All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2024 - Blood Money
01:00:39
The Attorney with Receipts 9/11 was an Inside Job w/ Mick Harrison (Blood Money Episode 173)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started.
Today we have a very special guest, Nick Harrison, a lawyer.
How you doing, sir? Good.
And you? Great, great.
So the reason I wanted to get Mick on our show is because I actually listened to a fantastic interview with him speaking about his lawsuits on 9-11, about what happened on 9-11, really what happened, the full truth.
And it was very impressive what he had to say and the degree of detail that he was giving on why the truth about 9-11 has yet to be revealed.
But it was very impressive.
But before we get into that, Mick, I'd love to get a little bit of information about your background.
What got you to this point and onto the topic of the 9-11 cases that you have been working on?
Well, it's a story that goes back a number of years, but you might find it surprising that I actually started my undergraduate career focused on government accountability, which has been my professional Objectives since then, I'm trying to keep the government honest and accountable to the American people.
And so I was allowed to individualize my major and focus on government accountability, even in the early days of my undergraduate days.
I then did a graduate work in education before I decided to become a lawyer.
I was recruited to be a member of the founding class of the District of Columbia School of Law, which is A public interest, public funded law school in the nation's capital.
I received my law degree summa cum laude from the University of District of Columbia School of Law.
And I started my professional work at the Government Accountability Project in D.C., which is a nonprofit.
It represents whistleblowers and does government oversight work.
And that was a good training for me, for my Remaining years in private practice where I've continued to do government oversight and whistleblower work.
My goal is to help whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing, either from government agencies or big corporations, get the truth out and also protect themselves from retaliation.
I also help nonprofits do government oversight and investigative work.
Which is sort of indirectly how I came to be involved in the 9-11 issue.
My work for nonprofits led me to sort of trip over the 9-11 issue.
This was shortly after David Ray Griffin, Professor David Ray Griffin, gave his now well-known sort of expose on 9-11 and his conclusions that there was a cover up and, you know, there was more to the story.
Particularly the use of explosives in the Trade Center buildings.
I had not heard of that. I just walked into a meeting of a nonprofit I represented, and they were talking about bombs placed in the buildings.
And I said, you know, what in the world are you talking about?
And they told me that they had, you know, heard David Ray Griffin's presentation about explosives at the World Trade Center, which was kind of a shock to me.
Having seen those buildings collapse on 9-11, it was not a complete shock.
And I asked if they had any evidence to support that claim, and they said, well, there was quite a bit of evidence that Dr.
Griffin was explaining to the public, and that actually there was a chemist in Bloomington, Indiana, where I am located, who had just moved to Bloomington, who was very familiar with that evidence.
His name is Kevin Ryan.
And he's a whistleblower, and he's since relocated.
But thanks to Kevin, I became educated on the technical evidence of the use of explosives.
And eventually, that led me to join the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, which led me to the multiple lawsuits against the federal government that we talked about in the interview with Corinne.
So that's the short version of how I sort of came to be where I'm at.
Man, that's so interesting.
Now, let me ask you, like, in terms of, you know, I just want to dive right into the fire here.
And what is your conclusion about 9-11, after all that you've seen, all the evidence you've seen, that you would be willing to stake your reputation on?
Okay, well, that's...
A challenging question.
I have three answers to it.
There are basically three areas where I've reviewed enough evidence that I can give you a firm opinion to answer your question.
The first is that explosives, unfortunately, were used to bring down the Trade Center towers and Building 7 of the Trade Center complex on 9-11.
And I'm not saying there were not airplanes that struck two of those three buildings.
There was not an airplane that struck Building 7, even though it still collapsed.
But the evidence we presented with the Lawyers' Committee to the U.S. Attorney in New York, and we also presented it to the federal court in attempting to get the U.S. Attorney to give it to a grand jury, that evidence,
if you take the time to read our petition, which is on the Lawyers' Committee's website, lcfor911.org, You'll see why I say that that is dispositive evidence, which means it's scientifically certain that explosives were used to bring those buildings down.
It's not really even debatable at this point.
Why the government hasn't come to embrace that evidence is a mystery.
So my first answer to your question is I'm certain that there were crimes committed on 9-11 involving use of explosives at the Trade Center that have never been prosecuted.
And those perpetrators are still out there, still at large.
My second conclusion, also related to my work with the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, is related to the follow-on anthrax attacks, which I see as closely interrelated with the 9-11 attacks, and those attacks started a couple weeks after 9-11,
which involved an attempt to assassinate two U.S. Senators by putting highly processed high-tech anthrax in letters mailed to their offices, It also mailed to media offices.
A number of people died because of those attacks.
We did an investigation of those attacks and our conclusion is, and you can read it again on the Lawyers Committee website, is that the FBI covered up key evidence regarding those anthrax attacks and never got to the bottom of the perpetrators in those attacks either.
So those perpetrators are still out there.
The evidence clearly points to the The anthrax use in the attacks being high-tech U.S. military-grade anthrax, which came from a U.S. facility directly or indirectly.
That doesn't tell you who sent the letters, but it gives you a clue about where the anthrax came from.
And the evidence points to Dugway Proving Ground as a prime suspect for where the anthrax came from.
Doesn't mean that anyone there posted the letters, but it appears to be their anthrax.
And I won't go into those details, but you can read them in our petition to Congress and to the U.S. Attorney in D.C. The third conclusion I can give you with certainty is that whether or not government officials at the time were involved in either making the 9-11 attacks happen in part or allowing them to happen in part,
it's clear now that after the fact, certain U.S. officials and agencies have been involved in a cover-up Of the full truth of what happened on 9-11 in our lawsuits, I think to some extent demonstrate that, which include Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to try to get documents still being withheld.
So you're welcome to ask any questions you have about those.
But those are my three big questions.
I got a lot of them.
I got a lot of them. All right. All right.
So, boy, brings up really a lot of questions.
All right. I'm thinking, when you're talking about this topic, I'm thinking about COVID-19, right?
I'm thinking, you know, when 9-11 and COVID-19 seem to be very similar because there's evidence that's been brought forth on what happened with the COVID-19 scandemic.
Some would say that it was basically created here at the University of Chapel, North Carolina, I think, and then, you know, transferred to China.
And basically, this whole thing was manufactured.
Again, you know, same sort of thing, like really...
The result ultimately is that the people pay the price, you know?
And I think about other such instances, right, where we know, okay, there's certain bad guys, you know, in the case of COVID-19, and we know there's enough evidence to lead to Ralph Baric, Anthony Fauci, in terms of 9-11,
there's enough evidence to suggest that, you know, the Project for a New American Century and some of the folks involved in that, if, as you say, you know, government officials were involved and the people that wanted it to happen back in, I believe, 98 via the Project for a New American Century would be the culprits.
But it also seems as though there are certain untouchables in this equation that, like, you just never, none of this stuff ever comes to justice.
What do you have to say about that?
Well, the question You're posing is sort of the central unanswered question regarding 9-11.
It also is, you know, a question in terms of, you know, who did it that relates to the pandemic.
But focused on 9-11, we did submit to the U.S. Attorney in New York, under seal, basically, not publicly, information we had that would guide The grand jury in investigating the whodunit portion of the 911 crimes.
That question has yet to be answered fully.
I mean, perpetrators have yet to be fully identified or held to account.
So I agree with you on that.
I agree with you that it's an important question.
I don't have an immediate answer for you on who committed the bombings crimes at the Trade Center.
Obviously, someone did. It's easier to answer who benefited from those crimes.
And the same is true if you go into the pandemic and what's happening or what had happened with the pandemic.
There are folks who financially benefited from the pandemic.
And if you follow the money, as they say, it can be a very enlightening investigative experience.
And I encourage investigative reporters, lawyers, and scientists to continue to do that on both 9-11 and on the pandemic issues.
So, The folks behind the scenes who may be pulling the strings and need to be brought to justice.
My goal in the litigation I've done for the Lawyers' Committee has been to get a grand jury to use its subpoena power and other broad investigative authorities to get to the bottom of the answer to that question of who committed those bombing crimes at the Trade Center.
And once you unravel that, you're going to start to unravel other pieces Of the 9-11 mystery regarding, you know, what exactly happened at the Pentagon, what exactly happened at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and some other related matters.
So it's an investigation that's still in progress, Vim, and it's not, you know, we should be some 21 years later in a position to answer the question you raised, which is exactly who did the 9-11 crimes, and we're not in a position to answer that fully,
and the reason is That the government has been engaged in both active cover-up of citizen efforts to get to the bottom of that, and also they haven't done their own job, particularly the FBI, in getting to the bottom of it, even though the law requires them to do so.
Wow, wow. All right. So, JFK is another one that comes to mind, right?
And I'd like to lead you through a journey here to my question, which is that who benefited from the JFK assassination?
If you actually look at the facts, there was a really good Roger Stone book that was, I think, pretty well cited.
In terms of, you know, one of the people that had the most to gain was Lyndon Johnson, especially since there was an investigation going on To a lot of crimes that him and his, you know, supporters had done throughout the years, including potential murders of opponents and that sort of thing,
right? And so, and there's other parties like the military industrial complex was also, they also benefited from the assassination of JFK. So there's, you know, evidence of who benefited from that.
And then COVID-19 as well, you know, the people that Have big stocks in pharmaceutical companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the people that are supported by the pharma.
I mean, it's like you could follow the money pretty clear there.
In terms of 9-11, who are the parties that benefited the most?
Well, the first category of parties, I would say, would be those who wanted a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And some of those folks are on the public record.
I'm not going to give names for you.
Myself today, I prefer to hold that for when I have dispositive evidence to answer the perpetrator's question, which I don't at the moment.
I am prepared to give a grand jury what I know about who should be investigated.
But I think the folks who wanted the war.
You brought something there really interesting.
So who should be investigated?
Well, I think the folks who Basically, it's the same answer to the question you asked, which is who benefited.
The folks who benefited include the military-industrial complex, who always benefits from a war.
This turned out to be an ongoing war on terror that's lasted 20 years plus.
I hate to think how much money was spent on that effort.
Folks in the oil industry may have benefited from the change in control of Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both oil producing and oil pipeline countries.
So that's an area that needs to be fully investigated.
There were folks who benefited financially from the destruction of the buildings, insurance payments and so forth.
That may have been coincidental.
But, you know, anytime you have folks, I mean, I think any detective will tell you in investigating a standard murder, anytime you have someone benefiting by millions, or in the case of the military industrial complex, billions or trillions of dollars from a crime, they need to be looked at and investigated, even if just to rule them out.
And as far as I can tell, those investigations have never been done.
Wow, wow. Sorry. So one of the things that the viewer should really look into is Project for a New American Century.
You could easily find it by searching it online.
And the reason I bring that up is because is it, Mick, is it safe to assume that whoever was involved in the authoring of the Project for a New American Century was somehow involved and or should at least be investigated And to further viewers,
just to, you know, state why I'm asking that question, basically, Project for a New American Century, as I had stated earlier, said that we desperately need some kind of major terrorist attack to get the United States mobilized to go to all these wars in the Middle East.
And it wasn't just Iraq, it was Iran, I believe, Iran, Afghanistan, and like maybe two or three other countries.
But Mick, what's your answer to that question?
Well, I don't have any allegations at the moment against anyone as perpetrators, including PNAC, the Project for New American Century.
However, I agree with you that PNAC issued a report that essentially said, you know, the United States should take advantage of this moment in history and maintain their global dominance militarily.
But the U.S. citizenry would not be likely to want to use the U.S. military to do that sort of world dominance type of action, which would require essentially acts of war, unless they had some kind of New Pearl Harbor.
And that was a phrase actually used by PNAC, some kind of New Pearl Harbor.
And you may remember on 9-11, after the attacks, the media started using that phrase, you know, New Pearl Harbor, which may be a coincidence.
But essentially, PNAC got what it, in a way, asked for.
It got its excuse for the citizens to be upset enough, angry enough to go to war, when otherwise, you know, I think the US citizens would not have been inclined to go to war.
So because of that sequence of events, it certainly, if I were on a grand jury, I would look at, I would include PNAC on the list of folks to talk to.
Just because I would do that, and because I think some folks on PNAC might have inside information because of this sequence of events, doesn't mean, you know, PNAC is a suspect.
They might happen to have material information, though, about who a proper suspect would be.
And so I would definitely talk to them if I were on a grand jury.
I wouldn't, you know, in the moment, accuse them of anything.
And the same is true for the building owners, for the Trade Center buildings.
I would talk to them. Larry Silverstein, and you know, just to throw a quick reference here is, you know, the gentleman that said that I guess they pulled Building 7 and then this happened on 9-11.
It wasn't hit by an airplane, but then the leaseholder made a statement that we pulled it and then the building went down.
I mean, if you want to clarify that, Mick, you know?
Well, I think Mr.
Silverstein did make that statement that Something to the fact we've had such a great loss of life with, you know, the collapse of the Trade Center Towers that we decided to pull it.
And I don't know, I don't know if anyone besides Mr.
Silverstein knows what he meant by pull it.
He could have meant pull it in the sense of the term and demolition industry of, you know, bringing a building down by explosives.
That's not something, though, you can do on a moment's notice, a building of that size.
You couldn't do it on the same day.
He could have meant pull the firefighters from the response, but he wouldn't normally refer to a firefighting team as it.
So I don't know what was meant by that answer he gave on national media.
And because of that, I think he is someone who a grand jury would want to talk to.
And again, he might have material information that would help a grand jury investigate who the perpetrators might be, even if he happens to be completely innocent.
So there's more to be asked there.
And, you know, I don't know why the U.S. Attorney is so reluctant to have a grand jury ask these questions of the relevant people.
But that process is long overdue.
Yeah, yeah. All right, so let's talk about the anthrax, okay?
So it seems as though, and this was my reading of how you kind of place that timeline, is that, all right, 9-11 happens, and obviously there's a lot of fear going around, right?
Potentially, who were the culprits behind 9-11, the people that you want investigated, then did the anthrax scare hoax?
Is that Is that correct in how it may have happened?
In the sequence, you're correct that the anthrax attacks followed on the heels of the 9-11 attacks, and both significantly were talked about in the media, at least initially, as if they had been perpetrated by the same people.
You may or may not remember that the media and some members of the government initially wanted to blame the anthrax attacks on al-Qaeda, on bin Laden, on foreign terrorists, and then it became clear weeks later Fairly quickly, that the anthrax used in the attacks was high-tech U.S. military grade, and the foreign terrorist theory got dropped by the FBI because it just didn't hold water.
But the point of the moment is, initially, there was an attempt to blame the same terrorists for the anthrax attacks as for the 9-11 attacks, and both attacks were used as essentially motivations for the war that, you know, followed. The war on terror, sort of the scare tactics to motivate the public to go to war.
So they're closely related in terms of who benefited and in terms of their apparent purpose.
And for that reason, one might hypothesize that the same folks were involved in both sets of attacks.
Wow. Wow.
So, Mick, like, this has been, you know, 22 years at this point.
And it's amazing you're pursuing this.
And the reason I personally think it's amazing you're pursuing this is because we see this kind of 9-11 A phenomenon recurring consistently throughout our history, right?
It's like JFK was a 9-11 of sorts.
COVID was a 9-11 of sorts, right?
Vietnam War, the Iraq War, you know, all of these, because what I'm trying to get at is they're based upon really a lot of false And they're used as a tool to get people into war.
I mean, what is it that, you know, 22 years later, you're marching on forward.
I mean, it's as if this thing just happened like months ago in terms of the dedication you seem to be bringing to this.
Well, it's not just me.
It's a large group of dedicated investigators and my attorney colleagues at the Lawyers Committee, a number of, I would say thousands at this point of scientists, architects and engineers, And then there's the broader movement of citizens that support all of us.
So you're really, and if you're talking worldwide, you're talking about millions of people.
And the reason we all think it's still a live issue, why it's not sort of a moot or, you know, not relevant given the passage of time, is one, the perpetrators are still out there.
Two, the families have not gotten answers to what happened to their loved ones that they lost on 9-11 and they deserve those answers.
And three, as you mentioned, You know, the JFK assassination, the anthrax attacks, the 9-11 attacks, and we could make a broader list that would involve other, for example, political assassinations.
What you're talking about here is a pattern of use of violence to control the future of the US government and the future of the United States and to control the use of the military power of the United States for what is essentially a private agenda.
And that's been an ongoing pattern and it is ongoing as of today.
Now, whether the COVID pandemic is part of that remains open to investigation.
The concern I have about the pandemic in regard to this bigger picture concern that you're talking about is that there is a lot of evidence out there that COVID-19 was genetically engineered by human beings, that it wasn't just nature that created it.
And then that begs the question of, you know, was it released accidentally or possibly on purpose?
But even if it were released accidentally, it was designed on purpose as a biological weapon.
And once it was released, then the next question is, did someone take advantage of that release for political, financial, or other improper purposes?
And that's an important question.
I do represent a high-level government whistleblower on the pandemic issue at the moment, Dr.
Thomas McGinn. Who is the Senior Health Advisor to the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Homeland Security.
And his concern, he blew the whistle from the inside during the pandemic on how it was being mishandled.
And he was put on leave without pay where he remains after three years because of his whistleblowing.
We're trying to get him a remedy for that.
But the reason he sticks with the issue is similar.
And that is, it's an unresolved threat To the public of the United States.
And his concern is that we're likely to have another pandemic.
It's likely to happen relatively soon.
And it's likely to be orders of magnitude worse than the last one.
And we handled the last one so badly that we're currently, you know, ill prepared to deal with the next one, whether it's accidental or intentional.
For those types of reasons, we all need to continue to work to get to the bottom of what happened on 9-11, what happened with the pandemic, and I think that will lead us also to what happened in some other historical events of significance, including JFK. So I guess what you're insinuating there is that there's an organized cabal behind this.
These aren't individual crimes.
I'm not saying they're individual crimes.
I don't think any individual could have committed the anthrax attacks.
Let me rephrase that.
When I say individual crimes, I mean self-standing crimes.
I see what you're saying. Is it the same big cabal that has been doing all this?
That's a very important question.
I don't know the complete answer to it, and it deserves further investigation.
A lot of time has passed since the JFK assassination.
Whether the same people could even be involved with the 9-11 or the pandemic raises a practical question.
But that doesn't mean the same organizations couldn't be involved.
But there's also a possibility here that one organization of wrongdoers is learning from experience by the actions of a prior organization of wrongdoers.
So if people learn from the JFK assassination that, you know, you can get by with assassinating the head of the United States of America and change the course of the country, you know, we probably wouldn't have had the Vietnam War absent the JFK assassination.
And if they see that you can get the Patriot Act passed by, you know, Committing the anthrax attacks or, you know, the 9-11 attacks to motivate folks to limit American civil liberties, which otherwise would not have been limited.
You know, people learn from those experiences, even if they're not the same wrongdoers.
So your question, again, is a good one.
I don't have a full answer for you.
But again, the grand jury investigation would be appropriate to try to answer that question.
Interesting, interesting. Mick, let me ask you something, man.
Just hearing you talk here, it's like...
I wonder why isn't there...
I see the way your mind works.
I see how really, I mean, you're a true lawyer.
You are going by the letter of the law, using the law to go after all that was, you know, all these crimes that were committed.
I mean, why isn't there more of you?
Why is it that... I mean, I understand, you know, you're part of a collective of people that are pursuing the truth on this, but like...
You know, we look at the COVID pandemic and the doctors, you know, again, I said pandemic, but I should be saying scandemic because after having interviewed a number of frontline doctors and seeing actual evidence, I realized that, I mean, less than one, way less than 1% of doctors really stood out.
And, you know, actually did their own research and called this out.
I mean, less than 1%, you know?
And that's a tragic number.
And I see that same thing in the legal profession as far as, you know, there's not very many Mick Harrisons out there.
Well, I know a lot of good folks in the legal profession, a lot of good public interest lawyers.
Not many of them have jumped into the 9-11 issue.
You're right about that. And I wish more of them would.
Some have certainly investigated the JFK assassination, and some are now looking at the pandemic issues.
But I agree with you that more attorneys should be involved.
I mean, we all take an oath to defend the Constitution, and we really should take that oath more seriously.
It's like that old Shakespeare line about, you know, first we kill all the lawyers.
Which I believe was a recognition of the role lawyers can play in exposing government misconduct and should play.
So I do encourage all my attorney colleagues out there to get involved in these issues, those who haven't, and I thank those who have.
In terms of why more don't, part of that is the propaganda campaign that you've alluded to generally, that we see misinformation campaign in all these controversies.
You know, regarding the JFK assassination, you had a cover-up and a misinformation campaign.
The same with 9-11 and the anthrax attacks, you know, false stories being put out.
Even if they later have to be abandoned, it confuses things.
And I think, you know, it's a time-consuming thing to sort these things out.
Not a lot of lawyers are ready to commit that much of their life to this public interest mission.
And I think more of them need to do that.
I mean, when you're talking about the whistleblowers, it occurred to me, I mean, we don't really have a mechanism whereby people that punish whistleblowers are themselves facing severe and heavy punishment.
Because it seems to be your client you're talking about, the fact that for three years he's not been getting a paycheck.
I mean, that seems to be, you know, to even elaborate upon the last question.
I mean, is it that there's just too much punishment for whistleblowers, for whistleblowers, Lawyers in terms of, you know, we've seen essentially legal attacks being used, attacks in the media to defame certain lawyers that take certain positions that, and then, you know, I've also heard that the bar itself had said, you know, it has said something like, for example, election stuff, you know, they don't want to hear about the elections of the, you know, people, powerful people within the bar.
It seems as though there's definitely a party line created there and that you cross that where the whistleblower, lawyer, potentially judge that there's too much punishment and people are just too scared to do the right thing.
Yeah, I don't know about that.
There may be some folks who are not wanting to take that risk, but there are a lot of lawyers out there who take risks every day, risk to their professional careers, risk to their lives to do what they think is right.
And I give them credit for that.
But, so I think your concern is real but overstated.
You know, I've won or settled most of my whistleblower cases.
I think it's probably, haven't counted it up again recently, 80 to 90% of my whistleblower cases got won or settled.
So the remedies are available to whistleblowers.
You have to work at it, of course.
It's not easy. And you either need to pay a lawyer or find a lawyer who will work for you without paying.
That's not easy. So it's true that the wrongdoers in government and corporations want to make a whistleblower's life as difficult as they can.
But it's a very gratifying thing, I think, to be a whistleblower and bring the truth out.
It can be the most important thing one does in one's life, actually.
Even as a lawyer, we sometimes play the role of whistleblower as a lawyer.
And, you know, how many other more important opportunities do you get in your lifetime to make a contribution other than through that type of public interest conduct?
Even though there are risks and costs involved in it.
So I think the risk and cost make, you know, the downside worthwhile.
It's a trade-off, but it's still a worthwhile thing to do.
But a lot of folks do get put off by the downside, you know, the threats or the propaganda.
But I don't see the entire legal community being intimidated.
So I wouldn't go that far.
That's actually really refreshing to know.
I would love to interview more, you know, human rights lawyers, civil rights lawyers, people that are, you know, fighting the good fight because, you know, as laymen, you know, we're sitting here, it's not like, you know, you turn on television, they're showing us all these heroic lawyers.
I think a lot of time people feel like they are isolated, they are alone, and I think that's what the bad guys want.
They want us to feel isolated.
So, you know, Mick, Just putting this offer out there, literally inspired by what you just said, we should do roundtables.
I would love to get a bunch of lawyers that are actually fighting good fights so that people know that they're not alone out there, that there's actually people within the courts of law doing the right thing and fighting to uphold the law.
But it sounds like with the number of cases that you've worked on, your success rate, it sounds like there's optimism in terms of getting to the bottom of 9-11.
Well, that's another good question.
I'm more optimistic, although I would say cautiously optimistic, than some of my colleagues on getting to the bottom of 9-11.
It comes from 31 years of being a lawyer using what we call a campaign approach on public interest cases, where you don't rely on litigation alone, but you use Congress, you use the media, you use investigations, you use public education, you use a combination of techniques that are best suited for the problem you're facing.
And the goal is to It's to get your expose in the hands of someone with authority outside of the sphere of control of the wrongdoers.
And that has been accomplished over the years in cases I've worked on and in cases I've seen my colleagues work on.
The 9-11 issue and related matters, anthrax attacks, may be an order of magnitude greater in significance than most of the public interest cases the rest of us work on.
You know, there are a lot of civil rights cases that are won.
And there's a long history, an impressive history of civil rights victories that really have changed the nature of life in this country for minorities to the credit of the civil rights movement.
So, you know, the legal profession is not impotent when it comes to exposing wrongdoing and changing the course of events.
But for 9-11, you're talking about crimes that were planned several years in advance.
They were well-funded. Sort of like the JFK assassination, you know, it's pretty clear folks with authority and power were involved, at least behind the scenes.
So it's not a trivial matter to overcome all that, but I would agree with you that I remain cautiously optimistic that the law provides enough tools and democracy provides enough tools for us to, you know, get to the bottom of these crimes and eventually hold the wrongdoers accountable and perhaps even more important than that,
you know, preserving Our democracy, one reason that 9-11 remains a live issue in the anthrax attacks and COVID is because in exposing what really happened, you're going to expose improper influences in the government.
And once you shine the light on those, they can be rooted out and corrected, and you can make your democracy stronger.
And that's a process that still needs to be completed.
Well, Mick, so I want to actually talk about the Israel-Palestine situation happening as we speak.
But before we do that, I want to play a video for you and have you comment on it.
It has to do with the topic of 9-11.
I appreciate it.
You look like you're the boss, aren't you?
Vice President Biden. Yes.
Yes, I'm Jeremy Roth-Guschell with WACLA Media.
Jeremy, find your hair and be president.
Yeah, you might be.
You can have some. I've got enough to go around.
So it seems like with the kind of work that Esperanza and communities around the world are doing in terms of rejuvenating themselves, we could all rejuvenate our communities.
So I want to ask you about the role, the foundational role of restoring the rule of law has in terms of rejuvenating our economy.
Because there was a recent scientific paper that came out.
I don't know if you know about it, but it basically is conclusive that the World Trade Center was blown up by very high advanced explosives.
And it should have been continuing to be the very highest news story right now.
So my question to you is, when are you and President Obama going to ask the Department of Justice to start a criminal investigation in terms of who produced this advanced nanothermite and who put it in the World Trade Center?
And if you all are not going to, Yeah, check it out.
And if you are not going to do that, is it possible for we, the American people, to trust you with our economy if we can't trust you with restoring the rule of law?
Yes. Thank you.
What do you mean yes?
Are you going to do an investigation?
Sir, are you part of the treasonous cover-up of 9-11?
Are you going to help clear this up?
Vice President Biden, this is about treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Excuse me? No, this is very serious.
Okay. And this is the foundation of whether we're going to provide for our communities.
We need you guys to move back now. For security reasons, we need to move back.
All right. Everybody stays here.
No, you know what? Can you wait?
Because I need to get all these people back.
And I'll get you whatever you need.
But we need to get everyone back.
Hey, guys. All right, let's go back to our show.
Show's over. Thank you.
And I'm sorry we're leaving.
So what do you think about that?
Well, it's good for citizens to ask those questions of people in power.
It's not good for people in power to avoid answering those questions.
And we've had administrations starting with the Bush administration on 9-11 going up to today, which are refusing to answer questions like the one that was just asked.
That one was a pretty important one.
It related to the The article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about the finding of nanothermite in the dust at the World Trade Center.
And Kevin Ryan, the chemist I mentioned, is one of the authors of that, and one of the folks instrumental in bringing that evidence out, along with some of his scientific colleagues, Dr.
Neils Harrod and others. And you would have expected, not just the Vice President or the President of any of these administrations, but the FBI and the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to be very interested And hard scientific evidence of the use of explosives that, you know, killed, you know, more than 2,000 people.
You know, the airplanes killed some folks at the Trade Center on 9-11, but most of the deaths would have been avoided had there not been explosives planted in the buildings.
I don't understand why any of the administrations, and you know, I think, Vim, that I'm nonpartisan, not Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, And I don't blame any one administration for either the attacks or the cover-up, but I do think all the administrations have an obligation to get a grand jury to fully investigate this, to get the FBI to fully investigate this, and to answer questions like the one that the citizen in your video asked.
I gotta ask you this question.
I mean, and I know you don't know the exact answer to this, and pure speculation give you all the leeway for, you know, an inaccurate response because I don't think there's any way to actually know, but how many individuals, corrupt, criminal individuals, would have to be involved for something like this to be possible in the first place?
9-11? Yeah.
More than 10. I can tell you that.
It's not thousands, right?
If you're going to commit a crime that involves a murder of 2,000 people and possibly treason against the United States government, you're probably not going to want to involve more people than you have to because you don't want it exposed and you don't want to be held to account if you're one of the perpetrators.
So I think the number was kept as low as they could keep it and still get the job done.
Sort of a need-to-know sort of thing.
The problem with that, answering your question, is there may have been a lot of people involved, even in planning explosives, who didn't know what they were doing.
I have to ask a question there.
If you're one of the people hired to put explosives in the World Trade Center, what other reason would there be?
Well, here's the thing. The high-tech explosives and incendiaries used, the nanothermite, is actually capable of being painted on.
So you could put some types of incendiaries or explosives in something that looked like paint or looked like fireproofing, and you could put an innocent crew in there and they would apply it not knowing any better.
Wow, wow, wow.
That's like evil genius type stuff.
Wow. It's painted on, huh?
So they could have potentially just, you know, hired a bunch of painters.
I'm just talking about one possibility, which, and if that were true, then there would be fewer actual culprits than you might think because a lot of the folks involved were soldiers who didn't know what they were doing.
Okay, but I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here.
What about Building 7 that was pulled, potentially?
And the way it came down, it looked very much like a controlled demolition.
It looked an awful lot like a controlled demolition.
If folks who haven't seen that video, Building 7's Collapse, need to watch it.
It couldn't have fallen really any more symmetrically and rapidly than it did.
So, yeah, there had to be explosives planted in that building.
There were different configurations.
If you look at the Trade Center Towers and how they collapsed, they were more explosive demolitions and Building 7 was more implosive demolition.
That doesn't mean that one or the other was not involving explosives.
It just means they were configured differently for a different effect.
And I think the best explanation I've heard, because I don't think the perpetrators plan to have Building 7 collapse in full view late in the day on 9-11.
You know, in full view of national television cameras, something went wrong with the attack plans on 9-11.
And Building 7 was not meant to come down when it came down.
The more likely theory is it was meant to come down during the cloud cover, the dust cover of the collapse of the towers.
And you all remember those huge clouds of dust that engulfed the city when the towers came down.
You know, those tower collapses would have covered, visually covered, the collapse of Building 7.
So it's entirely possible, Vim, that there was a plan for another plane to hit Building 7, and that plane did not arrive for some reason, possibly because of the unprecedented, fairly rapid shutdown of the airspace by Secretary Mineta at that time of the Department of Transportation.
So Building 7 is a big clue here.
And folks need to attend to it.
And the fact that the government has, I mean, the government issued essentially a false report on Building 7's collapse.
That's one of the lawsuits I'm engaged in for the architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
And the false story they put out was the fires alone caused Building 7 to collapse.
But asymmetric damage from isolated fires doesn't cause a rapid symmetric uniform collapse like we saw in the video.
And my clients, my other clients, architects and engineers, Presented a very persuasive technical case to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and asked them to correct the report, and NIST refused to correct it, which led to our lawsuit.
So there's still a lot here to be unearthed.
Wow. So, all right. Now, let me ask you about The reason I bring up the Israel versus Palestine situation is because this has become another very heated, polarized topic, right?
So on 9-11, you know, let's just rewind the clock back here with the emotions being the way that they were.
If you were like, You know, like a week later, you said, hey, you know, I think George W. Bush did this.
People would have probably, I mean, beat you on the streets or something.
The emotions were so high.
Today, you know, with the Israel-Palestine situation, everybody's either 100% on the Palestinian side or 100% on the Israeli side.
And there seems to be a complete...
Lack of objectivity on what's happening.
Furthermore, on that topic, there's a lot of people that are questioning how it was possible with the powerful intelligence apparatus and other foreign countries that are supportive of the intelligence apparatus of Israel that so many warnings like 9-11 were ignored.
I think some of the first warnings by the Egyptian By Egyptian intelligence, we're about a year before it happened.
I think the most recent warning might have been even the day of and definitely three days before.
So there was consistent warnings that something like this was coming.
Yet, you know, we're told that, you know, Hamas in parachutes or colliders or whatever was able to massacre 900 people and chop off babies' heads.
What's your kind of, with the experience you have and what you've seen throughout your lifetime, what's your immediate thoughts, reactions, and questions to this topic?
Well, I have not, you know, investigated the Hamas-Israel conflict, specifically in the recent events in particular, and there hasn't been a lot of time to really get an investigation done of the recent events.
But I do have a concern that there is a similarity Just like Kevin Ryan, the chemist put out a paper on, you know, the parallels between COVID and 9-11 and architect Richard Gage has been articulating Kevin Ryan's work publicly on those parallels.
You can start to look for parallels in this controversy as well.
One of the parallels is, you know, an unexplained failure of security.
We saw that on 9-11.
How did the airplanes Not get intercepted, or how did at least some of them, the Pentagon in Shanksville, not get intercepted unless they did, and we weren't told.
So there was an apparent failure of security in 9-11.
The government said there was a failure of imagination.
Even the 9-11 Commission said that, and then we learned later that there were actually training events where they anticipated this very thing of airplanes being used as weapons.
So you wouldn't expect Israel to miss an attack of this size.
So it raises the question, did Israel have some reason to let it happen in whole or in part for, you know, maybe to promote a war that is now in the process of progressing.
I hope that didn't happen that way.
But there are similarities that suggest someone should be investigating that possibility.
But there's also, I mean, there are questions on both sides and there are always two sides to a controversy like this.
You know, why would Hamas or Hezbollah or some other group instigate an attack like this that has a predictable response?
And the predictable response is going to be significantly more overpowering than the initial attack.
What is there to gain?
From inviting a war of this type, which may give Israel an excuse to do something, or I shouldn't say Israel, some leaders of Israel to do what they want to do, which may end up victimizing the folks on whose behalf, theoretically, the attacks were made.
I mean, I wonder whether the attacks were made by the people who are purported to have made them and on whose behalf they were made.
My view is that, you know, the people on both sides of this controversy Just like the people in the US versus the people in Russia or China.
You know, they're good people.
They don't want to go to war.
They would rather resolve disputes peacefully.
Those who have religious beliefs, you know, most folks honor those beliefs and understand that there's no religion really in the world that would justify a knowing killing of children, which apparently is happening on both sides of this controversy at the moment, which I find very disturbing.
I'm glad you said that, by the way.
I'm glad you said that, because I'm just kind of riffing off of what you said.
This morning I got into an argument with a priest who essentially was having this kind of like, you know, wipe them all out type language, right?
And, you know, bringing up things that are just not possible.
Oh, hey, Israel let the Gazans know that they got to evacuate.
And, you know, they should be able to evacuate.
Well, you know, all the borders are shut down.
There's really nowhere to evacuate because it's a blockade.
So I just found there was a lack of information and really talking about the gray areas to the situation, which seems to be completely...
Lacking at this point to get the same kind of fervor that we got on the 9-11 that we got you know every time we were made angry about something in order to lead us to a war so it seems as though that's the ultimate I mean would you say it would be in that what I'm saying is accurate or inaccurate that that seems to be like all these kind of events seem to be really leading To some kind of a huge war,
conflict, massacre, justification of massacre is another question because recently I think the Foreign Minister of Israel equated all the civilians of Gaza as militant fighters.
That it was pretty much open game like we could kill any of them.
I mean we need to be careful even in the case of a war that might be justified and there may be wars of self-defense that are justified.
You know, I'm a peace-loving person myself.
I don't believe in war. But I do believe people have a right to defend if they're attacked.
And they have a right to defend to protect their children if their children are at risk of being killed by the attack.
But you don't, you know, and I think it may have been President Biden who raised a concern about this recently, you don't engage in war in a way that essentially undercuts your ethical principles or the international rules in killing children.
Knowingly is simply a violation of every kind of rule you can think of, religious, ethical, or the rules of war.
So being attacked may allow you and justify you to defend, but it doesn't justify you to engage in tactics that knowingly kill children or non-combatants.
I don't believe everyone living in Gaza is a combatant.
So, you know, I think we all, I think the people on both sides of this controversy and folks Not involved in the controversy.
We need to weigh in on this and try to bring pressure to bear to resolve this conflict without this escalating.
We all could be a victim of an escalating war.
None of us need that.
Yeah. Mick, this has been a really amazing interview.
I really thank you for the information on 9-11 and the fight that you continue putting forth.
And truly, I'd be really interested in getting others like you on a big roundtable and talking about this so that people truly know that there are people like you out there putting up the fight.
And they have options. They have options.
Because I think them knowing they have options is we need more whistleblowers.
We need more people coming out and saying the truth and not being scared And I think knowing that there's people out there putting up the fight, you know, will lead them to believe that there's a community that's supportive and, you know, they got a place to go, you know?
I do. Yeah.
So thank you so much.
And for the viewers out there, thank you so much for joining us for this episode of Blood Money.
Please make sure you check out AmericaHappens.com for all of our shows.
And please make sure you join us on the next episode of Blood Money.
Take care. Thank you very much.
Truth in Media is not free.
If the corrupt corporations run the media, then all we get is a pile of lies.
So please support Truth in the Media by donating to AmericaHappens.com by simply going to AmericaHappens.com, clicking on the support tab, and entering a generous donation.
Thank you so much. We're
good to go. Thank
you. Check
out the America Happens Network.
▲
Export Selection