All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 31, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
02:06:06
The Michael Decon Program - Never Forget (29 August 2020)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪ ♪♪
And welcome back to another edition of the Michael Deacon program.
I look forward to once again serve you those conscious coma-inducing vibrations.
Tonight, he makes his return.
The Professor is live and direct.
We will also be joined by none other than Captain Dan Hanley.
He is a seasoned airline captain with 35 years of service who was discharged from a long and successful career.
After raising valid concerns over federal aviation violations, thank you for allowing us into your hearts and into your minds.
Here we are again, on a night like this.
Now tonight we are gathered here to discuss a dark time in our nation's history.
What really happened that Tuesday morning?
Now without further ado, Let's get down to brass taxes.
Thank you both for being here with me, especially you, Dan.
I know it's very early out there where you are, so thank you very much for being with Jim and myself.
I'm glad to be here, Michael.
Yes, and of course, Jim, the professor, as we like to call you here, also known as the freight train.
How are you tonight?
I was not aware of that, but I like it.
Yeah, no, I'm delighted to be here with Dan, who seems to me to be doing a lot of good work.
Oh yes, and Dan, speaking of which, you are out there in Pakistan.
How are things out there?
Uh, it's just starting to cool down.
We got through the monsoon season, which is very humid, but, uh, yeah, the temperatures are starting to cool down a bit, and, uh, they lifted the quarantine, so people are out and about, a lot of them without masks on, so, all is good.
Nice, and the wife is okay?
Yeah, she's fine.
Very good.
And Jim, of course, you know, I have a deep respect for you as well as Dan here.
You've been here since the beginning.
I feel like you are certainly like a friend of mine, Jim.
Oh, I feel the same way.
As you know, you're my favorite host.
I so enjoy our interviews.
Amazing.
I hope all is well with the family and the kids out there.
I hope both of you guys are COVID free.
Yeah, yeah.
Very nice, very nice.
Before we get into the main topic this evening, I know there was a lot going on with you, Dan, and I thought we could take a few moments here to talk about your current situation out there, Dan.
In regard to what is that, Michael?
Didn't you have some sort of legal issue going on?
Uh, no, I make, I'm causing legal issues.
You're causing, there we go.
Yeah.
On two fronts.
So, uh, that has to do with our organization though.
We can get into that if you'd like.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let's get into that right now.
Okay.
Well, let me tell people who I am in case they don't know.
Uh, I am a lifelong pilot.
I was retired illegally in 2003 from United Airlines as a Boeing 777 captain for speaking out on issues concerning 9-11.
But I currently serve as director and international public spokesperson for a global grassroots effort called 9-11 Pilot Whistleblowers, whose purpose is to show that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9-11 aircraft.
...but that the aircraft were electronically hijacked through employment of a system called the Uninterruptible Autopilot, which takes complete control of the aircraft autopilot and flight management computers and guides it to the target.
So, once the system is engaged, the pilots can no longer disconnect.
And we've got a website at 911pilots.org that goes into a lot of detail on all this.
And we also have a YouTube channel at 911pilots if people want to get on there and look at some of the videos.
Very good.
Now, I invited both of you this evening because both of you are well respected for your views on 9-11, and you both have slightly different opinions on what happened that Super Tuesday morning that would go on to shape our nation's future.
It's been a year since I was on your program, Jim, and I went to look for your YouTube videos to see where your stand was on The four crash sites, and I couldn't find it, so perhaps you could enlighten me in that regard as we go through each one of them.
Oh, I'm really disappointed to hear that, Dan.
It's on BitChute at 9-11 who was responsible and why.
Okay.
I looked on YouTube.
That was my mistake.
It was probably removed, that's why.
Yeah, that was originally recorded on Bitchute, but it was a show with Brian Rue as a host, R-U-H-E, and I've done others with him, including on the Sandy Hook Update and JFK, who is responsible and why.
But that's where you want to find it, Dan.
Oh, okay.
Thanks, Jim.
Now, I do think we can all agree, however, that We can all pretty much say it's safe to say the truth extends further than the 9-11 Commission report.
That's just the obvious.
Yes.
Yeah, I think we probably agree that nothing, really no major claim made by the 9-11 Commission has turned out to be true.
And in fact, you know, virtually the whole of the report is provably false.
So it's an understatement.
Michael, to suggest that, you know, we take exception to the report.
Yes, go ahead.
You both realize, and I don't know if everybody else does, but there's never been a criminal investigation into the greatest crime ever committed on American soil.
People sometimes have the misperception that the 9-11 Commission was a criminal investigation, but it wasn't.
And I'll also point out that there were Were zero pilots ever permitted to testify before the Commission as to the absurdity of this ludicrous notion that these alleged hijackers could have flown the airplane?
Yeah, yeah, that's a great place to begin because Dan correctly discerns that these pilots were utterly incompetent.
I mean, one who's supposed to have piloted the Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon couldn't even fly a Cessna.
So, I mean, They took a miscellaneous assortment of miscreants and cast them in a role they were utterly incapable and unqualified to fulfill.
That's just a first order of business.
But it turns out, in addition to two of the planes, We're not even in the air that day.
Flight 77 and Flight 11 North Tower, 77 Pentagon, weren't even in the air that day.
And pilots for 9-11 Truth, as I imagine Dan is well aware, tracked the other two flights.
93, discovered it was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville, and 175, which was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it had officially hit the cell tower, and where I obtained FAA registration records that reflected that the planes used for those flights And remember, the same aircraft can be used for different flights on different occasions today from Tampa to Chicago, tomorrow from New York to San Francisco.
We're not even formally deregistered until 28 September 2005, raising questions such as, how can planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9-11, and how can planes that crashed on 9-11 have still been in the air four years later?
And Dan, do you agree with that?
Well, I haven't done the in-depth study that Jim has, and now he's refreshing my memory as to where he stands on things.
But all I can attest to is that I know I was at Newark Airport the morning of 9-11, and I know for a fact that Flight 93 did depart the gate and take off with passengers and crew on board.
And I have a lot of people attacking me because they I misperceived what the narrow focus of our organization is saying.
Why are you even talking about hijackers when there were no planes involved on 9-11?
And I always refute that claim by stating that it was at Newark, and I know that airplane took off.
Yeah, yeah, there's no question the plane did take off.
You're absolutely right, Dan.
I think that's a misunderstanding of the no planes hypothesis.
It's all too conveniently It's really the conjunction of four different theses.
That Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower, and since it wasn't even in the air, that's not too tough to prove.
That Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that's one of the more challenging, because everyone thinks they know the plane hit the Pentagon.
That Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, as already alluded, and finally that 175 didn't hit the South Tower, that's the one that's the mind-boggler, because we have some 57 videos that purport to be of Flight 175 approaching and hitting the South Tower, so that's the one that poses the greatest challenge to analysis Most Americans think seeing is believing, notwithstanding that they've been raised on generations of movies, Superman, you know, Batman, Spider-Man, and the like, which are performing impossible feats, but they don't think about the fact that what's going on here, allegedly in real life, might be fabricated or fake just as much as events they see that are so spectacular in movies that they enjoyed immensely years ago.
But Jim, how do you account for the many people that claim they saw the aircraft hit the salt tower?
And there's also that photo, there's four independent photos of one taken by CNN and three taken by independent photographers showing that airplane with the bottom, on the bottom of it.
Oh, you mean with that flight management system on the bottom of it?
Yeah.
Factors seem to have entered in here.
I mean, it's most important to appreciate, as pilots for 9-11-2 have demonstrated, that a Boeing 747 At 700 to 1000 feet altitude, cannot travel at the speed that was found to be taking place in the videos, it would have physically come apart.
Pilots for 9-11 Truth have a video documentary they've done called 9-11 Intercepted, in which they illustrate what would have happened They appear to have taken the cruising speed at 35,000 feet and assumed it could travel that speed at the much lower altitude where the air is three times as thick, and therefore the turbines can't process it rapidly and they start to function as
You know, as brakes on the plane.
Moreover, however, we have the plane entering its whole length into the building in the same number of frames.
It passes its whole length through air.
In other words, there are no collision effects.
And we can demonstrate this both in the Hazarkhani, taken from the side, and the Eben Fairbanks, taken vertically up the side of the building.
That in both cases, when you count the number of frames, the plane passes its whole length in air in the same number of frames it passes its whole length into the building, which is a physical impossibility, indeed, as pilots have the plane falling apart.
But when it crumbled external to the building, the design was so sturdy and rugged There was no way in which either of those planes could have brought down either of those towers, but more importantly, they would have crumbled external to the building.
Body seats, luggage would have fallen to the ground.
The engines, which are massive, would probably have penetrated the building.
So what happened was, we find an engine at Church in Murray, except it was unloaded by Five agents wearing FBI vests and deposited on the sidewalk just sitting upright.
It turned out to be an antiquated engine that was no longer in use at the time.
So they constructed a certain number of props, but what they deceived us with was a visual recording of a physical impossibility, which tells us something was terribly wrong.
To elaborate further, there have been three theses that have been advanced as to how it was done.
One by a woman known as the Web Fairy, Rosalie Grable, suggested it was computer-generated imaging.
Ace Baker, who did a wonderful piece about 9-11 called 9-11 Psi Opera, suggested it was video compositing.
But both of those techniques would entail the presence or image of the plane only available after the fact, whereas we seem to have, as Dan was implying, the hundreds of witnesses who attest to seeing the plane approach to the building.
Well, it turns out that there's a form of holography that is very sophisticated that actually projects images onto the air where air molecules serve as a temporary screen and where I was sent years ago a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector showing one plane projecting the image of another plane Which appears to be exactly how it was done here.
There's a quite brilliant analysis by a fellow from the UK, where he has what he calls his 3D radar study of Flight 175, where he took the number of videos that enabled him to determine the location at specific times of 175 approaching the building, Well, the 52 that are available, about 27, serve that function and created a plot of the plane approaching the building.
He discovered subsequently that the FAA or NIST claimed to have a similar plot that they alleged to have been derived from radar study, but the radar data did not look right to him.
He subsequently discovered, however, that there actually was radar data, but that the radar data tracked an airplane that was 1,200 feet to the right of the projected image, which fits the scenario of the airborne holographic projector to a tee, and he applied the same analysis to the North Tower with the same result.
Wow!
Well, I'm not familiar with airborne Hologram projector Jim, so I can't dispute that part of it, but I've had people say that flight 170 shot 5 should have bounced off the solid tar like a Coke can and I contend at that speed, given the kinetic energy, the speed and the mass, that it would have passed through the building like Swiss cheese to a grater and shredded into a million pieces like we saw
Well, you have to look at the design of the building.
It turns out the windows were very narrow.
That was deliberate so that the sun's heat wouldn't get over You know, exceed the capacities of the air conditioning unit.
And when you look at the way in which the buildings were designed, you had each floor was a steel truss connected at one end with the massive core columns at the other to the external steel support columns.
Which were quite formidable in and of themselves, and then was two to four inches of concrete on top of the steel truss.
The difference being that the trusses had V-grooves that were two inches deep, so in some places it would only be two inches thick, but other four, since the buildings were 208 feet on a side, you had every building consisting of an acre of concrete on a steel truss.
Now in the case of the South Tower, Flight 175, was hitting the building at an angle, intersecting eight of those steel trusses filled with, you know, an acre of concrete.
I mean, it would have been absolutely impossible for it to have entered the building.
It would have crumbled external, and Bodies, parts, you know, tails, so forth, fall into the ground, but we have photos of the ground beneath both facades, and none of the debris that would be expected had this been a real collision is present there.
So, I think, Dan, when you look more closely at the design of the building and the physics of the interaction, it turns out the planes would have crumbled external to the building very much like a Coke can would, if you say, True, Eddie.
Can't suppress it up against, say, a stone wall, rather than acting like a cheese shredder.
It's because of the exact design.
On the other hand, you had an engineering department at Purdue produce a completely phony account of how it happened, where they ignore the fact the plane was approaching at an angle and intersecting with eight of these floors.
They have it come in as though it were entering a hangar of one floor only, and it's just a preposterous depiction.
But it was not a physical possibility for the plane to have entered the building.
Okay.
Jim, then how do you account for the hole in the side of the building in the shape of an aircraft?
Well, that was a cutout that appears to have been done with previously positioned explosives.
It's one of these cases where it's like a Hollywood movie, you know.
You remember like if Rambo, you know, is trying to save the American POWs held in a North Korean A prisoner of war camp.
You see bodies flying through the air, explosions, blood galore.
But they're not actually killing these actors.
You know, they'd have a hard time recruiting for a future film with little blood packets on little explosive charges and all this other stuff.
Special effects.
Well, there was an Israeli group.
They were known as a gelatin group that were in both of the buildings.
They were doing performance art external to the buildings.
It was all very, very peculiar.
But my surmise is they actually rigged the building with explosive charges to blow out something that looked like the cookie cutter cutout.
Though I must say that I have a colleague with whom I debated this who believes that actually the images of the plane was created by missiles being fired at the building just to create that special effect.
So those are two viable alternatives and I By the way, I just want to quickly say, according to the official explanation, the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapsed due to damage from airplane impacts and ensuing fires.
Well, World Trade Center Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper, also in the World Trade Center complex, collapsed completely and symmetrically into its own footprint due to office fires ignited by debris from the earlier collapse of World Trade Center 1.
And what you're talking about is such palpable nonsense from the point of view of engineering and physics, that it makes the whole report a joke.
Frankly, Michael, and the whole report is a joke.
And I'm glad you brought that up, Jim.
I just want to quickly mention and tag on to what you were saying about the demolition.
It's interesting because I randomly came across a video from, I believe it was MSNBC, and it's a short, very short clip of the bomb squad, and they're standing around Ground Zero.
They're standing near the base.
Where the columns are sticking out of the ground.
And I remember thinking, I don't recall ever seeing this!
And of course, this is something that was probably hidden away from a lot of people, so it's interesting that you mention that, Jim.
Well, you also mentioned Building 7, which actually did collapse in a classic controlled demolition at 5.20 in the afternoon, about seven hours after the North Tower was destroyed.
And it's fascinating to compare them because Building 7 May have been the most robust building ever designed by the hand of man.
It was erected over two enormous electrical generators producing backup electricity for New York City.
Among the differences between Building 7 and the Twin Towers, In the other buildings they used, in these massive steel
beams, they were hollowed out in the center because that provides nearly as much
structural support.
But in the case of Building 7, they used solid steel beams.
I don't believe that building could have any possibility of having collapse.
It was extraordinarily robust structurally.
They spent a great deal of time trying to prep it for demolition.
And when they finally were done, you saw this classic indent at the very top.
All of the floors come down exactly The same speed and into their own footprint, where Danny Jackowitz of the Netherlands, a demolition expert, was shown a video of the building without background context and explained, yeah, sure, of course, this was done by professional experts.
Hell, you didn't have to be a professional expert.
Dan Rather was actually looking at it and said, this just looks like the controlled demolition we see of resorts and casinos in Las Vegas.
And he got it spot on right there live on the air, Michael.
I mean, it was that bad.
Now, you look at the Twin Towers and the situation is completely different.
All right.
The, the, the.
The floors aren't moving.
So with Building 7, they all came down at the same time.
They aren't even moving in the twin towers, which are being blown apart in every direction from the top down.
That required some enormous source of energy.
And mind you, this is well after the alleged impact of the planes and the modest fires have taken place.
I mean, what would cause this massive Exploding energy in every single direction.
Just ridiculous.
And it works its way down through the building.
And finally, when it's all said and done, the buildings are actually being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which would subsequently envelop New York City, lower Manhattan.
And when it's done, unbelievable, but I had Father Frank Morales from St.
Mark's Episcopal Church on my shows on two different occasions, and he attested to me both times that those buildings were destroyed to or even below ground level.
In other words, there was no pile of debris.
Had there been any kind of collapse, you would have had roughly 12% of the height of the original, or in the case of 110-story buildings, 13 1⁄2 floors of debris, but it wasn't there.
In the case of Building 7, however, you had 5 1⁄2 floors of debris, which is 20% of 47 floors.
So they were done in completely different methods.
My goodness, and Dan, sorry I ran you over there.
Go ahead, Dan.
Jim, in your opinion, what brought down the Twin Towers?
Well, it appears to have been a nuclear event in a very sophisticated kind of nuke without a high degree of radioactive contamination, though you may or may not know, Dan, they made it illegal to have a Geiger counter in New York City in relation to the event, which is, you know, on his face, completely, frankly, absurd.
The U.S.
Geological Survey studied dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found a host of elements, including lithium, lanthanum, tritium, some of which only exist in radioactive forms that would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event.
So the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official account.
So you believe That's what William Rodriguez experienced in one of the sub-basements that day prior to airplane impact.
I know Willie, he actually came out here to Madison where he and I had dinner after he spoke, and when he started talking about how the sub-basements were filling up with water, I realized the reason they had that premature explosion, which was supposed to coincide with the apparent impact of the planes on the building, was to drain the sprinkler systems of water so they couldn't extinguish the very modest fires that remained after all.
In fact, the fire chief who was up in Building 7 said, we only got a couple of modest fires.
I think a couple of lines will enable us to put it out.
When they began the premature destruction of the South Tower, And those buildings, Dan, were built like three 30-story buildings on top of one another, and the top 34 started to tilt to the side, and it's just astonishing.
I mean, I got a physicist that I made co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth when I founded the Society back in December of 2005, and when he wrote about it, he said he couldn't believe how the building started to tilt, and then poof!
It was just gone!
It was converted into You know, tons of very fine, cubic yards of very fine dust, once again, where, of course, the conversion of materials into very fine dust is another signature of the use of nuclear devices.
Did you read Dr. Judy Wood's book?
I didn't.
Dan, I interviewed Judy 15 times way back.
In fact, it was in 2006.
On, as I recall, it was the 5th of November 2006, I had her on my show for the first time, and she was talking about the use of directed energy weapons, and I found that a fascinating hypothesis.
I found it far more plausible than what I was getting from my co-chair, Stephen Jones, who is a physicist from BYU, who, it turns out, we later discovered had done a great deal of research about nuclear events and explosions. So he actually was a good guy to be
covering up the real causes, offering the thesis that nanothermite was responsible for
the destruction of the buildings.
Where nanothermite is an enhanced version of thermite, which is an incendiary, burns at very
intense temperatures, up to 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit, used to fuse railroad tracks,
for example, or to disable artillery pieces.
You drop a thermite grenade down the barrel of a howitzer and it melts all the mechanisms, so it's no longer a functional piece of artillery.
But Nanothermite is a very feeble explosive.
It has like 1 13th the explosive force of TNT, which is the universal standard.
Where one of the advocates of nanothermite, a fellow who is an associate professor emeritus from the University of Copenhagen, when asked how much nanothermite it would take to destroy a twin tower, he gave a staggering estimate of As I recall, something like 300,000 metric tons.
In other words, it would be like filling up a twin tower with circus peanuts.
I mean, this is how absurd the theory is that Stephen Jones and his allies have advocated.
I did research with a fellow who is an engineer, chemical engineer.
We went through all the literature and in 2006 we published three different articles about the nanothermite hypothesis.
How could it possibly be responsible for the destruction of the buildings?
One of which was entitled is 9-11 truth based upon a false theory.
And you know, it ought to put the end to nanothermite.
But the fact is that you have groups of disinformation agents working in JFK, I would say 80% of those who claim to be doing research on JFK are actually working the other side of the street to conceal what really happened.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the percentage in relation to 9-11 was comparable or even greater.
They did in fact find nanothermite in the debris field of all three buildings, right?
Yeah, well look, what they did was they used nanothermite or even thermite to cut the pillars after the event, you know.
It also turns out that nanothermite turns out to be a byproduct of these nuclear processes or something that's the equivalent thereof.
So I don't think there's An aspect here of nanothermite that isn't better explained by the nuclear hypothesis, which cannot only explain the presence of nanothermite, but how the buildings were destroyed, which nanothermite cannot.
Now, you asked about Willie Rodriguez, and that's a really fascinating story.
It turned out There were two members of 9-11 Truth, Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who went about trying to sort out the relationship between the explosions in the sub-basements that occurred in both buildings in relation to the apparent hits of the buildings by the planes.
And it turned out that perhaps as a feature of hand-eye coordination, the explosions in the sub-basements Which were going to be explained away by jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts actually occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the visual impact of the planes on the building.
So we had a very telling story.
In fact, they called it seismic proof 9-11 was an inside job when they reported Yes, it's kind of ridiculous that they were claiming that it was the jet fuel that took the building down.
It melted the steel.
When you know, that's ridiculous.
It's complete bullshit.
No, I agree.
And this is That's what our own government is giving us about 9-11.
You got to realize this is Bush Cheney.
Now they only, you know, they came into office by stealing the election in Florida.
Al Gore, had there been a legitimate account, would have been President of the United States.
But the fact is they had to come into office to bring us 9-11, which appears to have originated in the fertile imagination of Bibi Netanyahu back in the 1980s, where he would publish a book around 1987 based on a conference he held in Jerusalem on terrorism, how the West can win when the very concept wasn't in the consciousness of Well, the whole plan was designed to draw American forces into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states that had served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region and to eventually confront the Persian nation of Iran.
It didn't play out that way because of the intervention of Russian and Iranian forces at the request of the Syrian government, which Most Americans to this day, I'm embarrassed to say, don't understand it's already a democracy, where Bashar al-Assad is a democratically elected president of Syria, who has the support of 80% of the Syrian people.
So we can't possibly have been in Syria to bring democracy to Syria, because Syria was already a democracy.
I agree with you 100% on everything you just said, Jim.
I can't dispute any of it.
If you look at the Greater Israel Project, and you look at the Promised Land, and you look at the countries, if you overlay that on a map, it all makes sense.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, Dan.
And the way, you know, the Palestinians have been cheated here forever.
Where I'm, you know, I am not remotely anti-Semitic but I am strongly anti-Zionist.
Me too, me too.
But yeah, the variety of Zionism to which I'm most strongly opposed combines a belief in Jewish superiority Where all the other races only exist to serve the Jews on this variety of Zionism and dubious historical claims to the, you know, entitlement to the lands of Palestine.
I think that's all completely wrong and the way in which the Israelis have treated the Palestinians has been the major human rights issue of our lifetime, and it's embarrassing to me that this president, whom I support very strongly, has been on the wrong side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Well, you look at who got him in office, Sheldon Adelson.
And you look at the son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who spent the nights at Benjamin Netanyahu's house as a kid.
And you realize that the pressures that are on Trump right now, as far as
exposing it all, do you believe if he was reelected that Trump would move
forward with trying to open up a 9-11 gym?
I've been waiting.
I do believe that actually.
I do believe it.
I mean, here's a reason why.
The day after he was interviewed by a local New York television station, and he explained that the same builders who had erected the World Trade Center were working for him now, that there was no way planes could have been responsible for destroying those buildings, that that was impossible.
Something else had to have been involved.
He actually said, he used the word bombs, And when you recognize bombs as another term for powerful explosive forces, he was spot on.
Well, how's he going to prevent from getting JFKed by the Khazarian mob like Kennedy was?
Dan, there have been multiple attempts to assassinate the president.
Most Americans do not know, at the State of the Union address, Nancy Pelosi had a poisoned palm.
She had something like a tape with a poison on it.
She extended her hand to Trump in a very odd way so he couldn't see it.
He knew it was coming and declined to shake her hand.
You may remember that was a discussion of some controversy.
We have a lip reader who has surveyed the footage and it turns out the members of Congress were all actively talking about what would happen after Trump was dead two hours hence from a heart attack that would be induced by the poison that Nancy Pelosi was to deliver.
Wow, I didn't realize there were several assassination attempts on the guy.
Oh yeah, some say four.
I think it could have been as many as twelve.
Well, it's obvious that AIPAC controls the 535 members of Congress.
It's disgusting!
Just like the Golan Heights, the U.S.
Congress is Israeli-occupied territory, Dan!
It's just embarrassing!
What pressures do you think are exerted on those 535 members to prevent them from speaking out?
Do you think they're bribed, blackmailed, compromised?
No, they're asked to take a pledge early on to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the United States.
Cynthia McKinney revealed it back in 2011 in an interview on Press TV, which is a media news service which has interviewed me a hundred times.
but not recently. And Cynthia at the time said she thought everybody knew, but she was the only one
who had the balls to actually talk about it. Yeah, and look what happened to Ilhan Omar when
she tried to speak out on Gem Trafficar. Yes, yes, yes. I mean, this is a villain.
Yes, for those that don't remember, Cynthia was under attack by the Israel lobby when she refused
to sign the Pledge of Allegiance to Israel. The pledge, yes, that's right.
That's right.
She's a super person.
I think she's living abroad too, Dan.
She's somewhere, I think, in Southeast Asia, if I'm not mistaken.
But, I mean, she's a wonderful, wonderful person.
Yeah, yeah.
I know she's not living in the States anymore.
Yeah, she's no longer living in the States.
Actually, she was on the program a few years ago.
I'm not quite sure if she moved back or if she's still overseas.
She's still overseas.
I know she's still overseas.
I know she's still overseas.
Really unfortunate what happened with her.
Well, as a person, see, I mean, you know, if you decline to sign the pledge, and I had
a friend with him, I do these JFK shows, we were doing updates on the latest research
on JFK until this coronavirus kind of threw our schedule off.
And we had done what?
215 or maybe 300.
I mean, we just had a staggering number.
He asked me before one of these shows, we were discussing the pledge, did I know how many members of the then current Congress had refused to sign the pledge?
And I had to acknowledge I did not.
And he put up one finger of one hand.
Wow, that's amazing.
How bad is that?
How bad is that?
Well, the tragedy, I think, is that the bulk of the American populace doesn't even know what AIPAC
stands for or what it represents.
And they don't realize how much the Israelis control our media. I have a panel of 100
executives from CNN, all of whom are dual U.S. Israeli citizens.
I have another panel from NBC of 100 executives, all of whom are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
I have a third panel from the New York Times, another 100 executives, all of whom are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
It's that bad.
Right, right.
Are you familiar with the Hezbollah project?
1983 that Israel launched.
Remind me Dan.
Okay, well it was, well in 1983 there were over 50 independent news outlets and today
six control 96% of the news that we read or watch but concurrent with that figure in 1983
Alonzo Hasbara project, which was designed essentially to...
infiltrate the media to give the favorable impression of Israel, to get American support
of Israel, and they were successful in doing it.
Yes, very, very, very, yes, yes, yes.
And, of course, you're right.
I mean, Ivanka even converted to Judaism to marry Jared.
I've long suspected Jared was actually Mossad.
He has much too much a role here.
The idea of moving the U.S.
Embassy to Jerusalem, that had to be, you know, the status of Jerusalem has to be a part of a A comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, declaring the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
There was just the discovery of a massive deposit of natural gas beneath the Golan Heights.
That was outrageous.
He defunded the UN Refugee Agency that dealt with Palestinian refugees.
That incensed me tremendously.
And then, Dan, you may or may not know, he even, by executive order, redefined anti-Semitism so that criticism of the government or actions of the government of Israel is officially anti-Semitic.
I mean, that's just outrageous.
In every other way, I tend to be supportive of Trump, but I'm a very caustic critic of his foreign policy in relation to Israel.
And taking out Hassan Soleimani was an outrageous act.
This was a great man, a great general.
Who was, you know, the Israelis' very best, and he was a coordinator of Hezbollah and other forces that were anti-Israeli, so that had to be engineered by Bibi, you know, asking the Donald to do him a favor by taking this guy out at an airport in Iraq, which was also, of course, a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
I was outraged by that act.
Yeah, me too.
Because I follow Sola Mamie too.
Why do you think they took him out?
Oh, oh, well, remember, Hezbollah defeated the Israeli army in their invasion of Lebanon.
It was absolutely stunning, because the Israeli army is like the force most powerful in the world after the US, Russia, China, then Israel, and yet they were defeated by Hezbollah, and it was because of Soleimani's genius In marshalling the right forces, tactics, and techniques, the Israelis have a very long memory, and they are very vengeful.
I mean, they really are Old Testament creatures, or worse.
So this was, I think, just a matter of, you know, retaliation against a man who'd embarrass them.
Okay, that's what I had heard as well.
So, are you familiar with Brendan O'Connell?
Well, if I could get him on TV and radio programs, I wish I could get him on both of your programs, because he's very knowledgeable about a lot of things regarding the Middle East and South Asia, Israel's relationship with China and Russia, and the Belt and Road Initiative.
But he claims that Iran, the leadership, is actually in bed with Israel, and I have a difficult time believing that.
I don't believe that for a second.
I've even been to Iran.
I participated in an international conference in Tehran in 2014, and I have a very favorable impression of Iran.
You know, most Americans think that they're taking the American embassy Was, you know, Israelis striking first against the United States when we had engineered a coup against the democratically elected government of Iran back in 1953.
So they were simply regaining control of their own government.
It was engineered by Kermit Roosevelt, who was a cousin of Teddy.
Teddy was a great man.
I can't say the same for Kermit.
But this was one of the very first successful coups executed by the CIA.
Now, if you study the history of Iran, you discover that Iran really truly is a peace-loving nation that has not launched a war of aggression against any other state since 1775.
Why did I do that?
To put that in perspective, Dan, I explained to my audience that the ratification of the Constitution began in 1787, that George Washington was elected our first president in 1789.
So for longer than the United States has existed as a constitutional republic, Iran has not launched a war of aggression against any other state.
Your knowledge is overwhelming, Dan.
Man, I've been doing this a long time, and we're into issues, you know, that I haven't cared about and researched extensively for many, many years.
I can tell.
So tell me, big picture again, who planned and executed 9-11?
Well, it was a combination of the CIA, the neocons, and the Department of Defense who'd come from the Project for a New American Century, most of whom We're dual U.S.-Israeli citizens and Bibi Netanyahu.
Ehud Olmark.
They appear to have been the brains behind 9-11.
And, of course, Dick Cheney.
You see, you had the actual executive director carrying out on the ground was Dick Cheney in a bunker beneath a White House where Michael Rupert, in his brilliant book Crossing the Rubicon, was able to piece together Cheney's role just based on published sources.
I mean, this was a brilliant piece of work.
Yeah.
Well, how do you feel the City of London and Rothschild fits into it?
Oh, well, yes, of course.
I mean, it's unbelievable how awful the damage done to the world by the Rothschild banking enterprise.
Muammar Gaddafi was actually a great humanitarian who shared the wealth of Libya with the Libyan people.
He had a national health care, national public education.
He'd give like $25,000 Gifts to newly married couples to start their families.
He was undertaking the Great Waterworks Project that would have turned North Africa into a veritable oasis.
He was also introducing the Gold Dinar, which would have rapidly become the currency of all of Africa.
And therefore, he fell into the sights of the Rothschilds, where Hillary, as then Secretary of State, I mean, I'm telling you, Libya under Gaddafi was probably the closest to a truly humane society ever to have been realized on the face of Earth.
And this slaughter of the Libyan people and his assassination were crude acts that could only come from the malevolent mind of someone who's as disgusting an inhuman being as Hillary Clinton.
Where she cackled about it.
He actually didn't put up a fight.
He was proceeding in a convoy under white flag of surrender to a location specified by Hillary's Secretary of State when she had the convoy interdicted, had him sodomized with a bayonet, got castrated and killed.
I mean, it was brutal.
And then she cackled about it.
She paraphrased Julius Caesar of the Gallic Wars and said, we came, we saw.
He died.
Cackle, cackle, cackle.
Yeah, I saw it.
It was disgusting.
Yeah, this is a disgusting human being.
I mean, really, not even really truly doesn't deserve to be qualified as human.
I call them subhumans, yeah.
Not just her, but anybody that was involved with the planning and execution of 9-11.
And it was used as the occasion for the Patriot Act, which was, you know, a couple thousand pages sitting on the shelf.
Which was actually modeled after the East German Stasi to create this new department of Homeland Security that consolidated some 35 different separate agencies, where we heretofore had the benefit of many of these agencies were in competition with one another to figure out what's going on in the world.
Which anyone who has studied these matters intellectually knows is far more successful to have competing research teams than to have one unified monolithic that's going to suppress research and information that isn't part of its official narrative, and thus has it been.
Well, the greatest thing Trump could do, or one of those, would be to abolish the Department of Homeland Security and restructure the government as it was prior to 9-11.
That would be a tremendous benefit.
I agree with you, and he should also register AIPAC as a foreign agent, which Kennedy, I believe, tried to do, right?
Jack did with the World Jewish Conference, yeah, yeah.
The Israelis were only one party of the, you know, the groups that were sponsoring the assassinations.
It included the CIA because Jack was threatening to shatter it into a thousand pieces.
It included the American military because Jack had not invaded Cuba, contrary to the unanimous recommendation.
He had signed an above ground test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, contrary to the unanimous opposition.
And now he was pulling all our forces out of Vietnam, which would have occurred by the end of 1964, which they also opposed adamantly.
So they threw in.
Lyndon Johnson really was the brains behind it.
He wanted to be president of all the people.
The anti-Castro Cubans were upset because the CIA let them believe that Jack had interfered with air support in the Bay of Pigs, you know.
The Mafia was upset because Bobby as Attorney General was cracking down on organized crime and bringing more indictments and convictions than ever before in history.
He wasn't one of J. Edgar Hoover's favorite people either, right?
No, no, no.
And just as J. Edgar, so it was really Lyndon and J. Edgar, you know, because Lyndon made him the FBI, the investigative agency for JFK to guarantee it would be covered up.
So this was all very well orchestrated.
But just as Edgar had sex dossiers on members of Congress, they'd be very clever about it.
You know, you'd have an agent drop by the office of a senator and say, Senator, we just want you to know that this has come into our possession.
And, you know, give him a photograph of him in bed with a woman other than his wife.
And we want you to know we're going to make sure this doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
We hope you'll remember us at the time of appropriations.
The mafia had a sex dossier on Edgar in compromising positions with his close personal friend Clyde Tolson.
So the mob was able to exercise influence over Hoover just as he was influencing influence over members of Congress.
But once the Giovalazzi hearings took place where the structure of organized crime was outlined with such Wow.
precision and specificity is no longer politically palatable to deny it. Only then did Edgar
acknowledge the existence of organized crime. And then you had the Texas oilmen who were upset
because Jack was threatening to cut you on the polition allowance, which was a fantastic tax
write-off on the ground that oil was a finite resource and by pumping oil out of the ground
they were putting themselves out of business.
And then as you quite properly observe Israel where JFK was at loggerheads with David Ben-Gurion, a founder and first PM of Israel.
Who appears to have resigned in disgust after instructing the Mossad to participate in the assassination.
So, Dan, we've identified there were eight different assassins, none of whom were named Lee Harvey Oswald and Neely Blaza.
One was a Dallas deputy sheriff on the top of the county records building.
Another was an Air Force expert inside the triple underpass.
Another was an anti-Castro Cuban in the Dow tax.
Another was a soldier of fortune, maybe the best shot in the world at the intersection of the triple underpass and the picket fence.
There was a Dallas police officer tied into the CIA who was on the grassy knoll.
There was Lyndon Johnson's personal hitman In the Texas School Book Depository, but on the opposite side, where no shots actually were fired from the alleged assassin's lair on the sixth floor, and where there was another shooter in the plaza area, I identified the first six I just enumerated, Ali Dahmagard, the seventh.
The assessment with which I agree, and it was he in the Pergola area who came from Toronto who appears to have been representing the Bronfman family and the interests of Israel.
And then there turns out to be one more shooter that was on the grassy opposite.
The opposite side, Grassy, where there was a single tree, and where I had heretofore thought, you know, there was no place for an assassin to conceal himself, but I've now seen two different photographs in the possession of two different students of him standing up with his rifle beside the tree.
So he's the only one of the eight we have yet to identify.
I'm enjoying the hell out of listening to you, Jim.
You're such a walking, talking encyclopedia of knowledge here.
Getting back, if we could, to 9-11.
Sure.
And your claim that there were two aircraft airborne heading west.
Do you concur that the uninterruptible autopilot came into play with the control of those aircraft?
I don't think that they actually made a difference, because it was using this airborne holographic projector, which is why the images of the planes could enter the building with no collision effects.
In fact, you may have noticed there was this glitch, because there was a nose-out phenomenon, and all of a sudden, in filming this most important event in American history, You had the TV go to black, fade to black, because there was a nose out that wasn't supposed to occur.
It was another one of those hand-eye coordination problems.
And as you well know, the nose of these aircraft is their most fragile, and yet it was emerging completely intact, which is, of course, an utter physical impossibility.
So that, in fact, you know, the Phenomena here was really cleverly done to deceive the American people.
Very cleverly done.
And most Americans, you know, don't even understand.
It was only years later and it was revealed this new form of holography that doesn't require a screen or something solid to project the image.
It can be done on the air molecules functioning as a temporary screen.
Wow.
I hadn't heard, I hadn't heard all that regarding holographic images before.
So, you're saying that observers in New York that saw an airplane coming up, it was just coming in with just a hologram?
Yeah, yeah, it was a hologram.
And we got, there are, Andrew Johnson, who is an ally of Judy Wood in the UK, Uh, did a review of all the witness reports and there were some 500 eyewitness reports
And they were enormously varied.
Some saw a large plane, some saw a small plane, some saw a commercial plane, some saw a military plane.
But the fact that you have any reports of seeing a plane in the air before the intersection with the building means it cannot have been computer-generated images or video composition Which occurs in the, say, 17 seconds between the time that the film is originally taken and it's released for broadcast, where they could have had images of a plane.
But then, as I observed before, you would have only seen the images of the plane in the rebroadcast footage, not in real time.
Okay.
Michael, you want to chime in here with anything?
Because you said you had your opinions about what went on that day.
Actually, I wanted to turn your attention to a clip of Donald Trump doing an interview.
Okay.
I have a window that looks directly at the World Trade Center and I saw this huge explosion.
I was with a group of people and I really couldn't even believe it.
And even I think worse than that, for years, I've looked right directly at the building.
I'd see the Empire State Building in the foreground and the World Trade Center in the background.
And now I'm looking at absolutely nothing.
It's just gone.
And it's just hard to believe.
Donald Alan Marcus here.
Your building, Trump Tower, is one of the great tourist attractions in the world.
It's well known universally.
Are you taking any precautions there in light of what happened at the World Trade Center?
Well, Alan, we've always had, as you know, very, very strong security, but there's very little you can do about planes crashing into a building.
I mean, you look at Larry Silverstein, who's a terrific owner in New York and a very good friend of mine, who I just called.
I was very worried about him.
Because I assume maybe he was in the building.
He took possession of the building one week ago.
As you know, he just bought the World Trade Center.
Right.
And he was in his office and he was getting ready to move into the World Trade Center over the next two weeks.
So when I just spoke to him, there's nothing you can do when people are going to be bombing planes at your building.
Yeah, he actually took possession six weeks in advance, fired the security firm that had been looking after the World Trade Center since it first opened in 1907, hired an Israeli firm, Kroll, and renegotiated the insurance policies so there was now a terrorist clause.
And because there were allegedly two plane attacks, he got double indemnity and wound up pocketing some $4.5 billion based on a $114 billion investment.
Maybe the world is going to be changing and maybe you're going to have F-16s flying all over the city, etc.
It's a pretty tough situation.
Donald, you have one of the landmark buildings down in the Financial District, 40 Wall Street.
Did you have any damage or what's happened down there?
Well, it was an amazing phone call I made.
40 Wall Street actually was the second tallest building in downtown Manhattan.
And it was actually before the World Trade Center was the tallest.
And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second tallest, and now it's the tallest.
And I just spoke to my people and they said it's the most unbelievable site.
It's probably seven or eight blocks away from the World Trade Center and yet Wall Street is littered with two feet of stone and brick and mortar and steel and there are thousands of people walking over the debris over the Brooklyn Bridge where they're sending them out over the Brooklyn Bridge to Brooklyn and then I guess they're going to have to figure out how to get home from there.
But they have between a foot and two feet of debris right in front of a building that's probably, you would say Alan, six or seven blocks away.
Donald, this is Roland Smith.
Hi Roland.
How are you doing on this kind of day?
You know, at some point we're going to put all this behind us, and you as a visionary, particularly in New York real estate, What do you think that we ought to do as a city, as a people, when all of this gets, when the mourning stops, when the dead are honored, and we've found out what caused it and maybe corrected it, what does the city need to do?
Well, I guess the big thing that you really will have to do is never forget.
You just can't forget that something like this happened.
I was so disappointed when they closed the stock exchange, but of course, at some point, you had no choice, you know, when they initially Announced it was closing because you want to just say the hell with it.
You're going forward.
Nothing's going to change.
But the fact is something has changed very dramatically.
And I think one of the very sad things is going to be when you look at the skyline of New York, which has become so emblazoned in your own memory, and you look at the skyline of New York and you see these buildings, these two buildings, whether you love them or don't love them, they were a great part of the skyline.
And then when you look at the skyline after 2001, And you're going to see a skyline without these two bills.
You're going to say, what happened?
People won't believe it.
You know, when you show your children or your grandchildren in years to come what New York looked like in the year 2000, and then what New York looked like just a year later, they're going to say, what happened?
It's hard to believe.
In the year 2000, Donald, you considered running for president.
If you had done that and if you had been successful, what do you think you'd be doing right now?
Well, I'd be taking a very, very tough line, Alan.
I mean, you know, most people feel they know at least approximately the group of people that did this and where they are, but boy, would you have to take a hard line on this.
This just can't be tolerated and it's got to be very, very stern.
This is, as you and I were discussing before, Alan, this was probably worse than Pearl Harbor.
Many more people are dead and, you know, they don't know, they have no idea, but I have somebody that was down there who witnessed at least 10 people jumping out of the building from 70 and 80 stories up in the air.
I mean, you probably have 25 or 30,000 is the number I've heard, but I would think would be much more than that.
I think the most of the damage will be caused not by even in the building in terms of the people dead, but by the people on the streets from falling debris.
Donald, you're probably the best known builder, particularly of great buildings in the city.
There's a great deal of question about whether or not the damage And the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by the airplanes, by architectural defect, or possibly by bombs or aftershocks.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Well, it was an architectural defect.
You know, the World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building.
Don't forget, that took a big bomb in the basement.
Now, the basement is the most vulnerable place, because that's your foundation.
And it withstood that.
And I got to see that area about three or four days after it took place, because one of my structural engineers actually took me for a tour.
Because he did the building.
And I said, I can't believe it.
The building was standing solid and half of the columns were blown out.
I mean, so this was an unbelievably powerful building.
If you know anything about structure, it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside.
The steel, the reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had the steel on the outside.
So you had the steel on the outside of the building.
This was a pretty interesting interview, by the way.
Oh, yeah.
It's not the one or two which I alluded, but yes, it is a very good one.
That's why when I first looked, and you had big, heavy I-beams.
When I first looked at it, I couldn't believe it because there was a hole in the steel.
And this is steel that was, you remember the width of the windows in the World Trade Center, folks?
I think you, you know, if you were ever up there, they were quite narrow.
And in between was this heavy steel.
I said, how could a plane, even a plane, even a 767 or a 747, or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through this steel?
I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously, because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall.
Most buildings are built with the steelers on the inside around the elevator shaft.
This one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have.
And it was almost just like a can of soup.
You know, Donald, we were looking at pictures all morning long of that plane coming into Building No.
2, and when you see that approach the far side, and then all of a sudden, within a matter of milliseconds, the explosion pops out the other side.
Right.
I just think that it was a plane with more than just fuel, I think.
Obviously, they were very big planes.
They were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast, it seemed to be coming down into the building.
So it was getting the speed from going downhill, so to speak.
It just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane because you're talking about taking out steel, the heaviest caliber steel that was used on a building.
I mean, these buildings were rock solid.
And, you know, it's just an amazing, it's an amazing thing.
Sounds like Trump thinks there was an explosion.
Oh yeah, well that's what he said in the other interview.
Something else had to be involved.
Bombs.
Planes could not have brought down these buildings.
Right.
Oh, I agree with that 100%.
And you claim it was a nuclear explosion in the basement.
But let me ask you, Jim, have you been following, Michael, have you been following the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 inquiry and where their legal action has moved them?
That's actually one of the things I was going to ask you and what I was alluding to earlier during the interview, Dan, about the legal issues.
Oh, OK.
OK, that's what you were talking about.
I'm in contact with the board members, Mick Harrison as the litigator, and Dave Mice, Michael, the chairman, and Richard Gates sits on the board of directors.
He's the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, and they don't legally, they make me point this out every time I'm on a program, they don't legally represent us.
They're not endorsing yet what we're saying or doing.
But in the future, if we can produce enough evidence from pilot testimony regarding the absurdity of these pilots flying the aircraft, which we're doing through recorded testimony from pilots around the world, they might entertain the idea of moving forward to a U.S.
attorney to petition him to convene a grand jury investigation.
And then the other thing, about a month ago, I filed an FAA whistleblower report with the FAA through their hotline and I submitted a ton of information to them and a few weeks ago I got an email acknowledging receipt of that information and then just two weeks ago
I got an email from a senior manager of the FAA field office in Seattle acknowledging they had received the packet of information and assigned a case number to it.
So they asked if I could set up a phone call with them and they gave me the time and date that they wanted to do it.
And I told him, of course, and I was all set.
In the interim, I sent him more information on this uninterrupted autopilot.
There's a 66-page document that actually was produced for the electronic hijacking in Malaysia at 370 that goes into detail how the system works and everything.
And the next day, they emailed me and said, we looked into what you provided.
And we didn't recognize the depth and breadth of what you provided us here.
And we're going to need more time to review the material.
And the people that we need in on the conversation right now are on summer vacation.
So we need to wait for them to come back.
So I wrote him back an email because I had a Five year confrontation with the FAA, Homeland Security, Transportation and Justice on another whistleblower issue and said we're talking about the potential weaponization of commercial jet aircraft in flight with this uninterruptable autopilot and it's a passenger and aircrew safety issue.
So I've made a safety issue out of it and so Legal wise, we're moving forward through the, hopefully, to the Lawyers Committee and through the FAA to try to force some kind of action.
And we feel that we have to run the full gamut here.
And I have such lack of faith and distrust in the US government.
I don't blame you.
I don't blame you.
Perhaps it's an exercise in futility, but we're moving forward with it anyhow.
Right.
I'm so glad you mentioned that.
Jump in there.
A couple points here.
I do believe the original plan was to use remotely controlled aircraft to hit the twin towers.
However, it turned out that because of their design, it wasn't physically possible for them to enter the building.
They had to have the planes At least appear to enter the building before they exploded so they could have the pseudo-explanation of the intense fires, which were over a thousand degrees too low to affect the steel.
In fact, there was a major fire in the North Tower in 1975 on the 11th floor that actually burned at over 2,000 degrees temperature.
They didn't have to replace the steel.
But they did replace the steel just because, you know, to accommodate public perception.
This is when they introduced a sprinkler system that they then had to nullify so it wouldn't extinguish the very modest fires.
Now Dov Zuckheim, who was a controller of the Pentagon at the time and who is again another U.S.
Israeli citizen, had a remote control company, you know, so I think that was the original plan.
It was only it turned out physically impossible for it to carry out.
In addition, Barry Jennings was actually in the Building 7 that morning.
He went there because Rudy Giuliani had a two-floor command and control with its own air and water supply.
When he got up there, he was from the New York Emergency Management Unit.
When he got up there, he found half-eaten sandwiches, still steaming cups of coffee.
A fireman came along and said, we got to get you out of here.
While he was inside Building 7 that morning, Explosions were going off.
He had a stairwell blown out from under him.
At one point, he felt himself stepping over bodies.
In the pitch black, he couldn't see the bodies, but he could feel the bodies.
When he got out, he was interviewed, and you know, his interview got a pretty wide distribution.
I suspect you can find it still online.
Barry Jennings.
Well, one of the notable failures of the 9-11 Commission Report, it did not even mention Building 7.
Right.
So NIST had to do a whole separate report on Building 7.
And like two days before their supplemental report on Building 7 was to be released, Mary Jennings died.
The guy who could have his own personal experience if contradicted the report, and they claim this too, was because of very modest fires.
And I'm telling you, frankly, that's so absurd, I can't believe anyone, anyone would believe it.
Now, I mentioned about the infiltration of 9-11 being perhaps even more massive than JFK.
Both Judy Wood and her do group and architects and engineers set up by Richard Gage will not talk about who is responsible and why for 9-11.
They won't talk about it.
Richard Gage said it's not part of the charter of architects and engineers.
But look, think of it this way.
Why would any American give a damn about this question of how exactly the buildings were destroyed if they don't have a narrative that puts it into context?
So I have been at odds with Richard Gage for quite some time now and that he is in this
key role piloting this effort guarantees, I tell you, guarantees it's going to be a
failure.
It will be unsuccessful.
I remember years ago he went on C-SPAN and I was just shocked because he was still talking
about nanothermite.
So I published on my blog, I said, on C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9-11 truth in a time warp.
Because we'd already published those three articles I did with Mark, blowing apart the nanothermite hypothesis, and here he was still reaffirming it.
Richard Gage is not a good guy.
I'm very Well, Jim, I could say, and well, I can't confirm that he's not a good or a bad guy, but I can't confirm that he won't answer that question.
Even in private, he won't give me an answer.
Yeah, it's ridiculous!
You see, it makes all their work just spinning wheels in an abstract space.
This is why I like this very good piece by Art Olivier.
It's historical fiction about what happened to Flight 93 and the passengers.
He has them landing at Cleveland, and we did have the mayor of Cleveland, whose name was White, although he was Black.
Talk about Flight 93 landing at Cleveland.
And the passengers being hustled into this very distant and remote NASA facility.
Now in his brilliant docu-fiction, it's called Operation Terror, which you can watch here.
They're actually going into a big chamber.
They don't realize what it is until the doors are sealed, but it's a destruction of even metallic parts.
So they're incinerated and there's nothing left of them.
Wow!
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
But I mean, you need the narrative.
And this is what neither Judy Wood nor architects and engineers, and get this, Judy Wood has a group of champions, you know, who will savagely attack anyone who opposed.
And while I had Judy Wood on my show 15 times between 2006 and 2008, I was championing the process of interaction between the computer and radio, so we'd go to her website and go through her documents and images, because she has this fabulous accumulation of photographs and records and charts and all this.
But, you know, she abandoned me in 2008 under a very odd set of circumstances, where she came on with this fellow who claims to have done acts of levitation in his garage.
And I asked him, you know, about his background, because we're talking about issues in electromagnetism, which is among the most complex areas of physics.
And he just, you know, sloughed it off by saying he flunked crayons and coloring books.
John Hutchison is the guy's name.
And Judy thought that was hilarious, but evidently I embarrassed her and she wouldn't have anything to do with me after that.
But much more serious matters at work.
When I organized the Vancouver hearings in 2012, I published a review, a five-star review of Where Did the Towers Go on Amazon.com, and I talked about it being a brilliant compilation of work, praise it to the sky, adding, however, that I felt that while she had shown that large meats hadn't been used, that she hadn't
Debunk the idea of small nukes having been involved.
And would you believe, I'd actually invited Judy and John Hutchison, in spite of the fact that we'd had this falling out, to speak at the Vancouver hearings.
And not only did Judy not ever respond to me, but although John Hutchison said he would, Another physicist, Judy, reined them in and wouldn't let them participate.
But when I came back from the Vancouver hearings, I found that my review of Judy Wood's book already had, oh, I think 3,000 comments, already 3,000 comments, overwhelmingly negative, of a five-star review.
Well, while I was there at the Vancouver hearings, I had several speakers who were substantiating that it had been a nuclear event, so I knew this was the correct hypothesis.
To explain what actually happened.
So I revised my review, I downgraded to three stars, and I began spelling out the evidence of the U.S.
Geological Survey, barium, strontium, lithium, lanthanum, tritium, and so forth, which as I observed before, some of which only exist in radioactive elements.
Would you believe if you went now to my review?
Remember, this is my review of her book.
This is not her book.
I think there are over 12,000 comments on my review, the vast majority of which are negative.
Wow.
Wow.
And get this.
I received a letter from Thomas Potter.
This was years ago.
Who is one of her champions, just as this fellow Andrew Johnson.
You know, she's got a Praetorian guard.
I mean, it took me a while to realize that the Judy Wood group is actually a cult.
They have a sacred text, where did the towers go?
They have a spiritual leader, Judy Wood.
They have a praetorian guard that will attack anyone who challenges the faith, because in the eyes of the true believers, they are heretics, of whom I am one.
So I received a very severe condemnation of me from one Thomas Potter.
Well, it was a list.
And when I didn't reply at all and, you know, rebutted what he was saying and explained my position and why I held it, one of them bounced and it came from the ADL.
Oh my.
And by the way, Jim, now that you've mentioned Judy Wood, her camp is definitely going to attack you now after this one.
Of course!
They've been attacking me for so long!
I mean, this is ridiculous!
You kicked the beehive tonight, that's for sure.
I mean, it's just ridiculous beyond belief.
So there you have it.
See, when it was scholars, it was still active and functioning.
You had three different groups.
You had scholars for 9-11, truth architects and engineers, and Judy Wood and her do group.
But only one of them is willing to address the issue of who was responsible and why.
And the others are limited hangouts.
In fact, they not only aren't willing to discuss who was responsible and why, but they won't even give you an adequate explanation of how it was done.
Right.
There's a long list of names I would have to find that are somewhat personally responsible for what happened that morning.
And there's a long list of them.
And one of those gentlemen, one of those gentlemen's names are quite known.
And it's a name that sort of goes unnoticed for his involvement during 9-11.
And that was our friend, Robert Moeller.
Well, that's very damn interesting.
Now, I have missed that.
That's a very nice connection.
Look, if somebody wants to know all the players, there's this wonderful website called Israel Did 9-11, all the proof in the world.
It is spectacular.
I'll just tell you.
My independent research confirms this was done compliments of the CIA, the neocons, and the Department of Defense, who were mostly dual U.S.-Israeli citizens who came from the Project for a New American Century that was advocating that now the U.S.
was the sole remaining superpower, that they could create a new empire that would endure for the next 100 years.
You know, for the new century.
But that was all a smokescreen.
This had nothing to do with the American empire.
They said the key to it was to have American military forces enter the Middle East and exert military and diplomatic pressure from that geopolitically sensitive area.
The whole idea was to come in and wipe out the modern Arab states and confront the Persian nation of Iran.
That was the agenda from the beginning.
Right, and Dan had asked me my position on all of this, and I have to be honest with you, I'm not quite sure how it all went down.
I just know that this was being planned out way in advance.
I even have to go as far back as to say as perhaps 1999.
Oh, I'm telling you, 1980s.
I'm telling you, 1980s.
It was done in the 1980s.
Trevor Burrus Or you think even earlier because I remember NORAD.
I just recall NORAD conducted hijacking exercises where planes were flown into the Pentagon
and the World Trade Center and this was 1999.
David Morgan No, Phoebe had the scheme by the late 1980s when he published this book, Terrorism Out of the West Can
Win.
I wanted to add, by the way, for Dan's benefit, I interviewed Major General Albert Stubblebine.
He was then retired, who was formerly in charge of all US.
military signals intelligence, all photographic intelligence about four crash sites.
And not only did General Stubblebine agree with me about all four of the crash sites, he gave additional reasons why I was correct.
Thank goodness.
We're gonna have to check that out.
I'm familiar with him.
Good man, he's seized the court.
He claims a missile hit the Pentagon, right?
Oh, we have a fair amount of substantiation that a missile was fired by a Global Hawk, an unmanned aerial vehicle,
to take out that wing of the Pentagon, where Donald Rumsfeld, having announced the day before,
the missing $2.3 trillion, had directed the section chief to bring all the accountants and financial experts there
with all the documents pertaining to the missing trillions.
So they'd all be gathered in one place to be taken out at one time by the firing of the missile into the building, which they then cover by claiming a plane hit the building.
And they actually did have a plane approach the building on a completely different trajectory, where the official trajectory of a Boeing 757, barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour, as you well know, Dan, isn't even aerodynamically possible, that that plane at that speed couldn't have got closer than 70 or even 80 feet of the ground, which is higher than the Pentagon is tall, where they had a plane approach from a different direction, came in, let's see, the other side of the Citgo station from the official approach and flew toward the building and then swerved over it about the same time the explosion occurred at the Pentagon to create the impression of the plane having hit the Pentagon.
I lay all this out in that 9-11 Who is Responsible and Why on Bitshoot, and go into it in some detail.
And because, you know, the photographic evidence is so crucial, I highly recommend anyone who wants to pursue this.
Then I also have two books on 9-11.
One is entitled The 9-11 Conspiracy, The Scamming of America that was based on a 2007 Conference I had here at Madison on the science and politics of 9-11 that includes a chapter by Judy Wood and another by her attorney, and then a second book, 9-11, The Nuking of America, you know, compliments of the CIA, the neocons, and the Department of Defense, and the Mossad available.
Still from moonrockbooks.com for those who want to, you know, what I have done, Dan, is specialize in bringing together groups of experts that take apart these complex, controversial issues, whether it's 9-11 or JFK or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing.
I've done it again and again and again.
And of the dozen books that are published now at Moonrock Books, three of which are sole-authored monographs, and one of which was a book about me and Kevin Barrett by the fellow who had become my series editor for Moonrock Books, the others that I've edited, six of them have been banned by Amazon.com.
Wow.
Wow.
That's pretty ridiculous.
Let me ask you this, Jan.
We do programs like this.
I'm active on social media.
I try to do programs like this as well.
Maybe not as many as you do, or as big of programs as you do.
You've written books.
There's 7.8 billion people on the planet.
How do we enlighten them?
I'm trying to go the legal road.
But how do you enlighten that many people to mobilize people to say or do something?
I mean, you've got over 190 countries in the world.
Where are the world leaders?
Why don't they speak out on these issues?
Surely they know the details.
Oh, I think, for example, the Russians know the ins and outs of 9-11.
Obviously, the Israelis who pulled it off know the ins and outs of 9-11.
A lot of people know the truth about 9-11.
But you see, we've got groups like the Judy Wood and her Do group, and especially architects and engineers.
To the American public, that looks so impressive to have some 1,400 architects and engineers.
Do you think they're going to get to the bottom of the matter, if anyone was?
Well, it was Vladimir Lenin who observed that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it, and that's exactly what you have here in Richard Gage.
He is leading the opposition to conceal the truth.
Well, let me go to another topic, Jim.
You talked about the nukes in the basement, and what do you attribute the molten iron pouring out of the building before it collapsed to?
It's actually not.
It appears to be batteries.
The Fuji Bank had a whole load of batteries there in case there were a power outage, and that is not molten steel.
I think it's more likely lead from the batteries.
And Stephen Jones, I confronted him at a conference in Chandler because he was basing his arguments on what I consider to be manufactured evidence, and I was calling him out on it, and it created quite a consternation in the group.
Peter Dale Scott asked me how I was supposed to account for, you know, this discrepancy.
And I think now I probably ought not to have hesitated, but I had to either not answer his question or spell out that I believe that Stephen Jones was in fact an agent of disinformation.
I'm more convinced of that today than I was then.
I wish I hadn't passed, because it looked like I was equivocating, you know, and not following through.
But I made a whole lot of very important points.
In fact, I would subsequently address this at the Midwest Conference on 9-11, and you can find that online, where I went through, you know, how we know that this was a nuclear event, and that the official account and the evidence that architects and engineers Stephen Jones and others have advanced is is shabby and fabricated, it's spun.
The only way you'd have all this molten metal, by the way, for months,
and it was there until mid-December, is if you had incredibly intense temperatures,
such as those generated by a nuclear explosion.
And if you look at aerial studies of the heat distribution, it confirms that this was a nuclear event.
I mean, I'm just telling you, the evidence is simply overwhelming
once you get a handle on it.
Okay, but where do we take all this?
Where do we go with it?
That's the thing, Dan.
You see, they have exercised, they have followed Lennon's brilliant advice that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
So who's the guy you're having to deal with?
Richard Gage.
And here you got Michael admitting even in private Gage won't talk about who is responsible and why.
That's because his whole role is to cover it up.
His whole role is to cover up who is responsible and why.
It was brilliant.
I mean, I reaffirm, in JFK, 80% of those dealing with JFK, I submit, are disinformation.
I've exposed individuals and groups.
I've probably published 20 blogs exposing individuals and groups who are disinformation in JFK.
Well, in 9-11, it's a little different because it's these larger groups.
But the way Architects and Engineers is being managed by Richard Gage, it's a limited hangout.
There are only three important questions.
Who was responsible?
How was it done and why?
They won't talk about who was responsible or why in their account of how it was done.
It's hopelessly inadequate.
So, there you have it.
I mean, it's just brilliant.
Okay.
Michael, comments?
Well, it's very odd that Richard won't answer that simple question, though.
Yeah, but that's just a narrow focus of what they're trying to address before a grand jury.
I mean, They're not going there with their evidence that they're presenting to a grand jury.
Yeah, but what evidence are they presenting?
Nanothermite?
This is just absurd!
No, the impossibility structurally that the buildings were brought down by jet fuel fire and aircraft impact damages.
That's their sole focus, is that it was a controlled demolition.
It structurally was impossible.
But look, I've already spelled out the difference between Building 7, which was a classic controlled demolition, and Buildings 1 and 2, the North and South Tower, which was not.
And you know, I mean, he's doing a brilliant job of managing the whole damn thing.
I mean, you got to give the guy credit.
It's like that little Dutch boy.
He's got his fingers in all the holes in the dike.
Well, I'm still following the lawyers committee and what their efforts are because They're the only legal act on the planet and it's a true test of the American justice system.
Dan, if you could get them to watch 9-11, who is responsible and why, that would be sensational.
It's less than two hours long and it covers the whole case from A to Z.
You watch it.
See if there's any way you could make inroads.
I mean, look, they won't even call me as a witness.
They're not going to reach out to me, Dan, because I upset their apple cart.
This is all staged.
This is all managed.
It's just like the reinvestigation of the death of JFK and Martin Luther King.
They actually tried to redo the cover-up more effectively than it had been done originally.
That was the role of the House Anyhow, you've exhausted me with your knowledge.
Thank you very much for everything that you just said.
Luther King to redo the cover-up better.
Well, anyhow, you've exhausted me with your knowledge.
Thank you very much for everything that you just said.
Yes, we're coming to a close.
Yeah, we're coming to a close, Dan.
And I do want to thank both of you for being on the program, no doubt.
And it's been a great discussion, to say the very least.
I had a great time with both of you, even though both of your opinions are quite different.
But that's a good thing.
We're here to discuss that in a civil way, and we did tonight.
Well, I'd be delighted if Dan had the chance to look at that 9-11 who is responsible and why now knowing it's on BitChute.
It's not that long and it's very comprehensive and you see the evidence because I present the evidence to you as I go through it.
And I think that's far more persuasive than merely hearing the words which are, you know, highly suggestive but aren't really as conclusive as when you see the evidence that the words are based upon.
That's the key.
Yes.
Well, I had a two-hour discussion with David Chandler and one of his associates, and they're convinced that American 77 hit the Pentagon.
They showed me compelling flight data recorder information one night and asked me to watch Twelve videos that they produce, and I wrote down 9-11 and who was responsible, and I'll be sure to watch that too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, because they're selling a bill of goods.
These guys are not honest brokers, I guarantee you.
I've dealt with a number of them in the past, and I've been acutely disappointed.
Remember, my background is in the history and the philosophy of science.
I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
It's a little tougher to put one over on me than it is most of the rest of the public, even the more knowledgeable elements of the public, but they're doing a great job of manufacturing phony evidence to establish a false depiction of what actually happened on 9-11.
Flight 77 wasn't even in the air!
And the idea that they're still defending the idea this plane, a 757, could barely skim the ground, take out lampposts, and hit the building at over 400 miles an hour.
Just think about it, Dan.
You know that's an aerodynamic impossibility.
Well, they are defending that to you.
Yeah.
Well, I sat and listened, and I told them I watched the videos, and I'm about halfway through them.
I'll watch yours and see what conclusions I draw from that.
Good.
Well, Dan, I think you're a great guy, and I'm real glad we had this chance to talk, and I thank Michael for setting it up, and I think he's a wonderful host.
I really enjoy coming on.
I do, too.
This is my third time, and every time he's been great.
Thank you, Michael.
Yes, no doubt.
Thank you so much, Dan, for being a part of the program, and before we close off here, Dan, I will say goodbye to you first here.
Any closing words, Dan?
Any thoughts in your mind that you want to Relay out there to the universe, go ahead.
Okay, well I'm going to plug a few things.
Yeah, go ahead.
We've got that website 911pilots.org and it's got a join us tab at the top of the page and if you click on that all we needed your name and email address and we can put you on our email list for future updates and we're not money grubbers when we put the donate button on there because we do have overhead expenses but one of the things That we're doing.
I'm in touch with three documentary filmmakers in Islamabad, negotiating a price.
And we're going to do a documentary, a professional one, on the information contained on the website.
And we're trying to raise funds for that.
And then any excess funds we do generate, we're contributing to other 9-11 truth movement organizations, I mean.
And we also have GoFundMe that a woman in London was kind enough to open for us.
And if you Google GoFundMe 9-11 Pilot Whistleblowers, it'll pop up.
And any contribution, however small, that you want to make, we would appreciate.
In closing, why are we doing this?
Why am I, at age 71, 19 years later, still doing this?
It isn't just for the 2,977.
Very nice.
Thank you so much for being a part of the program.
We'll do this again next time, Dan.
It's for the millions that have been murdered, maimed, or displaced in the Middle East and
South Asia since 9-11.
I've been in Pakistan now for 10 years and saw first-hand what the war on terror has
done on this country.
And it's for those reasons that I'm still speaking out and others are too, like you
and Jim.
Thanks again, Michael.
Very nice.
Thank you so much for being a part of the program.
We'll do this again next time, Dan.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Good night.
And there he goes, boys and girls.
That was Captain Dan Henley.
And of course, Jim, we are left with you here tonight.
Well, I think Dan's a great guy, and he's obviously 100% sincere, unlike those with whom he is dealing.
You know, Chandler, Gage, and so forth.
I mean, I'm really sorry to have to say I called him out, but believe me, I've dealt with him a long time.
I've published all these things I'm saying before, or expressed opinions that were the equivalent.
So, you know, if anyone wants to take me on scientifically, I would be glad to do it.
But there's a wonderful summation and overview of the entire case at 9-11, who is responsible and why on Bitshoot.
Yes, that was a little uncomfortable, given the fact that he is friends with Richard, I expect.
And, you know, I've always liked Richard.
He's always been very courteous to me.
But yes, Jim, it is true.
He does not answer that, not even in public.
I mean, in private.
Yeah, well, it's ridiculous.
How can you be an expert on 9-11 and not know who is responsible and why?
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
There's only one explanation.
He doesn't want to allow even consideration of the question.
That's why they claim, just as Judy absurdly claims, we have to know how it was done conclusively before we can begin to speculate on who is responsible and why.
Well, that's just absurd.
Just completely absurd and very Revealing of what's actually going on here.
I acquiesce.
And, Jim, there's one more dark matter that I didn't really want to bring up to you, but now that I have you here alone, Jim, it was brought to my attention from a listener of yours and mine that something odd happened between you and, I believe, Mike Berra and company.
The Real Deal Report.
Yeah, I was doing these Real Deal Reports.
I mean, the whole Real Deal thing was based on my earlier work on Real Deal.
I'm going to give you the short take.
I've done about 100 of these shows with these guys, where I did 90% of the work.
I would gather the stories, filter the stories, put the stories together in PowerPoints, share it with them, get some fan mail from them to add.
Then I'd do the show where I was the host of the show, and they were commentators and reporters.
And then I'd send the show for them to finally put together and get out.
I've done like 100 of these.
Well, last Friday we were doing a show and I was talking about Shadowgate, this really sensational documentary exposing the role of what's known as ShadowNet, where a private company is taking advantage of work done at taxpayer expense to survey the American people and to subject us to manipulation on a massive scale.
It's the first documentary I've ever seen That actually explains how mind control can be carried out.
In other words, I've had friends who are very well positioned, whom I respect immensely, talk about mind control, but until I saw this documentary, I did not understand how it could be carried out.
Now I do.
I regard this as one of the most important documentaries of the last 10 years.
So, last Friday, we were talking a bit about Shadowgate, where I've now already done two shows at JimTheConspiracyGuy.com.
You can find them both there.
And they were talking about this woman, Millie Weaver, who was arrested on the very morning, right?
And Dean and Mike Barra were both engaged in personal attacks on Billy Weaver.
I didn't like it.
I thought it was completely unprofessional.
I called Dean out about it.
I explained that he was violating Three elementary fallacies.
Number one, the genetic fallacy, which judges the quality of work on the basis of its origin, the ad hominem, by attacking her, the messenger, instead of the message.
And third, special pleading, by only citing the evidence favorable to your case and letting the rest go.
Dean got furious, and he just lashed out at me as though I had done something wrong.
When actually, actually, if you look at it this way, he was defaming Milley.
And I think subconsciously, having gone through this absurd lawsuit where I was accused of defamation, I didn't want this to take place.
I thought it was very immature and unprofessional.
So I stopped recording and I said, OK, I think this is so damaging to the show, we're going to take it out.
So that instead, it just went from Dean making this attack on Millie to I turned to Mike and Mike makes a kind of a milder attack on Millie and goes out.
Now, subsequently, there were fans of the show who think that, you know, really like my style and my manner, but I really ought to have spoken out in defense of Millie.
And I wrote back to him and said, well, in fact, I actually had spoken out in defense of Millie.
Well, the following day on Saturday, Dean sent me something, a little critique, that was attacking Millie that I thought was, well, he was actually talking about her two whistleblower sources, and I wrote back to Dean and I said, you know, okay, this is interesting, but we wound up having a very extensive email exchange Such that he refused to come on the show on Monday, so I did it with Mike Barra.
And then even Mike Barra was offended because I noticed on Dean's own blog that someone had questioned his attacking Millie.
Wow.
And Dean had just come on to him and said, this is my show, you know, I have the right to do whatever I want.
I thought that was abusive of a follower.
So I added a sentence saying, we'd had some discussion about this.
And I thought he, the fan was 100% correct.
Well, just as I'm about to do the show on Tuesday, Mike Barrett tells me, Jim, you commented on Dean's show.
That's out of bounds.
You're not allowed to do that.
You're not going to do the show today.
And I said, on the contrary, Mike, you're the one who's not going to do the show.
And I went ahead and did it with Blake.
Well, so they decided in the meanwhile that they were going to toss me under the bus.
So that Wednesday, they had this thing from Shadowgate to Fetzergate.
That grossly distorted the sequence of events.
They said I'd been so wrong that they'd had to edit it out when it was my own recommendation to take it out.
But it wasn't because I'd done anything wrong.
In fact, I had.
I secured the clip to make sure I had it right.
And it's very clear that while I was being stern, stern with Dean and taking to him account, he just flipped out.
I mean, He was saying during this thing from Shadowgate to Venturegate that my face had turned red and I just got bananas.
It was Dean whose face went red and he just went bananas and I regard it as completely immature and unprofessional.
Even after they put up this thing, which I did not watch, but which I got reports about from a couple of sources, I was suggesting, you know, basically, now that you've had the chance to vet your spleen, we can proceed on Friday and we'll just do it.
We were doing what we call Fauci Fridays that were focusing on the medical aspects of COVID, where Dean wasn't a participant anyway, and then bring Dean back in Monday and others to create kind of a temporal gap.
But then I actually watched it.
I got enough feedback that I realized I have to watch it.
And I realized they've gone way beyond the boundaries.
They were making false claims about me.
I don't care.
You know, I'm a truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth kind of guy, Michael.
I will stand behind everything I do or say and I'll take responsibility if I've done or said something wrong.
But I went back and reviewed the bidding and I had done nothing wrong.
So the whole depiction of this, you know, my having somehow flown off the handle was ridiculous.
And indeed, we have the whole extensive, you know, email exchange where I was documenting exactly what it was I was faulting Dean about.
But it turns out the guy can't take criticism.
He's thin-skinned.
I've been a very staunch supporter of him forever.
This is like a unique occasion of a hundred shows where I was faulting him because he was doing something wrong.
I think we should have been talking about Shadowgate, the importance of the film, and he wanted to talk about Millie, even claiming he dated Millie's mother, which I thought was just ridiculous and inappropriate.
So for my efforts to keep the show on a professional scale, they threw me under the bus.
It's really ridiculous.
Oh, I saw Jim.
Yes, I saw the video of it and that's why I brought it up.
I was wondering if you had any acknowledgement for the video yourself and obviously you watched the video and yeah, yeah, it was it was pretty it was something else and you know, like I like Dean.
Right, right.
And you know, this is a level of dishonesty that I cannot tolerate.
Right, I hear you.
And again, before I'd watched it, I was still in the naive state of believing we could continue.
But after the way in which they treated me, by making up stories and reversing roles, that's intolerable to me.
Yes, I believe they really have booted you out.
Yeah, well, yeah, sure.
But yes, Jim, I was listening to Dean and yes... I was supposing a reconciliation now they've vented their spleen, but when I read it, I realized, no, there was no turning back.
Right.
Point of no return.
But yes, listening to Dean, it did seem like it was very personal.
He had some sort of issue with Millie Weaver.
Yeah, so he has an issue with Millie Weaver that didn't belong in the show.
Shadow game.
I came about his being upset.
She tried to get him fired on InfoWars and this other stuff.
It wasn't relevant.
What's important is the product that she's done with her husband, who apparently is a very talented videographer put together sadly, brilliant.
So I recommend everyone here if they want to see what's important.
Go to jimtheconspiracyguy.com and go to Two Sundays Ago and you'll see my original Shadowgate.
And last week I did another and both of these I'm doing with Danny Syrus, who has an extensive background in law enforcement.
And we were talking about on the second, well, we did in part on the first about the arrests being completely fabricated, non-standard, completely fake.
And these guys were trying to play it as though Millie had arranged this for publicity.
I just thought it was totally inappropriate.
Understood.
And here's a short clip of that, Dan, of Dean talking about you, Jim.
Sure.
Well, if I could play it here for you, I will.
Sure, go ahead.
It's okay.
I called you Dan because I saw a message pop up from Dan Hanley, by the way.
That's a good guy.
Yes, I'm like, oh, Dan.
But yeah, he was just saying thanks for having me on and saying thanks to you.
But yes, here's the clip now of Dean and Mike Barra.
Oh look, let them have their opinions, they haven't heard the whole story yet.
So here's what happened.
If you want to know, the disagreement, I could care less about the movie, I could care less that Jim likes Millie, whatever.
That what you did not see is Jim exploded like a nuclear bomb on air last Friday.
Like, like if this is level 10, it was like level 20.
He was saying, he was saying, fuck, you know, fuck you.
And he was red in the face, like going like this and saying, tell me, get out of here.
And then I have no integrity.
It was, I was like, shocked.
I could not believe my own eyes.
Amazing.
I wish, I wish you could have left that part in.
This is false!
It's a false depiction!
You can't limit it because it shows that what he's saying is false!
I've got the clip!
I'll find it for you, Michael, and I'll send it to you.
I got the clip to make sure there was nothing to his claim.
It was the other way around.
As I said, I was stern with him.
I explained that he'd violated three elementary fallacies, which I explained to him then, just as I've explained to you here.
It was Dean.
I didn't say a profanity whatsoever.
I didn't explode like a nucleic, but Dean did.
Dean took it very badly.
I mean, it's embarrassing.
I'm telling you, Michael, I'll find it and get it to you.
My goodness, so he was projecting right there.
Yes!
Oh no, Dean.
Exactly, he was projecting.
So Dean has fallen to the dark side.
Hang on a second.
Yeah, no problem.
Well, that's, um, that's something else.
I thought you guys were good friends, you and Mike Barra and Dean.
Are you kidding me?
I mean, well, see, I didn't know Mike Barra beforehand, and Mike Barra doesn't seem to know anything about me even now, which is kind of stunning, but let's see.
It was just totally inappropriate what they did.
Well, let me start from the low hanging fruit and that's Millie Weaver.
And, uh, I do want to make a public apology, uh, for, um, introducing the world to Millie Weaver.
And yes, that's true.
Uh, Millie Weaver was discovered by me in 2013 and she wanted, uh, I got her the job at InfoWars.
I was slowly doing that.
And, um, I thought she's exactly what the alternative media needs.
Uh, you know, a pretty girl.
Just spouting off the news, reading the teleprompter.
And it's a Wild Wild West industry.
So basically, she is shady to the core.
I mean, this girl is... I don't even know where to start.
I should do a special on it.
She's controlled by the guy she's with.
This Gavin guy.
That's who made the movie.
Millie just appeared in it.
Now the movie's pretty decent, Jim.
I watched like 20 minutes.
But I cringe because I know she's a bad human being.
Who, uh, you know, who publicly disemboweled me because her boyfriend at the time, seven years ago said, cause he was trying to buy his way indoors when I was working there.
So he wanted to get me out of the way.
So she said with a bold face sociopath look, she didn't know who I was on a Twitter rant.
And then she's never met me before, even though we did reports together.
And in full disclosure, I went on a few dates with her mom.
And she's a stripper and, you know, it was different times back then.
I'm a family man now.
And so, but they've always had altercations.
Millie and her mother, Felicia, who's insane as well and a total hustler, trying to hustle money for me, but that's okay.
And so what happened was I told Alex on the phone in 2013, I said, he said, is she a good person?
Is she a good person?
I said, Alex, no.
No, she's not a good person.
She dated Joe Francis from Girls Gone Wild when she was 15.
She was part of the sex trafficking slopping in the Playboy Mansion.
She's shady.
She lies all the time about everything.
She'll do whatever she wants to get what she needs and it was fame.
And the guy, this Gavin Wentz guy, he's a total rat fink.
He is part of this OTO satanic order.
He's a satanist and he controls her.
And he purposely impregnates her twice because in case she like wakes up like Britney Spears and shaves her head and tries to escape, they're totally shady.
I don't think it's this big conspiracy that they were trying to get stopped and all this thing.
They probably called the cops and said, please arrest us now.
We have a movie coming out tomorrow.
I don't believe a damn thing this, this, this total fraud says.
And clearly Alex, I'm not saying Alex is right.
He didn't watch the movie.
He was probably unhappy on her, but.
I don't blame him for not watching the movie, and she sucks.
She's not talented at all, and she tried to screw me over.
So anyways, that's all I had to say about it.
Just a few words.
Well, Dino, I hate to say it, but in attacking Millie in relation to the film, you've committed three elementary fallacies.
The first is a genetic fallacy.
The origin of the film has nothing to do with the quality of the film.
It's an ad hominem after ad hominem.
Which is destroying the messenger rather than the message, and you committed a special pleading fallacy by only citing the evidence negative and favorable to your case, frankly.
Look, Dean, I spent 35 years teaching courses in law, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
This is not appropriate in relation to the film.
It may be all true in relation to Millie, but the film is what's important, not Millie.
Millie is a neon.
I said it was a good movie, Jim.
You said you hadn't even read it!
No, I said I watched it!
You watched 20 minutes!
I said it was a good movie.
What do you want me to do?
Like, pledge my life to it?
It's a good movie.
No, I said it was a good movie, but she didn't make the fucking movie.
I agree she didn't make the movie.
So let's kiss his ass.
Let's kiss his ass then.
I'm not kissing anybody's ass.
I'm talking about the product, the film.
Well, I'm talking about Millie.
I know who you are!
That's the boy!
The bitch tried to ruin my career, so I don't like her.
I said it's a good movie.
I should get kudos for that.
I think we all get it.
Mike, your thought.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'm confused about one point here.
Which one was the stripper?
Was it Millie or her mom?
Because if it was Millie, I don't see how I missed her when I was living in L.A.
Actually, I didn't miss her.
I knew her.
You were not the person that introduced Millie Weaver to the two men.
Dean, let's put it that way.
There's a deal, my friend.
Your thoughts?
Holy shit.
I don't know what to say.
I thought it was unprofessional.
I thought he was doing a smear job on Millie.
I didn't think it belonged in the show.
Probably not.
I stopped the show and said, Dean, we're going to take that out.
But he left in all of his all of his criticism of Millie up to my point of criticizing him is still there in the show from Friday.
I'm rather certain of that.
I'm just shocked to be honest with you, Jim, and I've gone after a number of people here on my program, but I've done it in a joking manner in a way that would be hilarious for the listener.
But yes, this sort of thing, it's hard for me to completely criticize, but at the same time, I see your point.
It shouldn't really be in the program while you're talking about this sort of subject.
It's a little too personal in my opinion.
It's defamatory!
Yeah, it's a little personal.
Yeah, right.
I agree.
You're an unprofessional.
I agree.
And then, Michael, bear this.
You heard the way they were talking about it.
It was the opposite.
It was Dean who went bananas, not me.
Well, he did blow up a little bit there, yes.
Well, I showed you.
You'd see him kind of leaping out of his screen.
Yes.
He said that.
That's what you did.
I know.
It's false.
It's what he did.
Oh, Dean.
You know, I like Dean.
I'm not quite sure what that was all about.
Maybe he was just having a rough day.
Michael, that's why I went back without having seen it and said, look, I think we can, you
know, pick up and just go forward from here before I had seen it.
Once I saw it, I realized he burned all the bridges and he'd given a false report.
This was unethical on his part to reverse our roles where he was the one who flipped out, not me.
Understood.
And we've all heard that here tonight.
And Jim, I do want to thank you for being a part of the program.
I hate to end the show on such a sour note, but I don't want to take up too much time.
It was a great show.
Dan was perfect.
He was wonderful.
He's trying real hard.
I just don't think, you know, the public and Dan don't appreciate the profundity of the disinformation operations that have enveloped our nation.
Sadly, Jim, 99% of the population have been sold the lie.
And it's just, it's terrible that the American people still believe that this was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.
What a joke.
Well, Osama, I mean, it never came up, but I was going to point out Osama was our man in Afghanistan.
That's right.
Osama was instrumental in getting the Stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujahideen.
Osama was an officer in the CIA.
He was trained.
He was our... That's right.
The agency visited him in a hospital in Dubai where he was, you know, being dealing with
his medical maladies shortly before his death in Afghanistan on 15 December 2001.
That's right.
He was our plug in the Middle East.
Both Fox News and CNN reported his death on the 26th of December 2001, 10 years before
Barack Obama resuscitated his corpse and had him die again to position Obama as a triumphal,
you know, one who had vanquished the most wanted man in the world for his triumphal
re-election.
It was all bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
Amazing.
So, you know, it's just one of those things I'm having to deal with.
Jim, I could talk to you for hours.
Yes, and of course, if anybody wants any more information for anything that we were listening here tonight with Jim, you could go to moonrockbooks.com and pick up all of his work there or visit jimfetzer.org.
I believe that's the right.
Or now, Michael, JimTheConspiracyGuide.com.
Oh, shit, JimTheConspiracyGuide.com.
That's a new one.
That's where I've got.
I've got 30 shows there already, Michael.
Oh, wow.
And these are in depth about major conspiracies.
I've got the moon landing.
I've got Coronavirus.
I've got the New Zealand shooting.
I've got I've got a two parter on how to spot a false flag where I go through 15 or 20 different cases.
So you can learn how to spot them yourself.
I've got the DNCCV conspiracy, how Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Democratic agenda fit together.
That's a good one for now.
Very nice.
Once again, Jim, thank you so much for being a part of the program.
We'll do this again on the other side.
You got it, Michael.
All right, Jim, take care.
You too.
Mahalo.
And there he goes, boys and girls, the one and only Jim, the Freight Train Fetzer.
That was an incredible episode, and I do want to thank Captain Dan Handley and the professor, the one and only Jim Fetzer.
As we wind down here tonight, I just wanted to remind all of you out there, if you have not subscribed to the podcast rendition of the program, please do so.
You can find the show on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, and the CastBox, which I really appreciate.
And of course, if you want to get a hold of me during the program, you can do so via Twitter, at MichaelDeacon.
And of course, if you are a hardcore listener out there and you want bonus material, please direct yourself to patreon.com forward slash Michael Deacon.
I also do want to thank all of you out there in the chat room tonight.
It was fun.
I hope you enjoyed yourself.
Stay safe everyone, no matter where you are on this island earth.
I'm Michael Beacon, and with that said, the world is a mysterious place, and life itself is a mystery.
▲
Export Selection