9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II

The evidence that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place is simply overwhelming, even if there are 9/11 Truth groups that want to avoid it.  Not only did Flight 77 not hit the Pentagon, but Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and, even though we have all seen videos purporting to show Flight 11 hit the North Tower and Flight 175 hit the South, we know that those videos are faked or fabricated one way or another.  As Pilots for 9/11 Truthhas shown, Flight 93 was in the air on 9/11 but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had purportedly crashed in Shanksville; and Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had purportedly effortlessly entered the South Tower. Indeed, FAA registration records show that the plane corresponding to those flights were not deregistered (or formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005, which means that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place.

Those who want to contest these findings are going to have to refute Bureau of Transportation Statistics data that shows Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and FAA registration data showing that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered until 28 September 2005.  Since they prove that none of the “official plane crashes” actually took place―which defines “NPT” (or “No Planes Theory”), when it is properly understood―they find themselves in good company, because no less an expert than Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, whose own society has established some of these key findings, has declared that Pilots will never accept NPT―apparently, regardless of the evidence!  We all know planes are shown in those videos, but, whatever they may be, they cannot be Flight 11 and Flight 175. I am not implying that Rob is an agent of disinformation; rather that, by succumbing to the temptation to substitute his personal preferences for objective proof, he has become one more in a long line of “useful idiots” who are incapable of reasoning from premises to the conclusions they support.

Rob Balsamo is far from the only prominent leader of the 9/11 Truth movement who allows the strength of his subjective opinions to override the weight of the objective evidence.  Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones have sought to promote the myth of “explosive nanothermite” long past the point where its incapacity to pulverize concrete, much less decimate steel, had been established on the basis of objective scientific evidence.  I therefore find it gratifying that, in their latest documentary, A&E911 has scaled back on their previously exaggerated claims and produced a documentary that I can enthusiastically support.  The situation with regard to the intensely defensive supporters of Judy Wood―whose dedication is so zealous that I personally regard them as members of a cult―however, is rather different, since they have demonstrated that, no matter how reasonable I could be in supporting the study of her work, they are going to attack and attack and attack, because I have not shown sufficient deference when I suggest that her work has not ruled out the use or mini or micro-nukes, where my position received vindication during the hearings, as I shall demonstrate.

Subjective bias or paranoid tendencies cannot explain all of the deviations displayed by different 9/11 leaders, however.  A fellow named Ian Henshall, for example, manages a group, Reinvestigate 9/11, in the UK.  When I received an email from him, I sent him links to my last five or six articles here at Veterans Today to share with his members.  He wrote back to inform me that he does not want to discuss “the more radical views, which even if true would not help”, which tells me that he is not serious about 9/11 Truth but prefers to run a social club where 9/11 can be discussed over tea and crumpets!  I am finding it difficult to draw inferences about him, insofar as his father worked for MI-5, but when there is such an abundance of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that all four of the crash sites were faked, it seems to me there was nothing radical about what I was sharing, which is based upon official government records from the BTS, the FAA, and independent studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

In his latest newsletter, “9/11―Eleven Years On and Still No Answers”, he offers these “unanswered questions”:

Since Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, as even our own FBI has acknowledged, and died on 15 December 2001, where the flights were phantoms and hijackers were the stuff of legends, I find it difficult to believe that anyone takes Reinvestigate 9/11 seriously.  Egad!  Scholars was publishing press releases about the faking of the audio and video tapes since Osama’s death as long ago as 28 May 2006, “Osama Tape Appears to be Fake, Experts Conclude”.  So what has Ian Hanshall been doing with his copious free time?  I no longer have any doubts about why there was not a substantial turn out from the UK 9/11 movement, when on 14 July 2010, Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon and I presented a symposium at Friend’s House in London, “Debunking the ‘War on Terror’”, for which Ken O’Keefe, the hero of the Mavi Marmara attacks, served as our master of ceremonies.

  

It seems to me that, if Ian Henshall is attempting to promote 9/11 Truth, he is doing a rather poor job of it.  I am personally inclined to believe that the four major findings of The Vancouver Hearings―that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757; that all four 9/11 “crash sites” were fabricated; that the Twin Towers were brought down using micro or mini-nukes; and that these events involved complicity between the CIA and the Mossad―can function as a kind of litmus test of 9/11 research integrity.  If, with the exception of a possible role for DEWs in the destruction of the Twin Towers, these conclusions have been established beyond a reasonable doubt (because no alternative is reasonable), then those who continue to dispute, to ignore or to deny them may not be who they claim to be. To the best of my knowledge, Ian Henshall has shown no interest in discussion or debate about any of them.  For the duration here, however, I want to return to the results of The Vancouver Hearings of 15-17 June 2012, regarding how the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed, where we know the “official account” is hopelessly indefensible.

Here are three of the key elements of the “official account” of 9/11, where we have shown that the first two are no longer tenable because they depend upon appeals to phantom flights and to “crash sites” that were fabrications:

What we have not yet shown is that the purported “collapse” of the Twin Towers and the destruction of WTC-7 were not consistent with the story that jet-fuel based fires had caused the steel in the Twin Towers to weaken, which led to a series of collapse of one floor upon another.  Here is a diagrammatic representation of what happened, according to NIST and THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT(2004), where the residual fires caused the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse, which brought about the cascade of one floor collapsing after another and the complete destruction of the South Tower and then the North.  This was ironic by itself, since the fires burned longer in the North Tower, which was “hit” first, than in the South, yet the South “collapsed” first.  The story is a fantasy, however, since these very modest fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause steel to weaken and a “collapse” of either tower turns out to have been an engineering and physical impossibility on multiple grounds, as Chuck Boldwyn,  especially, has demonstrated again and again. I have interviewed him more than 15 times, including this one:

As I have explained in four of the first five points made in “20 reasons the ‘official account’ of 9/11 is wrong“,

Indeed, although we cannot reconstruct the towers to conduct tests on its resistance to fire, history did that for us.  A huge fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower on 13 February 1975, which burned for three or four hours at temperatures estimated to be around 2,000 degrees F.  After it was extinguished, remarkably, none of the steel had to be replaced, which vindicated UL’s certification.  This is the occasion on which the decision was made to install fire sprinkler systems in both buildings, which would have extinguished the very modest fires that remained after the jet fuel (which appears to have been pre-positioned) was consumed in those spectacular fireballs.  The absurdity of the “official account” has been effectively lampooned by Jesse Ventura, who has observed that his camping stove, which is also made of steel, uses propane gas, which burns at a higher temperature than kerosene, yet his stove does not melt with he cooks with it.  Indeed, these are the kinds of points that are made so well in A&E911’s new documentary, which demonstrates that the “official account” of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 is wrong.  It was recently broadcast by PBS in Colorado and now appears on the verge of going viral:

Among the consequences of the “thermite sniffers” arrogant attitude in denigrating every student of 9/11 who did not defer to its privileged dogma of explosive nanothermite, alas, is that it suffocated research on how the buildings were actually destroyed by invoking what turns out to have been a myth, while also implying that the dust had been subjected to a thorough study, when that was far from the case.  Indeed, while “Explosive Evidence” does a great job explaining what did not happen and that the “official account” is false, The Vancouver Hearings featured multiple speakers who addressed the elements besides thermitic chips that appear in dust samples collected by the USGS and in water samples collected by the Department of Energy, which provide proof of how it was done, namely: that the destruction of the WTC has to have been a nuclear event, which we would not know but for studies of the dust, which revealed the presence of elements that should either have been absent or not present in the quantity found, including Barium and Strontium, Thorium and Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Chromium and Tritium, which are overwhelming indications that the demolition of the Twin Towers was primarily a nuclear event. Five speakers address the destruction of those massive buildings, whose presentations may be summarized as follows:

* Charles Boldwyn, M.S. in chemistry, 2-years in a Ph.D. program in polymer science at University of Akron; 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, Special Forces; more than 20 years as high-school math, chemistry and physics teacher; and has fifteen (15) interviews on “The Real Deal”, including “The Twin Towers did not Collapse”,

  He has made the nice point that, because the steel was tapered from 6″ thick at the base of each tower down to 1/4″ at the top, the very idea that the top 14 floors of the North Tower could have collapsed (because of fire) and brought about a cascade of one floor upon another represented 1.4% of the mass of the steel, which could not possibly have overcome the resistance posed by the lower 98.6%.  One of the most interesting aspects of Chuck’s work is that he has come to the conclusion that mini or micro nukes IN COMBINATION WITH thermite/thermate/nanothermite could account for all of the effects that were observed on 9/11, including the so-called “toasted cars”, as he explains in his presentations, including“Answering Judy Wood’s ‘Must Answer’ Questions”, found on the Scholars forum.

There are real possibilities for bridging some of the divisions within the movement insofar as, as long as A&E does not exaggerate the explosive properties of nanothermite, there may well have been more than one role that it played on 9/11, where the explanation provided by Richard Hall for the creation of the cut-outs on the sides of the towers appear to have been done using a method that may have involved nanothermite and, according to Kevin Barrett, in his “9/11 Truth takes New York”, Richard Gage has expressed a willingness to take a serious look at what did or did not happen at the Pentagon, especially because of the work of Barbara Honneger.  On both scores, this would be a most welcome development, because we can undoubtedly accomplish more working together than when in conflict.

Before turning to the presentations of Jeff Prager and Don Fox, I would like to note that a theory about the use of nukes has been propounded by Dimitri Khalezov, which posits 150kt nukes in the subbasements of all three of the buildings, WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.  I interviewed Dimitri on “The Real Deal”, which you can listen to here:

The catch, of course, is that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were done in completely different ways, where all the floors are falling at the same time and there is a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the original, while all the floors remain stationary and the buildings are being blown apart in every direction from the top down with the Twin Towers.  Those charges would have shattered the bathtub, which is a dike within which the towers were constructed in order to prevent Hudson River water from flooding beneath Lower Manhattan, some of the most valuable real estate in the world.  That is the principal reason they had to contrive a novel method of demolition, where WTC-7 was a classic “controlled demolition”, while the towers were a demolition under control, but far from a “classic” one.  Consider this video about the collapse of WTC-7, where, in a nutshell, it could be said that, while WTC-7 imploded, the Twin Towers exploded.  They were very different, indeed.  Consider “This is an orange”:

So if nukes were used, they were not deployed as Dimitri Khalzov has proposed but in some completely different fashion.

* Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time.  (See his 9/11 America Nuked.) In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers.  The elements that have been found in these dust samples provide an astoinshing array of proof of nukes:

* Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes elaborated upon by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the Twin Towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices, which includes a specific theory about how it was done.  Among the points he makes in his lecture, “Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’”:

While Judy Wood, Steve Jones and Morgan Reynolds all deny that nukes were used on 9/11, Judy’s definition of a directed energy weapon as “energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed” could also apply to the mini-nuke theory.  In particular, in Jeff and Don’s view, the Twin Towers were most likely destroyed by an arrangement of mini-nukes that appear to have been configured to explode from top to bottom to simulate a free fall collapse.  If they were set to take out 10 floors at a time, for example, and exploded at the rate of one 10-floor segment at a time, then the destruction of those 110-floor buildings would take around 11 seconds apiece, which is a close approximation of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), which asserts that the South Tower was destroyed in 9 seconds and the North in 11, for an average of 10 seconds.  Here is a model of how it may have been done that appears to be an appropriate representation of this theory of how this was done:

Remarkably enough, this diagram did not come from Don Fox and Jeff Prager’s work but instead from “The 9/11 Operation: A Summary”, which was compiled by A. True Ott, Ph.D., between October 2001 and the end of 2004.  As he explains, his dissertation and research followed the groundbreaking work of Linus Pauling and asserted via independent research that each mineral on the periodic table of the elements, in its pure hexagonal crystalline form, pulses a specific hertz resonant frequency based on its atomic weight and unique electron configuration.  We met via his current radio program, “The Story Behind the Story”, during which he interviewed me for three two-hour segments about 9/11 over the past three days.  He previously co-produced a show by the same name at KSUB Radio in Cedar City, UT, which won a Peabody Award.  The most important information he presents about the nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers came to him from a Finnish military expert, who asked to remain anonymous, and was confirmed by a source at the Pentagon.  The convergence of their independent research is quite remarkable.

* Clare Kuehn, a University of Toronto graduate in history and student of philosophy, mathematics and the arts, discussed the research of Judy Wood, Ph.D., WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, presenting  evidence for the use of “DEWs” as “Directional Free or ‘Low-Input’ Energy Weapons”.  She reviewed Judy’s arguments based on temporal considerations that no “pancake collapse” could have taken place, which would have required some 96.7 seconds, an argument I had published in her chapter of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).  According to Clare, Wood has a theory, not in the sense of a rumor, speculation, or guess, but in the positive, explanatory sense, namely: that field effects create odd properties for EM devices and that these were used on 9/11 in NYC, though exactly how the posited weaponry (weaponry she would take to be implied by the evidence) works in detail, she does not know or say.  Wood denies having a theory, but if she has no theory, then she has not explanation; and some of her advocates call her book “a textbook” in a misguided attempt to suggest the evidence  she presents is so clear that all we have to do is to follow it as a logical argument, where they appear to be unable to appreciate that any explanatory argument qualifies as “a theory”.  She reports that  Wood does not attempt to grapple with the fissionless fusion claims of Prager in detail in any of her videos.

Clare also made a point to emphasize and expand on Wood’s named scientists, in public science, which might have found evidence of odd field effects. She specially mentioned public and private (putative black) projects which might indicate that such field effects have weaponizable potential and that maybe they have been weaponized. Wood and Clare have attempted to defend Hutchison’s videos from Ace Baker’s attempts to fake them.  While conceding that Ace had every right to see if they could be faked, Clare also argued that, not only did he fail, in salient features, to fake Hutchison’s videos, but in fact did not and could not attempt the levitation of water or the iron bar which collapses and flakes. Moreover, in support of the possibility that all or some of the fusion present on 9/11 in NYC might have been due to EM field effects, Clare referenced Dr. Julian Schwinger, who contends that EM may well be able to produce fusion (cold fusion). This is contrary to the alternate cold fusion method of Dr. Steven Jones–the same Dr. Jones of nanothermite for 9/11, who is not only a nuclear physicist but, some believe, a cold fusion obfuscator, and who also taught courses on Directed Energy Weapons of various kinds, which, some would suggest, he ought have been discussing more openly.

The points that Wood tends to accent include (1) the burn victims and whether this was due to nukes or to EM effects; (2) the damage to bathtub, which was modest and certainly not what would have been expected had those huge buildings not been converted mostly into dust; (3) the “toasted cars”, which she believes can only be explained on the basis of EM effects; (4) the “flipping” of cars and people being lifted, which she believes can be explained on the basis of  “weird-sounding” levitation effects; and (5) the presence of Hurricane Erin, which she  suspects played a key role on 9/11, either as a source of energy or in drawing the dust away from the city and out to sea. She believes that certain features of the damage to the WTC, such as the circular holes in WTC-5 and the scooped out center of WTC-6, require the use of some kind of weapon that properly qualifies as “directed energy”.  The presence of so much unburned paper has also drawn her attention, not to mention those who jumped from the towers that day, many of whom appear to have been attempting to flee from some kind of very intense experience that, she thinks, had to have been MORE THREATENING than leaping eighty or more floors to their death, which is stunning by itself and very disturbing.

Clare presented additional support for Hutchison in the form of a paper which purports to be about a test on Hutchison’s samples. It claims to have found accelerated atomic decay (“mutation of elements”).  But I have to point out that Chuck Boldwyn has offered explanations for the kinds of effects that Clare emphasized, with the possible exception of whatever terrified the jumpers from the towers.  He has elaborated his responses to these rather odd and intriguing phenomena, including during his exchange with Morgan Reynolds on “The Real Deal”, which can be heard

 I did my best to give full credit to her book in my review, which appeared on amazon.com and has drawn more than 1,000 comments―not about the book, mind you, but about my review! Here is what I published about her book:

5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful argument by elimination, May 20, 2012

By James H. Fetzer

This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (Hardcover)

Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that appropriately functions as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done in this masterpiece has classically been referred to as a “prolegomenon”, or as a prelude to further research. The word “indirect” belongs in her subtitle, since “Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” is exactly right.

She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite either. And she offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using mini or micro-nukes, although there is room for dispute as to whether or not she has actually shown that they cannot have been used.

What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go–and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds–they are all going to be measured on the basis of the stupendous accumulation of photos, graphs, diagrams and studies that she has assembled. This is an exceptional work that moves us far forward in the study of 9/11.

–James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth 

Her dismissal of the possible use of mini or micro nukes at the WTC, which she presents on pages 121-122, is flimsy and insubstantial.  She certainly did not prove that they could not have been used to demolish the Twin Towers.

* Dwain Deets, former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Dwain evaluated alternative explanations of the WTC-7 in “Approaching the Puzzling Destruction of WTC 7” and of the Twin Towers in his presentation, “Assessing Alternative Theories about the Twin Towers”.  As Dwain observes, these destructions are unusually difficult to analyze because so much of the evidence has either been destroyed or is being withheld from the public. The assessment approach includes a judgement of the quality of evidence as well as the consistency between the evidence and particular theories. For this evaluation, Dwain selected nine factors representing a sampling from an even larger list of perplexing questions associated with the Twin-Tower Destructions. On one end of this broad spectrum of issues are several that appear to convey the idea the towers were destroyed in a “surgical” manner. If this were in fact the case, the planners could well have had in depth knowledge of the structural details and been skilled in the art of building demolition. On the other end of the spectrum is indirect evidence that for some parts of their demolition, something much less “surgical” may have been employed, rather more like the placement of small tactical nuclear devices.

The theories that Dwain assessed were (1) the Runaway Open Office Space Destructions (ROOSD) with Explosives, which is more generically referred to as a “progressive floor collapse,” (2) explosive demolition, which is advocated by A&E911,  (3) directed energy weapons (DEWs), and (4) some combination of mini or micro nuclear devices.  He selected nine factors as the basis for his evaluation, which were selected from a larger set, where that subset of criteria were the following:These criteria enabled Dwain to conclude that neither the ROOSD theory or the explosive demolition theory were as competitive relative to the selected criteria, where the best supported turned out to be the use of mini or micro nukes.Although this assessment strives only to address the Twin-Tower Destructions, some items of evidence may have been products of one or more of the other WTC building destructions. While there could be extensive arguments over the criteria Dwain invoked, I have no doubt that inference to the best explanation would yield the same conclusion, namely: that the mini and micro-nuke theory confers the highest probability on the observable evidence and thus qualifies as the preferable alternative.  While I do not deny that the possibility remains that DEWs may have played a contributing role, there is no room for doubt that the principal causal mechanism for the destruction of the Twin Towers was mini or mico nukes.  And I presume no one will contest the inference that, if they were used to demolish those massive, 500,000-ton buildings, it lies far beyond the realm of possibility that the destruction of those buildings was done by planes, fires, and Islamic terrorists.

In case anyone suppose I have lost track of Ernst Rodin’s review of The Vancouver Hearings, even though I have faulted him for serious shortcomings in Part I, re the presentations about the Twin Towers, he was far closer to the mark here:

In as much as there are at present, apart from the official explanation, essentially four theories how the collapse of the Twin Towers could have come about Mr. Dwain Deets tried to approach the problem scientifically by examining each one in relation to the major known observations from ground zero. Mr. Deets has an interesting scientific background with an MS degree in physics as well as one in engineering. He worked for many years in a research capacity at NASA and in 1996 was appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. His NASA career is documented [here]. In the 1970s he published work on prototypes of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which then evolved, via Global Hawk, to the current Predator. As such, he is a person who deserves to be listened to. Being a scientist he was not concerned with value judgments as to which collapse theories are legitimate and which ones off the pale this is why he included: ROOSD, nanothermite, DEW and mini-nukes.

Like most everybody else I had not heard of the ROOSD model (Runaway Open Office Spaces Destruction) before but Deets explained that the fundamental idea is:

“If the OOS [open office space] portion of the originating floor is ‘separated’ from the columns, it will drop unimpeded to the floor below. This separation could be [achieved] by carefully placed cutter charges, or by a more dramatic displacement of the upper block of floors laterally, such that one side of the upper facade drops free of the row of columns below. This could ‘strip away’ the first several floors below serving the same effect of ‘separating’ the floors from their supporting columns. The floor below, not designed to arrest this fall, will join in a runaway cascade of OOS floors to the bottom, known technically as a progressive floor collapse.”

Mind you, Mr. Deets did not invent any of these four theories he merely evaluated them within certain parameters which included: Crush rates; Debris patterns; Nano-thermite; Temperatures (immediate); Persistent heat; Vehicle anomalies; Tritium; Basement blasts; Radionuclides. He then created a rating scale and scoring system as to which one of the four theories would correspond best to observed data. Based on this limited material mini-nukes achieved the highest probability of having been involved in the destruction of the towers. Deets emphasized that this should not be taken as the final word but merely as an example for how the scientific method can be used to assess explanatory probabilities for a given event.

I have to add that the ROOSD theory, which Jeffrey Orling has advocated, appears to me to be even more preposterous than the “official account”. As Ernst Rodin has observed, it maintains that the floor trusses collapsed, one upon another, in a veritable cascade of floors. The model that comes to mind is that of a 45 rpm record player, in which the records drop, one upon another, until there are no more left. The difficulties appear to be so obvious that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously. First, the core columns, like the spindle on the 45 record player, would remain standing. Second, there would have been a stack of trusses, just as there would have been a stack of records, only in this case about 110 trusses high. Third, it would not have brought down the steel support columns, either, which means that it would have left a cage-like structure standing in place. This theory is so discrepant with the gross observable evidence that I am stunned that anyone should take it seriously. It should properly be added to the trash bin of has-been theories about 9/11.

NOTE:  The Vancouver Hearings conclusions about who was responsible for 9/11 and why will be presented in Part III.