility of the planes for the collapse. Since that illusion did not represent anything that could actually happen, it was not even necessary to have it be accurate--just to SEEM like what happened. Assuming no one started to question elements like the molten steel, pulverized concrete, speed of collapse, and explosive projection of the debris.

There is no need to bring space beams into this, but it seems to fit the shills' MO. Take some weird looking pictures and create a myth around them, hoping to fool enough people to give the movement a bad name. First it was "melting planes", i.e. how did the plane go so smoothly into the south tower. They use pseudo scientific reasoning claiming that the plane was frail compared to the building. Then they discredit their own "hypothesis" by showing that a bird can embed itself into the edge of a planes wing on impact. By their own logic, the bird which is not as strong as a plane wing would not pierce the wing like the plane pierced the building, but in their photos that's what they show. A bird making a hole in a wing. Just as a plane made a hole in a building because of it's shape, mass, and speed.

Fast forward to space beams and now we have a picture of one of the smaller WTC buildings with a big round hole in the middle. OOOOOO it's round! Just like a "space beam!" Who hasn't seen Real Genius, after all? The movie where Val Kilmer is a student tricked into working on a space based laser for the government. Always use movie-logic, since that's what most Americans use to model reality--that and TV. So what other explanation for the round hole? Well, truth bad boy Eric Hufschmid has one, but of course he's a holocaust denying moon landing hoaxing buffoon right? Well, not exactly but that's not the point anyway. His book Painful Questions includes the idea that the hole was blown out of that particular building in order to allow for pressure to escape during the tower collapse so that it wouldn't cause the bathtub to blow itslef apart, since the tumbling hot gassy debris would find a conduit through which to escape. Of course the bathtub was still damaged, but remarkably it did not fail and flood the area.

So yeah, anyone as allegedly smart as Fetzer should know better than he seems to.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Frail planes

Wasn't the damage caused by birds (to various airplanes) meant to demonstrate the relative fragility of airplane wings, etc?

Such fragile structures would have a difficult (impossible?) time penetrating steel beams and concrete slabs of WTC.

The towers exploded outward, beginning at the top and progressing down.

CD (such as wtc7) is characterized by a series of explosions (internal) followed by the simultaneous "dropping" of all the floors.

Very different.

Thank you.

I'd love to setup such a

I'd love to setup such a site. I believe that my past comments with regards to 9/11 Blogger have been proven valid. Even Scholars for 911 Truth has been a wasteland of unsupportable "ideas". 9/11 Truth needs to become a formal organization unto itself that promotes reasoned questions and concerns about 9/11. This free for all is a nice idea and has its place, but again I say that it has the power to become much more. Who owns the domain? Perhaps we can transform into a more formal blog and have a link to the open blog (call it But something needs to be done so that new research ideas and disinformation is at least 1 additional click removed from research with established evidence.

To clarify, I'm not calling for censorship. But I am calling for a delineation between mature ideas such as CD and less matured ideas such as StarWars beams and No-Planes. How can one tell the difference? Who makes the choices? Well, I believe that people like Real Truther have shown their ability to be open, yet intelligent. Theories like CD explain/account for what is seen. StarWars and No-Plane theories do not account for what is seen - at least not yet. That does not mean that someday there might not be more supportive evidence for these theories. But at this point they are not supported by a reasonable body of evidence.


thanks for the compliment

I think what we're dancing around here is--is it possible to present a united front in a forum that is open or not? I think not, because there will always be disinfo. Question is, will 911blogger change, or will new fora, and new formats rise up around it to fill the need for a diverse movement that includes not just a diversity of views on each forum but more importantly a diversity of views that are nonetheless focused on one particular paradigm or another.

Let's not forget--this is not civil society--we do not have rights when it comes to the free marketplace of ideas. It is, as it should be, cutthroat. This includes times when, like the authors of the declaration of independence, a group finds it necessary to break away and do its own thing.

None of this should be considered a value judgement on this site--just a frank observation of reality. Surely there are limits to what can be tolerated on any forum. We do not, for example, ever want to tolerate calls for violence (I hope). The question the becomes one of judgement. Who is to judge what constitutes convincing and sound arguments and what might well be deliberate disinformation? And can any forum that does not allow for that distinction to be made remain relevant for long?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force