20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong

Jim Fetzer


As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that ourmembers, building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, haveestablished more than a dozen disproofs of the official governmentaccount, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that thegovernment’s account–in one or another of its guises–cannot possiblybe correct.


1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring thebuildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them(as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planesalleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed towithstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stonecold steel (unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modestoffice fires that burned around 500 degrees F), which functioned as amassive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.



3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-basedfires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions; butthe NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not beenexposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above1200.

4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significanteffects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough atan average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in theSouth Tower and one and a half in the North Tower to weaken, much less melt.

5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floorswould have displayed completely different behavior, with some degreeof asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual andslow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed.Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of anycollapse sequence.



6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side,turning to dust before it reached the horizontal. So it did not evenexist to exert any downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. Ahigh-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculatedthat, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit ofdownward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Towerand the last man to leave the building, has reported massiveexplosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction,including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and theripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with waterthat drained the sprinkler system.

8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior toreverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now beensubstantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross,Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job, demonstrating that theseexplosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before thepresumptive airplane impacts.



9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are notgenerally capable of pancake collapse, which normally occurs onlywith concrete structures of lift slab construction and could notoccur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unlessevery supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor,as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece isvery close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, whichJudy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor ofmechanical engineering, hasobserved is an astounding result that would be impossible with extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, theywould have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing tothe ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood haslikened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down,which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the governmentsaccount cannot possibly explain. There were no “pancakes”.



12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PMafter Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be topull it, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlleddemolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its ownfootprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yieldinga stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have beentwo stacks of “pancakes” equal to about 12% the height of thebuildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced tobelow ground level. Since there were no “pancakes”, there cannot havebeen any “pancake collapse” of either building, where the buildingswere destroyed by different modes of demolition.

14. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: nowings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not eventhe engines were recovered, which means that the official account isnot true.



15. The Pentagons own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hittingthe building, as even Bill OReilly admitted when one was shown onThe OReilly Factor; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice aslong as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present andeasily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence alsocontradicts the official account.

16. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the officialtrajectory flying at high speed barely above ground level physicallyimpossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not havecome closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that theofficial account is not even aerodynamically possible, as Nila Sagadivan, an aeronautical engineer, explained to me.

17. Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth bythe National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with adifferent approach and altitude, which would have precluded itshitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, ifthis data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over thePentagon rather than hit it.



18. If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as thegovernment maintains, then they should have brought out the heavyequipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hopethat, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. Butnothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs weretrimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemicalanalysis.

19. There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, includingthat they were not competent to fly these planes and their names arenot on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several haveturned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. Thegovernment has not even produced their tickets as evidence that theywere even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked.

20. President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein hadnothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee hasreported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI hasacknowledged that it has no hard evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. IfSaddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible forthe death of 3,000 citizens that day?

We believe that it is the highest form of respect to those whodied on 9/11 and their survivors to establish how and why they died,which our own government manifestly has not done. With the Americanmedia under the thumb of a corrupt administration, we cannot count onthe press to perform its investigative function. But we can do ourbest to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.


James H. Fetzer, Founder

Scholars for 9/11 Truth