Top Ten 9/11 Cons: “Fraud Vitiates Everything” (FVE
by Jim Fetzer, Dennis Cimino and Mike Sparks
“Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that frauddestroys the validity of everything into which it enters”–37 Am Jur 2d, Section 8
“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING” (FVE) is the legal principle
that, once it has been shown shown that one party has lied or committed a
deliberate misrepresentation, their whole case is thereby compromised and no longer defensible in a court of law.
37 Am Jur 2d, Section 8, states, “Fraud vitiates every
transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in
broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of
everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn
contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
Were that principle applied to the government’s case for
9/11, the demonstration of fraud and deliberate deception would warrant
its dismissal in it’s entirely, since it’s entire case has been builtIn the case of the Pentagon, they range from the relatively
upon nothing but fraud and deliberate deception. Here we are going to
present ten examples of fraud and deliberate deception in relation to
9/11, five of which derive from the Pentagon, the other five from events
in New York City. Given the principle that “Fraud vitiates everything”
(FEV), each of these is sufficient, by itself, to warrant the dismissal
of the official account of 9/11.
obvious–that the plane seen in the Pentagon frame labeled “plane” turns
out to be too small to be a Boeing 757, but could be a Global Hawk
delivering a missile to the building–to the far more subtle and complex
case of the image that Frank Legge touts as his “conclusive proof”,
which has been photoshopped–in the case of the Pentagon.
In New York City, they range from the impossible speed and impossible
entry of a Boeing 767 to planting an engine component that did not come
from a 767 to the impossible “collapse” of the Twin Towers and the
blatant controlled demolition of WTC-7. These are “ten top” cases, which
warrant dismissing the government’s case it its totality because of
fraud and deliberate deception, where there are many, many more.
AT THE PENTAGON
There are dozens of arguments against the official account that a B-757
hit the Pentagon, which is a fantasy. They include that the “plane” seen
in the Pentagon frame is too small to be a Boeing 757; that the “hit
point” could not have accommodated a 100-ton airliner with a 125′
wingspan and a tail standing 44′ above the ground; that debris from a
Boeing 757 which should have been present is not there–no wings, no
fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage and no tail–where not even the
engines, which are made of titanium and steel, were recovered; that one piece of debris, which did come from a Boeing 757, has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995;
and that the smoke observed by members of Congress rushing out of the
Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters, a blatant act of
fakery.
(1) The Pentagon “plane”
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon
on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over
500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped its
wings open and caused the plane to burst into flame. The aerodynamics of
flight, including “ground effect”, moreover, would have made the
official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground
level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph
could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which
means that the official account is neither physically nor
aerodynamically possible. But here is an even simpler disproof:
When the image of a Boeing 757 is sized to the tail of “the plane”, it
turns out to be more than twice as long as what the frame shows, which
means it cannot possibly be a Boeing 757. But, as Dennis Cimino has
observed, it
could have been a Global Hawk, which may have fired a missile into the
building, where the white plume is not from the exhaust of any jet
engine but from the solid-propellant engine of a Maverick. The
fragile composition of the Global Hawk would have made it an ideal
delivery system, since it would have been obliterated into tiny parts
upon impact with the Pentagon.
(2) The lack of debris
Although many Americans are unaware, the hit point on the Pentagon is a
hole about 10’ high and 16-17’ wide, which is surrounded by a chain-link
fence, two enormous spools of cable and a pair of cars, where there are
unbroken windows beside and above the opening. What we do not see is an
enormous pile of aluminum debris, broken wings or the tail, bodies,
seats or luggage. Remarkably, not even the engines were recovered from
the crash site—although a part of a compressor, which was too small to
have come from a 757 and too large for a cruise missile—was later
reported there. Even more striking to me, however, is this photo of the
civilian lime-green fire-trucks as they extinguish the fires:
Since these fire trucks arrived after the crash and spent fifteen
minutes or so putting it out, I have been struck by the clear, green,
unblemished Pentagon lawn. There is no indication that a Boeing 757 hit
the building–NONE! Nor in any of the other photographs we have featured about the Pentagon. And, as Dennis Cimino has observed, if a plane had flown into the building, then why are these supports blown outward? No plane hit the building.
(3) The planted fuselage
Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none
even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have
come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers
and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being
observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a
C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best
guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to
think of real alternatives.
One piece of debris has been used to cement the case for the crash of
Flight 77, where Frank Legge, for example, has argued that no one has
been able to show it did not come from a 757:
One of the oddities about this debris is that it
shows no signs of having been involved in a violent crash or exposed to
the intense heat of those fireballs–and it includes a piece of vine.
Another student of the Pentagon, James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who
earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law,
has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above
Cali, Columbia in 1995. “It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would
have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them
largely intact.” That this piece was on the Pentagon lawn is an obvious
case of fraud and deliberate deception vitiating the official account.
(4) The dumpster fires
As though that were not disturbing enough, I was also puzzled why, later
in the day, when rumors were circulating that the Capitol might be next
and the members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the building,
when they looked across the Potomac, they witnesses billowing black
clouds of smoke. That struck me as rather odd, since the lime green fire
trucks had put out the modest fires long ago. When I took a closer
look, I discovered that these black clouds of smoke were not coming from
the Pentagon itself but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of
the building:
When I was still living in Duluth before my retirement in June of
2006, another student of the Pentagon came by and showed me forty-four
(44) more frames of the same thing, where you could actually see light
between the dumpsters and the building. If a plane has actually crashed
there, it would not have been necessary to fake fires coming from the
Pentagon, which appears to have been contrived to induce members of
Congress to support requests for new funding Donald Rumsfeld would
present the next day–another instance of fraud and deception vitiating
the official account.
(5) The photoshopped images
When we turn to the photograph that Frank Legge cites as “proof positive” of the presence of an airliner,
a B-757, specifically, inside the Pentagon, not only do you not notice
no debris associated with an airliner, but it turns out that the photo
has been altered extensively–it has been photoshopped!–to obfuscate
details in it (see the next photo with the cyan marking and the magenta
bottom line) In this photograph, the cyan area (expanded in the final
photo) clearly reveals that photoshopping was crudely used to add the
extremely lighter area into the image:
shows demarcation lines of cut and paste having been performed in more
than one area inside it. In his original upper ceiling beam (left-hand
side), you can see where they pasted in over the beam to obfuscate
something that happened on the beam itself in an attempt to hide that
from us. The shading of the reverse “E” area shows, beyond any doubt,
that this photo was heavily retouched and altered.
without having issues with perspective and sizing very obvious to the
naked eye. This photo, which Legge himself emphasizes, is bogus and
hence “non-authentic”. He thus picked a very sad and poor choice from Jim Hoffman’s web site. A very good question to ask Frank Legge, therefore, is, “Why did you pick a photography that had been altered and is also bereft of any sign of aircraft wreckage?”
That this photo was shopped may or may not have been something of which the Journal of 9/11 Studies
was aware when it accepted his article for publication. But that means
its vaunted “peer-review” process, upon which Steven Jones has placed so
much emphasis, failed in this instance. As I have explained elsewhere, Jones also advocates an inadequate mode of scientific reasoning,
which means that the procedures he endorses as “scientific” are not
those that properly qualify. But something is terribly wrong when a
faked photo appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
was aware when it accepted his article for publication. But that means
its vaunted “peer-review” process, upon which Steven Jones has placed so
much emphasis, failed in this instance. As I have explained elsewhere, Jones also advocates an inadequate mode of scientific reasoning,
which means that the procedures he endorses as “scientific” are not
those that properly qualify. But something is terribly wrong when a
faked photo appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
IN NEW YORK:
(6) The Impossible speedIndeed, as John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, has
observed, the plane in these videos does not even have strobe lights,
which are required of every commercial carrier. But how can a Boeing 767
possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed),
where the estimates of its speed run as high as 560 mph or more, which
is aerodynamically impossible at the altitude of 700-1,000′ at which
this flight trajectory was taking place:
(7) The Impossible entry
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
passing 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.
Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly
faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate
Newton’s laws. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it
actually intersected with eight different floors. 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 has shown here, that is not what the videos display:
(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 has shown here, that is not what the videos display:
No real plane–commercial, military or otherwise–could 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? And no real plane could have
passed through and its nose come out the other side. It looks as though
the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the
fabrication of Flight 175 fakery. But both involved massive fraud and
deception.
(8) The planted engine
Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuelexplodes, when one would have thought that, insofar as most of 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 Streets, those who were fabricating
evidence in this case did not get it right: what
we have is a JTD9 engine with a cooling duct assembly from a Boeing
aircraft manufactured in the 1970s, not the plane allegedly used for
Flight 175:
Since
this is the wrong engine component and was off-loaded as a prop, how
can anyone be so gullible as to believe that it supports the official
account, especially when its under a steel scaffolding and sitting
on a sidewalk, where if something that massive had hit there at high
velocity (having come from the South Tower as alleged), it would have
been buried half-way into the concrete, not sitting on top of it. There
is even a dolly present, which–although not heavy-duty–may have played a
role in moving it from the white van to its location on the sidewalk.
This a blatant case of deliberate deception and fakery that completely
vitiates the official account.
this is the wrong engine component and was off-loaded as a prop, how
can anyone be so gullible as to believe that it supports the official
account, especially when its under a steel scaffolding and sitting
on a sidewalk, where if something that massive had hit there at high
velocity (having come from the South Tower as alleged), it would have
been buried half-way into the concrete, not sitting on top of it. There
is even a dolly present, which–although not heavy-duty–may have played a
role in moving it from the white van to its location on the sidewalk.
This a blatant case of deliberate deception and fakery that completely
vitiates the official account.
(9) The impossible collapse
The Twin Towers were masterpieces of architecture and engineering, whichreceived multiple awards at the time. By using an innovative design
known as “a tube within a tube”–which
was innovative with regard to the elevator systems (using a combination
of express and local elevators) and by adopting 47 massive core columns
at the center connected to 238 external steel support columns by steel
trusses–the architect, Minoru Yamaski, created enormous open space
unobstructed by walls and support columns . Here you can see the 47
core columns at the center, where the external steel support columns–which would be added to what is shown–created the equivalent of “a steel beam 209′ deep”:
six inches thick in the subbasements to a quarter-inch thick at the top,
which meant that the overwhelming mass of the steel was below the level
at which “the plane” is alleged to have hit the North Tower. By his
calculation, the fourteen floors above the “hit point” represented 1.4%
of the mass of the steel, where it is preposterous to suppose that its
collapse could have overcome the 98.6% of the mass of the steel below
it. Indeed, as John Skilling observed, the towers were build with a
safety factor of 20, which means that each floor could support 20 times
its expected live load (dead load + furniture, facilities and human
personnel):
The claim that the jet fuel from the plane
strikes burned so intensely it caused the steel to weaken cannot
withstand critical scrutiny. The steel used in the building was
certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., to 2,000* F for three to
four hours without suffering any adverse effects. NIST studied 236
samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures
above 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. Plus the fires in
the South Tower lasted less than an hour, in the North less than an
hour-and-a-half. It was physically impossible for them to collapse.
As Jesse Ventura has observed, propane burns hotter than kerosene strikes burned so intensely it caused the steel to weaken cannot
withstand critical scrutiny. The steel used in the building was
certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., to 2,000* F for three to
four hours without suffering any adverse effects. NIST studied 236
samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures
above 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. Plus the fires in
the South Tower lasted less than an hour, in the North less than an
hour-and-a-half. It was physically impossible for them to collapse.
(the constituent of “jet fuel”), yet his camping stove, which is made of
steel, does not melt when he uses it on a camping trip. Far from
collapsing, both buildings are being blown apart in every direction by
enormous sources of energy, where they are being converted into millions
of cubic yards of very fine dust and, when destruction is complete,
there is no massive pile of debris in their footprint, which is a
classic sign of a building’s collapse. Unlike WTC-7, the Twin Towers did
not collapse, which means that the official account characterizing them
as having “collapsed” is another blatant fabrication and deliberate
deception.
(10) The controlled demolition
Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC-7 came down in a classic “controlled
demolition” at 5:20 PM that day, about seven hours after the destruction
of WTC-1 and WTC-2, which I prefer to refer to as “demolitions under
control”, since they were clearly not classic controlled demolitions.
You can see the penthouse kink, where all the floors fall at the same
time and, after about 6.5 seconds, there is a stack of debris (mostly
floors) equal to about 12% of the height of the original. By contrast,
the floors of the Twin Towers remain stationary, waiting their turn to
be “blown to kingdom come” (in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds).
Compare the below video with those for the towers above:
Almost
everyone knows that Larry Silverstein acknowledge authorizing the
building to be “pulled”, which is a term for taking it down by
controlled demolition. Far fewer are aware that Barry Jennings (from
the New York City Emergency Management Division) was in WTC-7 that
morning, where he went to the Command and Control Center, which had its
own air and water supply, and found half-eaten sandwiches and
still-steaming cups of coffee. A fireman found him and escorted him out
of the building, while explosions were going off and a stairway was
blown out from under him. At one point, he felt himself stepping over
dead bodies, which he could feel but because of the darkness, he could
not see:
everyone knows that Larry Silverstein acknowledge authorizing the
building to be “pulled”, which is a term for taking it down by
controlled demolition. Far fewer are aware that Barry Jennings (from
the New York City Emergency Management Division) was in WTC-7 that
morning, where he went to the Command and Control Center, which had its
own air and water supply, and found half-eaten sandwiches and
still-steaming cups of coffee. A fireman found him and escorted him out
of the building, while explosions were going off and a stairway was
blown out from under him. At one point, he felt himself stepping over
dead bodies, which he could feel but because of the darkness, he could
not see:
Richard Gage and A&E911 focus on WTC-7,
where Barry Jennings was inside the building that day. His story is very
compelling and makes the case that this was not a consequence of the
destruction of the Twin Towers but an entirely separate event involving
the use of explosives. It
would have made for compelling television on C-SPAN when Gage made his
recent appearance, but the best he could do was talking about
nanothermite for the umpteenth time. I am sorry, but Barry Jenning’s
story would have made an impact on the public, especially by observing
that he died a few days before NIST would release its report on WTC-7,
which he was in the position to contradict on the basis of his own
personal experience. Consider the options that we have enumerated here
and ask, “Why didn’t he talk about them?”
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.where Barry Jennings was inside the building that day. His story is very
compelling and makes the case that this was not a consequence of the
destruction of the Twin Towers but an entirely separate event involving
the use of explosives. It
would have made for compelling television on C-SPAN when Gage made his
recent appearance, but the best he could do was talking about
nanothermite for the umpteenth time. I am sorry, but Barry Jenning’s
story would have made an impact on the public, especially by observing
that he died a few days before NIST would release its report on WTC-7,
which he was in the position to contradict on the basis of his own
personal experience. Consider the options that we have enumerated here
and ask, “Why didn’t he talk about them?”
Dennis Cimino has extensive engineering and
support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy
Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to
work for Raytheon in the 1980s.
Mike Sparks, a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army
Reserve, has published articles in Air Defense, Armor, Artillery Online,
Armed Forces Journal International, and Behind the Lines. He is the
author of James Bond is Real (forthcoming).
Top Ten 9/11 Cons: “Fraud Vitiates Everything” (FVE)