Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VFYRaltcc&list=PL5vtMLUWgYehCTEfSmgEzAEC9Dvt9FZmc
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
Get ready for a great 9-11 panel that we just did via David Ray Griffin's memory.
For those not familiar with David Ray Griffin, he did excellent work on 9-11 truth.
This was presented by UK Column.
In my opinion, it is a can't miss.
I do want to encourage you to support the broadcast if you can.
$5, $10, $15, it means the world to me.
I'm not able to do this work without you.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
Giving you some brief introductions.
We have with us Jason Burmes, a longtime 9-11 truth researcher, filmmaker, and media personality, perhaps best known for his work on loose change.
He later directed the films Fabled Enemies and Invisible Empire and spent several years as a reporter and host at Infowars, where he regularly covered 9-11 related issues.
He currently hosts the show Making Sense of the Madness and continues to produce independent media commentary and investigative reporting focused on 9-11 accountability, government transparency, and related issues of power and deception.
Thank you, Jason.
We have Sandra Laratonda as a grassroots activist who began her advocacy as the translation team coordinator for architects and engineers for 9-11 truth in 2010, covering upwards of 50 videos in over 30 languages.
In 2021, she and her husband Gene launched the 9-11 War Room, an interactive weekly podcast that covers 9-11 news, strategy, and activism, and helps connect advocates across the world.
It runs every Sunday at 5 p.m. Eastern at 9-11warroom.com, where everyone with a heart for 9-11 Truth is welcome to join and participate.
And finally, here with us from Japan, ahead of the rest of the world, per usual, is James Corbett, is a longtime independent journalist, researcher, and media producer, best known as the founder and host of the Corbett Report.
He has produced numerous documentaries examining the events of September 11th, including 9-11 Trillions, Bollow the Money, 9-11 Suspects, and 9-11 War Games, and has written extensively on unresolved questions surrounding the attacks.
Make sure to check out his latest book, Reportage, Reportage, I should say.
Thank you all for being here.
It's lovely to have you all together.
And I would like to begin this roundtable, and please, this is just going to be a discussion with a little bit of self-reflection here, because Richard pointed out all of the ways that they are invalidating the 9-11 truth movement.
And this is coming from a critic of our movement that weighed in with a question, which was, how do we know that we're getting it right?
And I'm going to frame it the way Ted Walter framed it to me, which was, what percentage of discussion have you seen that opposes 9-11 truth that genuinely focuses on evidence, genuine evidence?
Well, I guess I'll jump in.
I would say very little.
Unfortunately, as was discussed in the presentation before, a lot of these are simply ad hominem attacks, the framing of the issue.
And oftentimes, the mainstream media or the other debater does not want to show the evidence or gives a straw man debunk.
Let me give you a great example of a straw man debunk recently.
The Jubilee Network has this online show where there are 20 or 25 different people against one person.
So I was contacted about a conspiracy theory-driven show that took place a few months ago.
And the topics were QAnon, of course, the flat earth.
What else was there?
The Hunter Biden laptop and 9-11.
So when I did my original pre-interview with this guy, I said, well, if we're talking about the Hunter Biden laptop and crimes via Joe Biden, I go, there isn't a ton there.
Obviously, his son's behavior is abhorrent.
That was lied about.
The connections via him and his son's business.
That was on the peripheral.
But as far as like, you know, hardcore evidence, not really there to possibly convict Joe Biden or his family.
I told him, obviously, I am not a flat earther.
You know, back in my day, the thing they would try to contrive with 9-11 Truth was not flat earth.
It was lizard people and shapeshifters.
That would always be brought into the mix, another straw man.
And when I asked them about QAnon, I said, well, do you want me to talk about its actual origins and the people that actually started it?
And I got news for everybody.
Wasn't white hats, wasn't, you know, Trump supporters to save the world.
If you really want to delve into that and where it started on 4chan and then into 8chan, et cetera, that information is available.
And it did seem like the person I was talking to was aware of that.
So 9-11 comes into it.
And one of the baseline things I often talk about is that many of these hijackers, you know, we now know about the hijackers and their CIA connections, et cetera, with Al-Bayumi.
But that information was available, you know, prior to me even putting out my documentary films.
And they were living with and renting from an FBI informant that also had these connections.
But what is not often talked about is the mainstream reporting that many of these hijackers not only had ties to, but listed their home addresses as U.S. military bases.
My good friend, Pasta Jardulla, decided to take them up on the offer, fly out to California.
And the quote-unquote mainstream journalist was a guy named Andrew Callahan, who has the Channel 5 News viral channel.
And I'd actually met Callahan about two years prior when he was attempting to do a hit piece on G. Edward Griffin.
I put him on the spot right there.
I asked him if he would come on my show.
He said he would.
Of course, he did not.
He did give me his phone number, and we interacted a couple times before he ignored me.
Now, I bring this up because Pasta brought up the fact that many of these people, again, had listed their names and addresses as U.S. military bases.
And there was a multitude of mainstream reporting on this, including the New York Times, which included one of the hijackers going to a school in Monterey, California, which was a military school where the vice chancellor actually came out and was quoted as saying that Bush knew of the attacks and allowed them to happen so that they could get their war in the Middle East.
When Pasta brought up the multitude of evidence that these guys had trained at U.S. bases and been protected, they put up a debunk on the side.
And the debunk simply said that Newsweek reported, one outlet reported that some of the hijackers had trained at U.S. military bases, but this was later retracted and proven false.
So they don't show how it was retracted or proven false, and they don't go to the other five sources that I have in my films.
So they create this straw man, and not only do they create the straw man in 9-11, they automatically associate it with Johnny nonsense that has been disproven dozens of times, like JFK Jr. is alive and was going to be Trump's running mate, don't you know?
All these type of things.
So these things are still happening 20 plus years later.
The question is, how effective are they really in a time period where, yes, a lot of the public may be getting some things wrong, but with big cases, the Epstein case in particular, there seems to be a coming together of the traditional right, the traditional left, and those that aren't really necessarily that interested in geopolitics at all, realizing they have been lied to about that event.
The question is, can we transfer something like that into 9-11 truth so that perhaps this Ron Johnson attempt at new hearings, new investigations can honestly go somewhere.
And I don't know whether we're going to get there.
I asked that question of Ron Johnson on September 10th of this year, and he gave a pretty standard answer in that, you know, this information has to get out into the public arena and be won in the public arena first before we can do anything.
And that is the big trick.
This is something that I've talked about with James Corbett for years.
And I prefaced it with this.
We have not had a real trial of the executive branch in any real manner since Iran-Contra.
You can go to Scooter Libby.
He got convicted, but he ended up getting pardoned.
Can anyone tell me anything in the last 30 plus years where high-level government officials were questioned in that arena, successfully indicted and prosecuted?
It doesn't exist.
So until we get there, and maybe the Epstein case is going to be the litmus test, I don't know how far we can take it.
But I do know the media is not going to stop with their positions.
Yeah.
So I can jump in a different perspective on that question.
I think it's a great question.
First of all, just thank you, Dr. Elfritz, for that presentation.
That was very informative, and you've added a lot to my reading list.
So thank you for that.
But having said that, yes, speaking of reading lists and speaking of this question of how much people in the 9-11 truth movement have seen engagement with the actual evidence, et cetera, from the other side, et cetera, I would say that my own personal research tactic, when I am going down the rabbit hole on a new piece of information related to 9-11, one of the first things that I do routinely is to look at the debunks and the skeptic sites to see what they have to say about it.
Because I always want to sharpen my knowledge by testing it against what other people are saying against it.
And I wished I could think off the top of my head of some of the examples of that, but I have certainly moderated my positions on various subjects because there has been valid things pointed out from the skeptic community.
And I don't want to take on board information that is untrue simply because my team, quote unquote, is saying it.
So I would like to challenge those who think that there is no such critical thinking going on in the 9-11 truth movement to come up with their own examples of times that they have changed some of their beliefs based on things that the 9-11 truth movement has been saying, because it certainly is one of my first steps when I'm looking at research.
Yeah, if I can just add the question was, how do we know that we have it right?
Right.
And I would.
Right.
I mean, I would simply state that we have the evidence.
You can't argue with the science, the physics, and any of that, nor some of the really strong anomalies that would be hard to explain otherwise.
But the problem is not intellectual.
It's not scientific.
It's not any of that.
It's emotional.
The blockage is emotional.
So there are people that you will just not reach with the facts.
With maybe in time, you know, as people soften to the idea, it's easier to consider that we were lied to in the past and we were lied, that we're being lied to in the moment.
So back then, it was harder to conceive it.
And some people, and there is a trend in that direction of people opening up to it, overcoming the cognitive dissonance.
But it's still there.
And those people who have a hard time with it put aside those that are paid for, obviously, to debunk it, you know, in the media and whatnot.
But on the average population, I think that's the biggest hurdle still is to get people to consider that we've been had in that way.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I would like to offer something.
I'm sorry.
Please.
You know, absolutely, Sandra's right.
I interviewed dozens of members of the 9-11 truth movement in their activism and interacted with dozens more in the Facebook group.
There were several people who told me that they initially started out with a deep-seated disgust and hatred of 9-11 truth.
And I completely identify with that because when I watched Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11, like in 2005, I hated it because I thought he insinuated that Bush had something to do with 9-11.
Several of the people that I interviewed said that they initially started out trying to debunk 9-11 truth.
So there's that kind of starting position that a lot of people had, and they just said they couldn't debunk some of the facts, especially WTC 7.
As far as the people out there who are directly interrogating the evidence, there are a handful of people.
One of them would be Mick West, whose Metabunk website would pop up at the top of Google's search results if you search for anything remotely close to 9-11.
He's had debates with Tony Zimbodi and some others.
There was Michael Shermer and there was Miles Powers.
Maybe Ryan Dawson could be thrown in there.
I'm not sure.
You know, as people who want to interrogate empirical aspects of the claims from the 9-11 truth movement, but relative to the sort of broader pushback, the people who are willing to interrogate the evidence are far more minuscule in numbers than people who use the type of rhetorical tactics that Jason was pointing out.
Can I just jump in really quick too, just because he mentioned Google and kind of this algorithmic boost of something like Metabunk?
You know, Google has somewhat changed their YouTube policies recently.
But of all of my videos, every single 9-11 video got age restricted.
Now, that has now been turned over, but let me give you some examples.
From Fabled Enemies, the follow-up film I did that really doesn't focus as much on the physical anomalies, but has people like Joe Biden in it before they're even the vice president of the United States.
That, age-restricted, 18 plus.
Anthony Santalamasia, you know, he, I think, did one event.
And if you don't know who Anthony Saltalomesia is, he was actually with Willie Rodriguez in the basement level of the World Trade Center when the secondary explosions went off.
He corroborated every part of Willie Rodriguez's story that got age restricted.
My Barry Jennings interview that James has done a whole documentary film on also got age restricted.
To this day, even if you appeal and you get the age restriction boosted, Richard pointed out that you get this little Wikipedia entry that you shouldn't question the events.
This was an al-Qaeda operation.
Anything else being said is false.
It has opened up a little bit.
I mean, again, you mentioned Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson has now done a five-part series via 9-11 Truth.
At the same time, I think there's some problems with that.
One of the most glaring problems, I would say, is I believe it's in the second episode where the individual from Alex Station, the unit that was set up to keep tabs on bin Laden, starts praising John Antisev, the FBI agent who he met with and worked on this case.
Well, Antisev is on audio.
We've caught him in the 93 World Trade Center bombing, handling Ahmed Salam, the Egyptian army officer they recruited, okay, who built the bomb.
Let me repeat that.
For those that don't know about the World Trade Center 93 action, our government, FBI, ATF, DOJ, they're all mentioned in this phone call, helped build the bomb.
Obviously, Salam got very worried when they didn't make him build a fake bomb and started taping their conversations.
So I think that we have a very long way to go in that media sphere.
I think we also have to acknowledge that there is a ton of documentation that hasn't even been scrutinized by the 9-11 truth community, let alone the mainstream media.
And what information would that be?
I point to the 2018 document dump from the quote-unquote Dark Overlord.
And a lot of people don't even know that those exist.
But for instance, these had TSCI documents in them.
Some of them were simply civil cases about 9-11 that the public were not allowed to know about.
Some of them including the Jersey wife widows that are in the documentary Press for Truth.
But one of those nuggets, if you will, that was in that documentation was the fact that James Woods, who had already been on TV and said that he was on a plane prior to 9-11 where he felt four individuals were going to hijack this plane, where he talked to not only the stewardess, but the pilot after the fact, the stewardess during it.
And they all filed reports with the FBI.
Now, other than that TV interview, it is in court record now that not only did he did that, but he names the four hijackers that were supposedly there.
They shouldn't have known each other.
He was supposedly on Flight 11, one of the planes that was utilized in 9-11.
And he mentions an FBI agent that confirmed that his reports went through.
And he also mentions Seymour Hirsch as his friend that confirmed that his reports went through.
That is just minutiae.
Okay.
We have plenty of documents on Silverstein, Building 7, those lawsuits, et cetera.
So there's still a ton out there that has not really gone through academia on either side that I think is incredibly damning.
I think we have a multitude of evidence that points to the fact that we were not only lied to, but we have some involvement with some of the agencies before and after the fact, but not just agencies, of course, foreign governments, contractors, and other entities.
And that I think is also another challenge.
A lot of people want to use the terminology inside job, or there is the crowd that points to Israel as the only culprit.
Again, one of the great things that Mr. Corbett has done over the years is he's been able to illustrate that many of these things go outside of the nation-state apparatus.
And I think that's yet another hurdle that we're going to have to get over if we want a true accounting of 9-11 and one that gets brought to the global populace.
Yeah.
Sorry, while we're speaking of debunking, I should just mention that Ahmad Salem did not build the 93 World Trade Center bomb.
He was taken off the case before the bomb was built.
And then that group went ahead and got Ramzi Youssef in to build the bomb.
But who was Ramsey Youssef and how did he even get into the United States?
A fascinating rabbit hole in and of itself.
And I have a five and a half hour documentary on the history of Al-Qaeda, if people are interested in it, called False Flags, The Secret History of Al-Qaeda, talking about Yousev and some of the other remarkable characters in that story.
But yeah, Salam did not build the bomb.
He was in the process of working with the group that ended up building the bomb, but he was taken off the case before the bomb was built.
Can I just ask you, James, then, why in that conversation does he say that who and who built the bomb?
Your confidential FBI informant.
I might be getting a little bit wrong, but right around that, oh, what a wonderful case.
Right.
Again, I go through that in my documentary, but he is talking in the context afterwards where he was feeling like he had been burnt on that case.
But essentially, what he was saying was that he was involved in the plot.
He was part of the group, but he was taken off before the bomb was built.
Okay, thank you.
See, I can be proven wrong as well.
I think we have to have that acceptance as well, like you were alluding to in the very beginning, that we have to be open-minded enough that we may get some things wrong.
You know, I'll give a great example: the Norman Minetta testimony and the PIAC with Dick Cheney.
You know, there's photographic evidence that was released in 2016 that certainly, I would say, show the possibility that we, as quote-unquote, 9-11 truth activists, may have gotten that timeline wrong.
Now, I'm on the fence on that, but I can admit that that evidence exists and I'd like to see more.
I'd like to steer us back for one moment, which is, you know, I'm treating this critic of the 9-11 truth movement with kid gloves because I think it's very important to distinguish ourselves from the legacy mainstream position, which is completely false.
And address this very directly because, Richard, you brought up something that I think is very, very important, which is most of us here believed the original story at some point and we changed our minds.
And this is something very, very important for, I think, the public to understand: is that when you are confronted with someone who changed their mind about something they were sure of, it's time to listen in and figure out what it was.
And this is the power of our movement, which is we're all, you know, we didn't start off this way.
So I'm going to frame this next question, which I think is important to me, which is it had to do with: is there any counter narrative to our position that's based in evidence?
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is that if we look ahead to, let's say, a hearing headed by Ron Johnson about 9-11 truth, I can't think of an engineer, a structural engineer, architect that's worth their weight that would stand up and defend the official NIST explanation of what happened.
I just cannot believe that they would find anybody.
And with that in mind, I'm going to ask you, James, this question because you're someone who's gone through enough rabbit holes to turn reality into a piece of thin Swiss cheese.
Does the 9-11 truth movement, does it hold a special place in your heart as being something that truly can stand on its own outside of an entire sort of comprehensive narrative of what's really going on in the world?
But can 9-11 stand on its own?
And I'd like everyone else to weigh in on that too.
Well, I can only speak from my personal experience of coming into the 9-11 truth movement from that perspective of having staunchly believed the official story for the first five years after the events.
And what got me down the rabbit hole, so to speak, was finding, encountering information through online sources that were seemed outlandish to me until I started looking it up for myself.
And there were a number of different things, and I can't remember exactly what sequence of pieces of information was the penny drop a moment, if there ever was such a single thing, but things like learning about the existence of Operation Northwoods and other things.
So to me, it was the disconnect between what I had been taught and what I had been shown my entire life versus what I was then able to find after having been directly confronted with new information and being able to independently verify it for myself.
That disconnect was what got me interested.
Really, it's really the reason that I'm here at all doing any of this work is because of that incredibly shocking information that I suddenly started discovering.
And so I, yes, obviously 9-11 truth is an incredibly important part of my own story.
And I imagine for a lot of people who started questioning government and perceived realities in the early 2000s, probably a lot of people have a similar point of view.
And to me, I think part of what's surrounding this question of 9-11 truth as a social movement on the precipice, are we at some sort of inflection point?
I would say that we are at essentially the same point that we've always been and presumably always will be, which is that you can't argue people out of a position that they haven't been argued into.
I think most people have not given this evidence any sort of actual thorough vetting and applied critical thinking to it.
I think most people receive the conceived narrative from trusted sources, whether that be academic, institutional sources, or more likely from media and social perception of people around them.
And for the past 25 years, the overwhelming majority of people have been rapidly against the idea of questioning the events of 9-11.
We are starting to see that change.
And to me, that is a reflection of the media environment that we are in.
Obviously, in 2001 and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, we were still very much in the corporate media paradigm where everyone was receiving their information from TV, newspapers, radio, et cetera.
Now we are in the online media environment and we have people who made their entire careers in that dinosaur media paradigm who are now realizing that most people are now online and they are now speaking to online audiences.
And I think that media change accounts for the change in discourse around 9-11 and the fact that it is now socially acceptable to talk about 9-11 and to question these types of events.
So, to me, the whole point of this social movement is that it has been forged in the crucible of a media environment that has undergone a dramatic shift in the past couple of decades.
And that's where I situate the moment that we're at right now, which means to me that the whole idea of the debunkers and the skeptics and the academic institutions poo-pooing this movement, et cetera, is actually relevant.
What is going on to really be the interesting sociological part of all of this is the internal dynamics of the movement.
As in who are the gatekeepers within the movement who will allow or won't allow this type of discourse from taking place, oh, you can't question this, or you must question this, or you must talk to this person, you must cite this source, you mustn't cite that source.
That sort of internal gatekeeping seems to me at this point to be the largest impediment to 9-11 Truth becoming a large-scale movement.
Well, go ahead, Sandra.
I was going to say that the dynamic of the movement itself has also changed from the early years to now.
You know, it was very much at the beginning, it was kind of this rebellion, this organic rebellion by those who questioned the narrative right off the bat, right?
And they had it the hardest, really, because they were fighting everything-the propaganda, the media, the cognitive dissonance, and everything.
And I'm unbelievably grateful to those who had the courage to rise up in the 2002, 2004, 506, the crowds, the loud crowds in the streets that I'm sure Jason remembers very well, and you know, with these black and white investigate 9-11 shirts and attracting a lot of attention and obviously a lot of criticism, but they paved the way.
And then you had an organization like Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, which was formed, and it gave the whole thing more credibility.
It gave it a backbone.
It gave all of us something solid to lean on to say, hey, it's not just me, there's these scientists, there's these people who have risked their careers to sign the petition, which is significant.
And, you know, that carried us for a very long time.
And, you know, AE did incredible work for years and was really the authority for most of us to hang our hat on.
And then, you know, in the 2015 years, you know, it gave rise to new organizations.
Things happened in the movement.
There were splits and it kind of dispersed everything more.
And we calmed down collectively.
We didn't sound anymore like salesmen, you know, wanting to bash someone over the head with the truth as I know it.
And this is what you should believe, a little bit like James was just saying.
We've all collected, we've all grown up and matured.
We're not that rebellious teenager anymore.
We are people who engage in discussions, try to address the concerns, try to take the emotion out of it as much as possible when dealing.
And we kind of just put out the facts out there.
And we are able to sit with it and just let the ripples, you know, make their effect.
And maybe it lands and maybe it doesn't.
And if there's one thing I know is that you have no idea what piece of information is actually going to resonate with someone.
It could be the oddest thing I've heard in speaking to people say, you know, I really didn't want to hear it, but then I heard this and I'm like, really?
That's the thing that got you the question.
So I, hey, all means are good.
So I, I just, I'm a strong believer, just put the information out there calmly, rationally.
If people don't feel like they're being, you know, forced to look at something or being convinced against their will, they're a lot more open to considering the possibility.
And so, yeah, that dynamic has changed over the last 20, 25 years there.
Well, I would like to go ahead.
One sec.
It's an important question because, for example, the conference in DC, right, which for the first time hosted people who would be considered legitimate insiders, former Congressmen, U.S. Senator intelligence officers, high-ranking military officials, beyond the credentialed professors that have already been part of the movement for well over a decade and publishing journal articles.
I was in a conversation with some very well-known members of the 9-11 truth movement, and we were talking about what would happen if and when there was to be a Senate panel hearing, as in who would the 9-11 truth movement put up as the all-star team, you know, the dream team.
And I, you know, I don't want to, I have to keep confidentiality anonymity.
It's there are going to be people who have done a significant amount of work and contributed significantly to the movement whose egos are going to be hurt because they would not be invited to the panel simply because, look, like your contributions have been invaluable, but your credentials don't speak to what the public would recognize as a legitimate voice.
You're, you know, down the line.
So the internal dynamics are very interesting in that, you know, a lot of the members themselves have aged into a more refined demeanor and things of that nature.
But if and when it does come time to, you know, select the best faces to put forward, you know, there will be internal dynamics that have to be navigated in order to think about 9-11 truth itself, aside from the movement members who have propelled 9-11 truth for years and years and years through thankless work.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You know, my next question for you all is this, which is, you know, if this was a rational world, there would be no 9-11 truth movement or alternative media, right?
We would just get right to the evidence and what's going on.
And so my question here is, is it possible to still talk about 9-11 as a standalone issue?
Because it's a double-edged sword, right?
Because most people will, if you have this conventional idea of the world, that would be preposterous that there could be another story behind 9-11.
And so now you're confronted with the challenge of do I bring out this entire new worldview and point out how our version of what happened at 9-11 fits way better into a much more cohesive understanding of what's happening globally?
Or do you stick just with 9-11?
Because it depends on the person.
And what I'd like to ask you, because you're the sociology expert, what is your thoughts on that?
And then, Sandra, I'd love to hear what you are hearing at the grassroots level.
Well, the way that I teach my students to answer any question that I raise in my classroom is, you know, you will, when I ask a question, you're going to start off with, it depends.
And they say, it depends on what?
And I say the situation and the context, always.
So, you know, if we're talking specifically about the evidence that is used to contradict the official narrative of 9-11, stick to that.
Don't go down into the connections and the, you know, the implications and the rabbit holes.
And I'll give a primary example.
The last time I was in Manhattan interviewing a street activist, somebody came up and I knew who he was and who he was with.
And we were talking specifically about World Trade Center 7.
I was asking probing questions, just could you say more about that?
You know, tell me more about this, please.
And this person jumps in to an evidence empirical-based discussion about the event of World Trade Center 7 collapsing with, well, who do you think did it then?
Because there had to be teams of demolition experts in and out of that building.
So who do you think was responsible for all that?
And I lost my cool and turned to him.
And I was like, you know, we are not talking about that.
We are talking about the physical events.
We're not talking about the perpetrators.
And that's a tactic that's used to sort of, you know, reframe the discussion.
If you're talking to people about the significance or implications or the consequences of 9-11, then yeah, it makes a lot of sense to start connecting those threads.
And like Jason was doing this earlier, when like it's very easy if you have a lot of knowledge to start saying, well, in order to understand that, you'd have to understand all of these other things that are significant factors in this.
And then I'll point out, and I'm not saying this is what I think.
There are people in the public who have this trope, this stereotype of that crazy conspiracy theorist who's connecting the dots that shouldn't be connected.
And that was a systematic rhetorical strategy designed to demonize and stigmatize conspiracy theory thinking.
And I, you know, and it's caught on culturally.
So it's like, oh, you're connecting dots that shouldn't be connected.
Because as Jane Smeig says, that's what conspiracy theorists always do.
Yeah, it's a danger putting it all together.
And it's just too much.
The pill is just too big to swallow.
But have things changed right now?
I mean, what do you feel, Sandra?
What are you seeing down there when you're talking to them?
Well, what has changed?
What's changed is that there used to be, again, you know, we had this organization that, you know, was there for many years and did its thing.
And then there was all these grassroots people who were just really, they formed their own little groups here and there.
Certain cities were more or less active, kind of like, but really kind of disconnected in a way.
And now with these, you know, this, this, this, this kind of fracture, fracture that happened with the organizations means that there's more to go around.
And so with Gene and myself, my husband and myself in the 9-11 war room, we kind of try to build that bridge between the organizations and the activists who really want to get involved.
And I think anybody you speak to will tell you that it's absolutely like herding cats.
That's what Richard Gage likes to say.
And it's really that because there's this new openness, there's this new ability to connect, which is fantastic.
But the downside of that, again, is, because there's always a downside, is that everybody has their own agenda.
And everybody thinks that this particular issue is more important, or that this angle is the one that we should proceed with.
And there are all these, I don't want to call them quack theories at all because I just don't.
But there are so many theories that were kind of like whispered in the background: holograms, CGIs, DWs, no planes at the towers, and stuff like that, that, you know, we'd hear about every once in a while.
But now, with this new openness, there's a lot of stuff that's being thrown into that bag now.
And it's almost making it more confusing for anybody who's just beginning to look at 9-11 to make that separation between what really, you know, what sticks and what's good and what's not.
And I find it's made it, it's made the atmosphere more confusing.
So there's this new openness and this new ability for people to connect and engage and get involved, even though I would say that the getting involved part is still very difficult because there are a lot of people who have their theories, they engage on social media, they'll share their thoughts.
When it comes down to actually getting people to do something, it's still extremely hard.
The most dedicated people in the movement already do it.
They do what they can.
You know, there's people who come into our podcast and they say, somebody should, or you should.
Well, you know, why don't you do it?
You start, get the ball rolling.
And if it appears to go somewhere, I'm positive it'll resonate with the right people who will get on board with you and help you move it along.
So a lot of people have very theoretical ideas.
So the problem right now is not so much to get people, it's not an information thing as much anymore.
The information is out there.
People can go search for it.
It's to get people to care enough to get involved.
Why does it matter 25 years later?
Why should I do something?
Well, you do it just because you never know if that thing that you're doing is going to, and you know, and I told this story at the conference about how the simple act of my husband Gene receiving a spam email at work regarding the NFPA conference,
National Fire Protection Agency Association, I think, in 2021 created this series of events that led to essentially Ron Johnson.
And I can map it out exactly.
So I still encourage people to do what they can do.
And if well, Sandra, you broach, I think, one of the subjects that fascinates me and that I was trying to articulate earlier, which is the gatekeeping that is going on internally within the movement of who can speak to whom and what you can speak about and what you can't speak about, et cetera, which I don't know.
I mean, again, I do not have the receipts on this.
So I can't say precisely to what extent cognitive infiltration has taken place.
But at any rate, if cognitive infiltrators were trying to disrupt a movement like 9-11 Truth, they could not have done a better job than by bringing up all of these various theories and then each particular camp making it so that this is the only important thing.
And if you don't say this, then you're a shill and you're controlled opposition, et cetera, et cetera, which puts very, very, very, very strict and very small walls and boundaries around the concept of 9-11 truth.
That for someone, I mean, I feel incredible pity for someone walking into this minefield in 2025 and just thinking, oh, okay, what's this 9-11 truth thing?
Oh my God, I said the wrong thing.
I looked at the wrong topic and now I'm excommunicated from the 9-11 truth movement.
It's a crazy forest of people and ideas and camps that have formed here, which I'd love it to be one big open tent of people just amassing under 9-11 truth and going to the bare basic details.
But now it has become this incredibly complicated subject that if you do not say the exact right things, there are people who will not talk to you about it.
And that I think needs to be addressed.
If this is going to be a movement that is going to make a difference, then I think the fact that people can't even begin to broach the subject without being attacked for it has to be addressed square directly.
It's unbelievably complicated because, you know, there's what you're describing happens at the grassroots level.
It happened at the organizational level.
And I really don't want to go into the dirt of it, but it's for me who's a bystander to watch people accusing each other of being gatekeepers or being infiltrators or moles or agents.
And they present technically on paper, maybe valid reasons.
And it's like, okay, I can see why you would think that.
I personally don't.
But the only thing I can say is just that those who've been doing it for all these years, just continue to do what you're doing.
Focus on the stuff that you know is true, that you know works, the science.
I keep coming back to the science myself and know who you can trust and work with and just focus on that.
And a good friend of mine in the Netherlands, Jan Van Aachen, said the best way to get rid of something is to make it, another word's not going to come to me, irrelevant, I guess.
So instead of attacking these things that are, you know, attempt to hijack us, I think if you just ignore it with the proper respect, if I can say it that way, without bashing it, it's going to make itself irrelevant, I would hope.
Do we have a guarantee?
Of course we don't.
Some crazy ideas seem to attract many people beyond my own personal logic.
You know, Flat Earth is a great example for that.
I'll never understand how that took off.
But yeah, it's just, you can just real, yeah, go ahead.
Sorry to jump in.
For the broader public, like let's assume that there are members of the public watching and who are not sold either way or maybe antagonistic toward 9-11 truth.
There are clear parallels to the civil rights movement.
The civil rights movement was infiltrated by covert intelligence, COINTELPRO programs.
There were intentions from the FBI to sow divisions into the civil rights movement.
There were clearly demarcated different groups beyond that who had different approaches to activism, to the movement goals and how to organize.
And just as the case is with other social movements, it's always difficult to motivate people to commit their dedication to actual productivity.
But with the civil rights movement, for example, like they were trying to convince members of the general public to reorient their frames of social relations.
It was no easy task, especially when they had government agencies infiltrating their movement to sow divisions to stop them, because part of what the civil rights movement was associated with was the anti-war pro-peace movement.
So there's direct parallels in history to what's going on with the 9-11 truth movement.
And I would hope that the general public understands that there have been several times throughout history where a minority of dedicated, committed activists have fundamentally changed the social order by reframing what we believe to be the central premises of our lives.
I mean, in the civil, you know, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the civil rights era, there's many examples.
And within internally in the 9-11 truth movement, you have all of these same dynamics that go on in other social movements.
And so there's a lot of literature out there that can help us better understand how to navigate the same types of dynamics that we would be going through that have been involved in other social movements of the past.
Well, look, this is, I want to say that just a few days ago, I listened to your interview, Jason, with James.
And I forgot the title of it, but it was just incredibly all-encompassing.
And, you know, it went into all kinds of different realities that we have to confront.
And as I was watching it, I was jotting down references and names and things to investigate.
And I realized there's absolutely no way I could ever show any of my friends that particular interview, even though I found it absolutely compelling.
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is very recently I had some time with medical school colleagues, and I was trying to get them to understand that we actually don't know how safe these shots were.
And it's worth looking at.
But of course, they couldn't see it because, you know, it's this wall of hubris where they cannot even admit that they could have been wrong about this.
But when I showed them clips of the Twin Towers coming down, all of them were on their phone going, holy cow, it's exploding.
And the point being there is that suddenly they're able to confront the possibility that they could be wrong about something big.
And this is where I feel like the 9-11 event is so important because you don't have to go through pages and pages and threads to figure out what's going on.
Just look at the undisputed footage of these things.
You don't have to be a structural engineer.
So my question, Jason, to you is, you know, your film Loose Change, amazing movie.
If you had no restrictions on money or time, what kind of movie would you make at this point, you know, 20 years later?
I'd say it would be close to in line with what we did with Loose Change Final Cut, the follow-up to the second edition that really went viral.
We went out to DC and New York and did a ton of interviews.
A lot of them didn't make Loose Change Final Cut.
One of them was with April Gallup, for instance.
For those that don't know who April Gallup is, she was somebody who was working in the Pentagon of the day of the attacks and actually exited out the front of the Pentagon through the supposed hole place there by a plane before the collapse with her son, by the way, that she got out of daycare.
We went and interviewed one of the individuals, he wouldn't go on camera, that was a local news reporter that gave a certain perspective of the Pentagon.
I would do more of that.
If there was not a budget restriction, I would be going to the schools that these hijackers were reported to have trained at or bases and seeing what kind of records I could get, seeing if I could get that interview with the vice chancellor.
I would stick along the lines of what I did for the films even before then, getting as much archival footage.
I mean, this is still a stack of DVDs that I have from that era that I use from the films.
Again, we're in the digital age, but before we were there, I actually had to buy DVDs from C-SPAN at like $50 to $100 a clip.
And all I had was the transcripts, right?
Vanderbilt Archive was another place that I got a lot of my archival footage.
Forget about it.
I didn't even get the transcript.
I got like a baseline of five or six things that were going on at that time period, etc.
My main goal after putting that together, however, would be the wider distribution, right?
I think that's why we tried so hard to get loose change into theaters, alas, not happening, because I think that could have pushed us over the edge and been a game changer during that time period.
Right now, you know, kind of to go back to what other people were talking about in regards to do you get so far away from the event?
And I think that the idea that it depends, it does depend, right?
Like Operation Northwoods does not have a quote-unquote direct connection to 9-11, but it sets context.
Some people may not.
You know, I'll be honest, when I first started looking into 9-11 Truth, yes, Building 7 stood out to me, but it took me a little bit longer to get into the demolitions of 1 and 2.
That's when I really started looking for archival footage of people talking about secondary explosions, etc.
You brought up the shots.
I think post-COVID-1984, there are a lot of people that have opened up to this idea of not only massive government corruption, but massive media corruption, both on a global scale.
You know, we've been talking about Tucker Carlson.
You showed that clip.
You've seen that shift.
I'll give you another shift right now.
You know, Adam Carolla, who at the time of 9-11 had a hit TV show, the man show on Comedy Central was huge.
I was on his program on the fifth anniversary from Ground Zero on the phone, and he was mocking me.
He was telling me he hoped that I would go back to making pizza, etc.
Well, let's fast forward now to 2025.
You know, forget about the fact that he shifted into this libertarian mindset and been on Prague or U.
He just had Sam Tripoli on a couple times.
Not once, but twice.
And let's just say that me and Sam don't necessarily see eye to eye on a lot of things and goes way bigger on the conspiratorial thinking.
But that avenue has opened up.
As far as media, however, let me also point out that the mainstream media, in large part, is still a joke on this issue, especially when we have to go to something like tabloid media to do, I would say, the best 9-11 documentary probably the last five years.
For those that don't know, TMZ did an excellent documentary on United 23, a plane that had all the hallmarks of also being involved on 9-11, where you had these individuals that seemed like they were going to hijack the plane, where you had individuals go to the FBI afterwards, no records of that, where they found their luggage after the fact,
and it's the same stuff in that luggage that they magically found in Ada's luggage that didn't make Flight 11.
Okay, so TMZ, a lot of people, you know, obviously look at it as tabloid because it is, but it did an excellent job on that documentary.
The real question is, how do we push it over the edge?
Because, you know, prior to the election of Trump this second time around in this administration, Fox News, one of the largest proponents of tearing down 9-11 truth, debunking, and calling us crazies, asked the question of the president whether or not he would release the 9-11 files.
You know, he dodged the Epstein question much more, said he would release the 9-11 files.
I wish that the MAGA folks would follow up on that.
Even down to, you know, this turning the tide event that we did, where Anthony Shaffer, as a part of Abel Danger, obviously knew something was wrong, obviously knew that he had been surveilling a lot of these guys and not been taken seriously by the FBI.
He didn't come around until recently to go beyond the possibility of malfeasance, ignorance, you know, possibly covering up the fact that they screwed up.
No, now he's on the train.
No, they made this happen on purpose, not Lie Hop.
So I don't know that we have to continue in the same direction.
I think if we were able to get that spark point, if we were able to get something on the level of a loose change or even a United 23 into theaters and backed by mainstream political and media figures to a larger extent, and those media figures really only have to be in the digital world.
It doesn't have to be Rachel Maddow, right?
I mean, they don't really have the audience.
If we were able to do that, I think that this could get the ball rolling to the point where hearings might have an effect and maybe we can do something to change this culture.
I don't know that we can actually get indictments, prosecutions, convictions, and what I originally thought in my naivety, you know, almost 20 years ago, restore our constitutional republic.
That would be the goal, but I'm not naive enough to think that that's where it's headed.
The parallel being Oliver Stone's JFK that led to the JFK Records Act, and we would need a filmmaker with such high stature and prominence and courage to make a film like that, which would be pushing back against the years of popular culture and news media.
But the other parallel to that is: you know, look how much happened with JFK.
Like, okay, we had a bunch of files released, but who was arrested?
Who was convicted?
You know, what really happened?
And did we get all those files, right?
Like, did we really get all the files?
I would contend when we're talking about JFK, I can provably show you an FBI publication where they point to an individual named Warren C. Debru, who was alleged to be Oswald's FBI handler by another FBI informant of DeBru.
This was in a 1970s documentary, but in this publication, it clearly states that DeBru did the initial 800-page investigation the night of the attack or the night of the assassination on.
That document is, I've not seen it.
In fact, Warren C. DeBru, for those that don't know, he was Oswald's handler in New Orleans and followed him to Texas.
So he just happened to be in Texas when this happened and then investigate it.
I haven't seen that document, but supposedly we have all the JFK documents now.
We should stop asking questions.
You know, what I'd like to offer here is A challenge that we have, which is to believe that at some point there's going to be documentation that irrevocably proves what we've been saying all along, as if that even exists.
If we truly understand what really happened that day, obviously it's not going to exist.
And even if it did, who's going to believe it?
So this is a big challenge.
And, you know, I'd like to think bigger and say, yes, a movie like JFK, you know, perhaps with a Jim Carrey playing a David Ray Griffin and telling him, you know, the entire story with all of the evidence coming up.
I mean, it seems to me like this is what the public needs because a documentary may not necessarily have the impact that good old-fashioned storytelling would have.
And, you know, anyway, we're winding down.
And I would like to finish with everyone having an opportunity to sort of make any conclusive statements or anything else you want to leave us with.
I just wanted to piggyback on that last question.
I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is: what does a victory of 9-11 truth look like?
You know, what are, I mean, we keep chasing, we want to expose the truth, we want to wake people up and all of this stuff.
But what does it actually mean concretely?
To some people, it means, you know, going through the legal system, getting justice for the victims' families, getting those who are guilty behind bars.
For some people, it's that.
For other people, it's the effect on, you know, obviously world politics, the impact on war, because we've had 20 years of war because of this, and this could shift things dramatically.
And for others, and it doesn't have to be either or, obviously, in a perfect world, you'd have it all.
But for me, it would be in part, because I think justice would be really difficult legally, not that I don't hope it can happen.
It would be to have the history books rewritten.
You know, have history reflect what actually really happened so that the lie doesn't keep getting perpetrated into the future.
And if that were to happen, the education system, you know, explained what happened, if this reset things in that way, that would be a really good thing.
And there's probably other outcomes that, you know, that are specific to people.
So, yeah, sometimes we do this and we don't say, well, what is it really?
What is the end game ultimately?
Except just truth.
What does that mean?
Yeah, good point.
James, Jason.
Yes, let me echo that.
I think my concern has always been to achieve genuine justice for those events and to have the actual perpetrators really brought to justice for those actions.
But barring that, I think winning in the court of public opinion has always been an incredibly important part of this because, and I think ultimately it is because we do want the historical record to reflect reality.
We do not want this lie to be perpetrated in the future because obviously, as you say, the war of terror, the million plus deaths that have resulted from the various wars that were based on this lie would not have been possible if the widespread understanding of 9-11 truth had been available decades earlier.
But I would also just like to say that I still think that the internal politics of the movement itself and the discord that has been sown within it is probably the biggest impediment to that happening because I would posit that, yes, if there was some great big name Hollywood director who came out with the 2025 equivalent of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, today the biggest critics of that movie would be people within the 9-11 truth movement.
He didn't talk about this.
He said that.
Oh, he talked to, oh, he's saying that.
Oh my God.
In the exact same way, I think if actual new hearings are held, et cetera, I think, again, the biggest critics of those hearings would be from within the 9-11 truth movement.
So, yeah, it's a good question.
What are people focusing on and how are we going to get there?
I guess I would close with this.
Truth is not subjective.
It is objective.
It is either the truth or it is not.
And unfortunately, part of the recent societal shift, you constantly, what is your truth, right?
You hear that.
What is your truth?
And we have to accept this person's truth and that person's truth.
The bottom line is the real science doesn't lie.
The molten metal, for instance, that is clearly present at 1, 2, 7, and according to Ken Holden of FEMA at 6, shows that we have been lied to at least on what happened to those buildings.
That is not subjective.
That is objective truth.
And the more objective truth that we can constantly present to people, I think that's how you win in that court of public opinion.
I don't know that we're going to be able to go beyond that point.
I mean, if you just look at mainline politics right now, you know, love Trump, hate Trump.
Comey committed crimes.
Bolton committed crimes.
Letitia James committed crimes.
We can't even keep an indictment, let alone get to trial, right?
So we seem to have this barrier, unfortunately, where if you are at a certain level, you simply cannot be prosecuted.
And I think there are these third rail issues on both sides.
I think Assange would be one of them.
The fact that, you know, during the Biden administration, he was forced to sign that deal, which essentially made his guilt and set an awful precedent for the United States, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, journalism.
And it's not even discussed on either side.
Now, like, reporters don't even ask that question.
That is yet another barrier that we are going to have to get beyond.
And we have to get beyond, you know, what I discussed with James on both sides.
TDS, where it's Trump derangement syndrome, everything he does is wrong.
And TDS on the other side, that everything that Trump says is obviously right and gold.
The truth is not about Donald Trump.
It's not about one individual.
It is about the facts that cannot be disputed.
Yes.
Yeah.
And I think that the case has been made that it's not unreasonable to question the official, commonly accepted explanations of what happened on September 11, 2001.
It's completely reasonable and justified.
And what I think is irrational and unjustified prejudice are people in my profession, the psychologists and political scientists and historians and sociologists who will make rhetorical arguments without having done the due diligence of addressing the mountains of evidence that have been discussed in David Ray Griffin's books and documentaries and documentaries by Jason Burmes and James Corbett.
And it's a complete abridgment to the academic integrity and to the scholarly rigor that we should be bringing to the world around us.
And I think that these people who are out there who are acting as the credentialed agents of the power structures should do some deep soul searching, if not just a self-assessment of their integrity, because they are the ones who are constructing and perpetuating a lie in ways that I think are demonstrably unjustified and irrational.
And what I want to say to the general public is that if you have not investigated 9-11 and the empirical facts of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, then you've not done your due diligence and you don't have any right to use the conspiracy theory label to accuse people who have done the work.
And I think that it takes a lot of psychological courage to admit that you've been lied to by the centers of power who have convinced you that they are the trustworthy sources of authority and truth.
And the more that that is allowed to continue, the more that there will be these types of events who cause damage and destruction to our lives, not just in the United States, but all around the world for generations to come.
And we need to put a stop to it.
Radan.
Well, yeah, Richard, thank you very much for that closing statement.
Jason, James, Sandra, I am in huge admiration for all of you for all the work you've been doing.
You know, I'm a relative newcomer to the 9-11 truth movement.
I don't know how you've been able to manage to keep it together for so long, but I'm very encouraged by this discussion.
And I would like to just close by saying thank you to the UK column for platforming this discussion and this third annual David Ray Griffin lecture and roundtable.
And I just want to say we'll see you all here next year, hopefully.
And there you go, folks.
That was the 9-11 Truth Panel.
Where are we today with 9-11 Truth?
Let me know down in the comments.
And as always, I need you now more than ever.
Consider buying me a coffee or using the PayPal down below to donate because obviously this issue and all the issues, guess what?
Not about left or right, always about right and wrong.