All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
03:04:59
20th 9/11 Special with College of Complexes (11 September 2021)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Free speech.
Alright, we got it.
Welcome to the College of Complexes.
My name is Tim.
I'd like to welcome everybody tonight to our College of Complexes Weekly Free Speech Forum.
Tonight, we'll be having Jim Fetzer to present his views on why 9-11 was a hoax and his views on various other objects.
I'm looking forward to hearing his thing, although I don't agree with him.
It's going to be very interesting to see how he Present his arguments being a free speech forum.
Let's give him all courtesy tonight.
And we'll welcome the College of Complex is consisted of following format.
First, we'll have our speaker.
We'll have a brief announcements period.
Then we'll have Jim Fetzer, who will speak up to about an hour or so.
Then we'll have questions and answers.
And after the questions and answers will have our will have a rebuttal period.
After our rebuttal period will then keep the zoom will then Jim, we'll get the last word.
We generally finish about nine o'clock or thereabouts, but we can keep going for a little while since we're not under constraints of a live audience in a restaurant.
And I'll keep the Zoom call open after we stop recording until everybody has their say.
With that, Charlie, if you're ready to start making your announcements, I'll get the schedule up here in a second and we'll be ready to go.
So take it away, Charlie, with your announcements.
Okay, welcome.
Welcome everyone to meeting number 3,633 of the College of Complexes, the playground for people who think.
First of all, we have a relatively new Google email group, which I recommend you sign up for.
There's instructions on the top and center of our website.
We also have a Meetup group.
Which you'll get one or two emails per week regarding the topic of the upcoming programs.
I highly recommend everyone sign up for either one of those.
Although I am not a capitalist, I will give an advertisement for our upcoming programs next week on September the 18th An organization which has not been to the college.
Green America will be talking about their mission.
They're involved in various ecological issues.
I am clearly and unquestionably a very good Green American.
Can the same thing be said about any of you people?
Anyhow, they do put out a nationwide publication and they got a PowerPoint to go along with it.
So that's September the 18th.
On the 21st, 25th, rather, of September.
The author, Michael C. Comerford, he did a tour of the United States during the height of the pandemic, which is still affecting us nationwide.
Anyhow, we're getting responses and reactions of people he encountered during his trip around the nation.
Anyhow, No doubt we can discuss COVID on that date.
On October the 2nd, I see she's with us this evening.
Jian Li will talk about Taoism and Daoism.
I'm personally an adherent of Confucianism, which is somewhat contradictory with that Taoism, but it should be very good.
She usually puts together a very nice scholarly presentation, and I highly recommend everyone tunes into that.
Subsequent to that, the next program we have scheduled is October the 16th, in which we have someone from the local community college, law enforcement personnel, to talk about fraud protection.
There's been any number of instances of people taking advantage of the current situation to come in.
And I've got two telephone calls during the week that were totally corrupt regarding Social Security that I was going to be canceled and brought before a magistrate.
With a court date and so forth, which is amazing considering I am not a recipient of Social Security, so I don't know why I was going to be taken to court regarding it.
Nevertheless, also October 9th and the 30th, we don't have them identified yet, but we will have
two candidates from the Illinois Green Party, one of which is a senatorial candidate and the other
one a local representative candidate.
So in October, we're going to be entering into the upcoming election with our review of candidates and their positions.
So, those are the two dates.
The next open dates are October the 23rd.
I'm looking for someone to speak in conjunction with United Nations Day, which is October 24th, if you have a topic.
Also, we have four dates in November that are open.
Okay, that's about it.
Tim, thank you very much.
Take it away.
All right, I just want to give a quick plug once I get to the main page here.
I just want to give a quick plug for our Dallas campus, who's also got some upcoming programs coming up.
She's going to speak at our college, Tim.
Oh, I know that, but we also have a March 14th.
She's speaking at our college.
I know where the Chang is, but she's also, I'm sorry about that.
It's also what?
I got the wrong.
Come on, let's go to the program.
I just want to give a quick shout out to the Texas campus where they're going to have a Thursday, September 16th.
The same speaker we're having here.
That's correct.
Come on, let's move on.
And then they also have their next open date is on September 23rd.
OK, I'm going to stop the share.
Anybody else wants to come in?
Welcome.
Jim, if you want to introduce yourself, share your screen and do what you need to do, go right ahead and let's get started.
Mr. Fetzer, take it away.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Tim and Charles.
What you're going to hear tonight is the distillation of research that was collaborative by experts from around the world.
I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in December 2005.
So roughly speaking, what I'm going to give is a distillation of 15 years of research.
May I say An hour is not sufficient to go into detail, so that I want you to know I have several lengthy presentations on my BitChute site at my BitChute channel, Jim Fadzer.
Meanwhile, I want to begin by taking us back to 9-11, and where if you'd been watching MASH, this might be what you would have experienced.
This comes from the MadeBrussels website, where it's archived.
Very nice piece of footage.
Do you have the audio set up, or is it?
It should be.
Okay.
No second flight.
It was a bomb.
Bombing another building.
Not second plane.
It was a bomb.
Who say the second plane?
That's what we're told.
The second plane.
We saw it on television.
No.
They do everything.
Alright.
Thanks a lot.
This is...
...the idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building.
You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left...
Uh, that you can see are, are small enough that you could pick up in your hand.
Uh, there are no large, uh, tail sections, wing sections, uh, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon, uh, and then caused the side to collapse.
Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon, you see, uh, that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately.
Uh, it wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later, uh, that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
Jeff, it's a United Airlines plane.
It's believed to be at that site outside Pittsburgh, isn't it?
That's exactly right, John, with 45 people total on board.
And one of the more profound things today, the imprint of terrorism seared, not only on Wall Street, but also on Main Street.
Here you have an area 80 miles to the southeast of Pittsburgh, and this plane, which went down at about 10 o'clock this morning.
We have rescue vehicles that came in earlier in the day, and they have turned up nothing.
No one believed to be alive from this crash.
Some of the media just getting back to the scene, which is about A quarter of a mile up on a hill back behind me, and so some of the first pictures just starting to come in within the last hour.
I want to get quickly to Chris Konicki.
He's a photographer with the Pittsburgh affiliate of Fox Affiliate.
He was back there just a couple of minutes ago, and Chris, I've seen the pictures.
It looks like there's nothing there except for a hole in the ground.
Basically, that's right.
The only thing you could see from where we were was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees.
We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see, there wasn't much left.
Any large pieces of debris at all?
No, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
Smoke, fire?
Nothing, it was absolutely quiet, it was actually very quiet.
Nothing going on down there, no smoke, no fire, just a couple of people walking around, they looked like part of the NTSB crew, walking around, looking at the pieces.
How big would you say that hole was?
Uh, from my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20 to 15 feet long and probably about 10 feet long or 10 feet wide.
What could you see on the ground, if anything, other than dirt and ash?
You couldn't see anything.
You could just see dirt, ash, and people walking around, broken trees.
...says that City Hall in Oakland will remain open.
It will be business as usual.
He is urging people to remain calm.
Given what is going on, remain calm.
Oakland City Hall will remain open, but in San Francisco, City Hall has been closed.
We're also just getting word here now that a second United Airlines jet, Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, is now missing.
Again, if you're just joining us, there have been four separate plane crashes.
Three of those planes were en route to California.
Two were heading to LAX.
The third was heading to San Francisco International Airport.
That was specifically the one heading to SFO United, flight number 93.
From Newark to SFO, it apparently crashed in Pennsylvania, fairly close to the border of Maryland and not too far from Camp David.
Why is that significant?
Because one of the groups possibly claiming responsibility for all these terrorist attacks is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and it was this week In 1978, the Camp David Accords were reached.
Is there a connection?
At this point, we don't know, but it is important to be aware of that situation.
In Washington, D.C., many congressional leaders have been transferred to a secret location.
Some Senators have described this as a second Pearl Harbor.
And President Bush was in Florida this morning, but he made a brief announcement when the first attacks were clear on the World Trade Center, and he was heading back to Washington, D.C.
At this point, we don't know exactly where he is.
They're trying, they're not really broadcasting that information, but we are told that the President is safe right now.
We're waiting for a press conference to start in San Francisco from the Office of Emergency Services to discuss what the situation, what the city's reaction to all of this is going to be.
But again, right now in San Francisco...
So that's what you would have seen if you'd been watching television, as most of us were on 9-11.
Here's the official depiction of the four flights of the aircraft, allegedly, and where they crashed.
Security was provided at the airports from which they originated by ICTS, which Turns out to be an Israeli firm.
Here you have that hole in Shanksville, 10 by 15 or 20.
We're talking about an aircraft with 125 foot wingspan, a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground, where there's no sign of any plane having crashed there.
Now, We're told you can't prove a negative, but that's false.
You can prove there's no elephant in your living room, which is a negative, by going to your living room and looking for signs of the presence of elephant.
Finding none, you're entitled to infer that's because there's no elephant there.
Here in Shanksville, if you look for signs of the presence of a plane crash, which a little look like what you see here in Missouri, Amsterdam, and Russia, but find none, you're entitled to infer that's because no plane crash there.
Indeed, some of the defendants of the official account claim that this was an area in which mining took place and that the plane disappeared down an abandoned mine shaft.
That, however, is contradicted by the fact we know what to do with miners trapped in abandoned mine shafts.
We bring out the bright lights and the heavy equipment and dig 24-7 in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might have survived.
In this instance, however, none of that was done, even though, allegedly, there were 45 souls aboard.
We didn't seek to recover them, no doubt because there was nothing to recover.
Meanwhile, pilots for 9-11 Truth, which has done some brilliant work, discovered based upon air-ground communications that Flight 93 was still airborne after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
More to come.
Meanwhile at the Pentagon, although the Pentagon is the most heavily surveyed building in the world, only five frames were released, four of which show a growing fireball.
I'm going to explain why I believe the fireballs are all Photoshop that this is fakery.
Many have observed that the date and the time of these images is the wrong date and time, further supporting the thesis that this is all fake or fabricated.
If you look at the upper left-hand image, it's conveniently labeled plane, and you see just above the gate mechanism something that might be a plane with a white plume coming from it.
Pilots and aeronautical engineers have explained to me that white plume cannot be the exhaust of a jet plane, which would be black, but could be the plume from a missile being fired into the building, which appears to be exactly what happened.
I asked a colleague from JFK Research, Jack White, if he could size the image of a Boeing 757 to the tail, and it turns out a 757 would have been more than twice the size of what we have there.
Dennis Camino, brilliant guy, who is a former top electronic troubleshooter for the Navy before he resigned and went to work for Raytheon, has determined that that aerial is an unmanned aerial vehicle, a Global Hawk, that in fact was used to fire a missile into the West Wing.
Here we see the hit point.
It's only about 10 feet high and 15 or 20 feet wide.
There are two burned cars, a couple of large spools of cable.
There is chain-link fence, unbroken windows.
But what is missing is a massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner.
No bodies, no seats, no luggage, no wings, no tail.
Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered.
And notice there's no impact in the facade for those engines to have gone.
Now here we have the two civilian lime green firetrucks that showed up.
I don't believe this was planned to extinguish the very modest fires that remain But notice, especially the Pentagon lawn.
It's clean, clear, completely bereft of any debris from the crash of a major airliner.
There ought to have been debris everywhere.
In fact, there was no debris anywhere for quite some time.
Here's a depiction of what the government tells us happened.
A Boeing 757 barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour impacted the ground floor of the Pentagon.
Let me observe right off the bat.
Those engines would have torn furrows in the ground.
It would have been as though you had, you know, rows and rows of fruit or whatever growing.
It would have looked completely different.
Plus, more importantly, that aircraft at that speed Could not have got closer than 60 or even 80 feet to the ground, which is over higher than the Pentagon at 71 feet is tall because of what is known as ground effect or downdraft.
We're witnessing an aeronautically impossible approach to the Pentagon.
Moreover, according to the government, in the course of the event, the plane hit a series of stationary lampposts.
Now we know from Newton's third law, equal and opposite reaction, that the effect of a plane traveling over 400 miles an hour hitting a stationary lamppost would have been the same effect if the plane had been stationary, hit by lampposts traveling over 400 miles an hour Would a rip open the wings where the fuel is stored, it would have mixed with oxygen in the air, burst into flame and exploded.
There would have been debris all over the Pentagon lawn, but it's not there.
It's a simple matter of reasoning in terms of cause and effect.
If the effect that would have occurred had the cause been present is absent, you're entitled to infer that's because the cause was absent.
It's known in logic as modus tollens.
Meanwhile, you already heard Jamie McIntyre on the scene at the time reporting from his close-up inspection.
There was no sign of any plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
He talked about some small pieces.
Well, the Global Hawk is made out of a synthetic material and would have fiberglass even and would have broken into small pieces, which appears to be exactly what Jamie McIntyre is describing.
He was subsequently pressured to retract what he'd said on 9-11, and he did it in the following way.
He said, only a fool would deny that a plane had hit the Pentagon, meaning he'd been a fool to think that he was supposed to report the truth of his observations at the Pentagon.
He would subsequently retire, no doubt being wary of carrying propaganda for the networks.
Now, no debris showed up for the first 45 minutes or more, and when it did, the most interesting piece by far was this, which is actually a segment of a fuselage from a Boeing 757.
But notice, Does it appear to have been involved in a violent crash, in which case you'd expect it to be all crumpled?
No.
Does it show any signs of having been exposed to an intense fire?
No.
Moreover, there's a very odd phenomenon here, a segment of vine that is connected, tied in with a fuselage, not indigenous to the Arlington, Virginia area.
Now, a very smart attorney now retired from Columbus, Ohio, knowing the Boeing 757 has an excellent safety record, traced it back to a crash near Cali, Columbia in 1995, where American Airlines 965, the pilots lost their way, crashed through a jungle where these vines grow in abundance and hit the side of a mountain.
The salvage crew was an Israeli company that apparently kept this available so it could be deployed for a suitable purpose winding up on the Pentagon lawn.
It turns out we have evidence that Flight 77 was not in fact even in the air that day.
Gerard Holmgren, who is an Australian blues musician, was the first to realize Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which keeps detailed records of every flight, every commercial flight in the United States, from the alleged departure time, when it pulled away from the gate, when it had wheels up, when it had wheels down, had no recording for Flight 77.
Flight 77 does not appear to have even been in the air on 9-11.
Flight 175 is extremely interesting.
All of us have seen some of the various videos, of which there turn out to be some 52, showing some portion of flight 175 approaching the Sow Tower.
Well, believe it or not, it turns out that they committed a blunder here.
You can calculate from the videos the speed at which this 767 was supposed to be traveling, which was the same as its cruising speed at 35,000 feet.
The problem being that at 700 to 1000, the air is three times more dense, the turbines can't suck it through the engine fast enough, and they begin functioning as brakes, as pilots for 9-11 Truth illustrated in their brilliant documentary, 9-11 Intercepted.
At the speed the plane is shown in the videos, it would have physically come apart.
It could not have even reached the South Tower.
Meanwhile, what we see in the videos is a plane actually simply disappearing effortlessly into the building with no collision effects.
This is caused sometimes to be referred to as a butter plane, as though the South Tower were a 110 stick of butter, or the plane is a ghost plane because it performs these miraculous feats.
Indeed, it's intersecting with eight different floors of the South Tower.
Each of which consists of a steel truss connected at one end to the massive core columns, at the other to the external steel support columns, and filled in with four to eight inches of concrete.
A variance because the steel trusses had v-shaped grooves that were four inches deep, so in some parts it would be four and other eight inches deep of concrete.
Because the buildings were 208 feet on a side, Each floor consisted of an acre of concrete on a steel truss.
We knows what happened to a plane when it's impacted with a small bird in flight.
Tremendous damage.
Imagine a plane encountering an acre of concrete on a steel truss.
This is intersecting with eight of those and could not possibly have made entry.
Here's what ought to have happened.
The plane should have crumbled external to the building.
Body, seats, luggage, wings, tail, fallen to the ground.
None of which happened.
Because we have photographs of the street and the sidewalk below both the North and the South Tower, and there is no debris of any of those kinds present.
The engines might well have entered the buildings, but the rest of the planes not.
And yet what actually happened, according to the videos we have, this is the Evan Fairbanks looking upward.
It turns out you can do a frame count, and it turns out flight 175 disappeared its whole length into the building in the same number of frames that pass this whole length in air.
In other words, since distance equals rate time time, the distance is equal and the time in terms of frames is equal.
The velocity did not change Which is absurd from a point of view of physics unless a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air.
If you look at the lowest image at the bottom left, You'll see a peculiar phenomenon occurred that was captured by the television broadcast, the nose out.
The nose on one of these commercial carriers is loaded with this electronics.
It's the most fragile part of the plane.
If this had been a real plane, it would have been absolutely impossible for the nose out to have occurred.
And indeed, While they were recording what has to be the most important and historic footage in American history, the networks faded to black.
They shut it off because of the nose out they wanted to conceal.
Meanwhile, as I said, we have photographs of the roadway and the sidewalk beneath both the North and the South Tower, and there is no airplane debris present, suggesting no actual, no real airplane hit either of the Twin Towers.
It is interesting, however, that an engine was found at Church Ann Murray.
You see it on the right.
It's sitting on the sidewalk.
It's underneath steel scaffolding and a canopy, which were undamaged.
Now consider, anything that massive hitting that sidewalk at high velocity would have churned it up.
It would have been a mess, but it's simply sitting there.
Jack White, same guy, discovered Fox News footage where a van was located there, and four or five men in FBI vests were unloading something heavy.
It may have even been the dolly they used to put this engine in place as a plant.
We know it did not come from Flight 175 because it's an antiquated engine that was no longer in service.
So those who were putting together this massive deception were not rocket scientists.
And just as they made a blunder by assuming a 767 could travel as fast at 700 to 1,000 feet as it
could at 35,000 feet, they committed another here at Church and Murray.
Meanwhile, there have been three different theories advanced about how it was done.
One was the use of computer-generated images.
Rosalie Grable, also known as the Web Fairy, advanced that.
Ace Baker, who produced a marvelous piece entitled 9-11 Psy Opera, suggested it was done with video compositing.
Where there's a 17 second delay between the time footage is shot and the time it's broadcast to the public, during which the images of planes could have been added.
However, neither of those series is consistent with witness reports of seeing a plane in real time.
Because had either CGI or video compositing been employed, the only time a plane would have been seen was in the broadcast.
Remember, When the civilian said it was a bomb, not a plane, and the reporter says, well, no, it was a plane.
We saw it on television.
Well, if it had been CGI or video composited, you would have only seen it on television.
And yet we have hundreds of witnesses who claim to have seen the plane approach the South Tower in real time, including a couple hundred firemen who are not known for being deceptive.
They varied in their description.
Some said it was a large plane, some a small, some a commercial, some a military.
But as long as we have witnesses reporting a plane in real time, it cannot have been CGI or video compositing.
The third theory, which is introduced by Richard Hall of the UK, is that it was done using a hologram.
Now he proceeded by taking those 52 videos and studying which of them were sufficiently precise.
You could determine a location in a time, which was true of about 28 of the videos.
So he did a plot of the locations that the plane was approaching the South Tower.
When he surveyed the NIST, he found they had a similar plot that they claimed was based on radar data, but the radar data they cited didn't look right to him.
Further research led to the discovery that there actually was military radar of Flight 175 approaching the South Tower, except The radar showed a plane 1,200 feet to the right of the image he had plotted as shown here.
He conjectured that this was done by a smaller plane projecting the image of the plane that everyone saw, which would explain the impossible impact, the lack of collision.
It would even also explain the nose out, because it wasn't a real plane passing through the South Tower.
It was a holographic image.
It would explain the impossible speed, because a plane that was projecting the image was flying faster than a Boeing 767 could fly, and by the way, was making noise, the sound of a plane that would be attributed to the image as it was approaching the South Tower.
Which would also explain why the military radar only picked up the plane that was projecting the image, and not the image it was projecting, because the image it was projecting was not a solid object over which radio waves would bounce to create a radar track.
So his hypothesis is it was done in this fashion, and there's every reason to believe he got it right.
For example, I was sent a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector.
The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator.
The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management.
It's also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.
Now, some insist that holograms can only be projected if they're projected on top of a solid image such as, say, a missile approaching the building.
However, we know that the state of military technology is decades ahead of what the public is allowed to know.
And only in the last year have I learned of new holographic technology that uses their molecules as a temporary screen in projecting holograms, which appears to be exactly what happened on 9-11.
Just to reinforce the fact that Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower, Pilots for 9-11 Truth also tracked Flight 175 and discovered that was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after it had officially hit the South Tower.
Pilots has done brilliant work.
Meanwhile, if we turn to the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers were masterpieces of engineering and design.
They received many awards, compliments, distinctions for architecture.
There were, at the center, 47 massive core columns that were then connected by those steel trusses to the 230 external steel support columns, which were themselves, by themselves, already quite substantial and massive.
Now, we have been told again and again and again and again and again that the Twin Towers collapsed.
But in a collapse, you have all the floors coming down at the same time, roughly at free fall speed, because all the support columns have been taken out.
And when it's over, you have a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the height of the original.
But in the case of the Twin Towers, And here we're looking at the north.
Nothing like that took place.
Instead, we see externally the building blowing apart in every direction from the top down.
Every floor is remaining stationary, waiting its turn to be blown to kingdom come, in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds.
And they're being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
And when it's over, there's nothing there.
Father Frank Morales from St.
Mark's Episcopal Church, who was a first responder, came on my radio shows twice and emphasized both times those buildings were destroyed to or even below ground level.
Now here's what the government claimed occurred.
The planes crashed in and exploded.
The jet fuel fires burned so hot they caused the steel to weaken and or melt and for the top floors to fall on the bottom like a pile driver.
But that turns out to be absurd on every possible ground, including that the fires didn't burn long enough or hot enough.
They were at least a thousand degrees Fahrenheit too low in their temperature to have affected the steel.
And where the black billowing smoke indicated oxygen deprived fires, which meant they couldn't have been possibly near their most intense pressure.
Charles Baldwin, who's a retired high school math, physics, and chemistry teacher, calculated that in relation to the North Tower, for example, if you look at the top 16 floors, and the weight that it would exert downward is one unit.
There were 118 units of upward force, meaning it was not even physically possible for the Twin Towers to collapse.
Indeed, John Skilling, who was a chief engineer in the construction of the Twin Towers, said they'd been built with a safety factor of 20, meaning each floor could support 20 times its expected live load, which is its dead load absent persons, desks, computers, bathroom facilities, and the like.
20 times!
There's no possible way those buildings could have collapsed.
And look at this!
How could anyone looking at this, the destruction of the North Tower, believe this was any kind of a collapse?
Notice in the foreground we have Building 7, which would only be destroyed at 5.20 in the afternoon, nearly seven hours after the destruction of the North Tower.
Meanwhile here, take a look.
This is the final destruction of some of the support columns, the 47 core columns for the North Tower.
Notice they are undergoing molecular disintegration.
They are turning into dust right there before our very eyes.
This cannot possibly have been any kind of collapse.
Even Donald Trump, who was interviewed on 9-11, explained the builders who constructed the Twin Towers were working for him now, that the jets could not have penetrated the Twin Towers.
They would have been crumpled external to the towers, and there's no way that jet fuel-based fires could have caused them to collapse.
Trump himself said something else must have been involved, such as bombs.
Remember, that's exactly what we heard from the civilian right there in the opening clip with which we began.
Indeed, it appears this was a nuclear event where a mini-nuke was in a sub-basement and where it destroyed the inner tube from the bottom up and then the outer tube from the top down.
What we observed was from the outer tube from the top down.
It was a nuclear event, confirmation for which was provided by the U.S.
Geological Survey, which conducted dust studies at 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found a host of elements, barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium, indicative of a nuclear event, many of which only exist in radioactive form.
Plus, there was the ejection of a massive steel assembly from the North Tower at a 45-degree angle.
It turns out jet fuel fires, even if they burn hot enough and long enough, would cause the buildings to sag and gradually collapse asymmetrically.
Jet fuel could not have ejected 300 tons upward at a 45 degree angle and 600 feet outward into the winter garden.
To explode steel, it turns out, an explosive needs to have a detonation velocity of 6,100 meters per second.
To explode cement, a detonation velocity of 3200 meters per second.
Kerosene, which is a principal constituent of jet fuel, has a detonation velocity of only 1600 meters per second.
Nanothermite, much touted by architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth, for example, has a detonation velocity of only 895 meters per second, meaning you can't get there from there.
Nanothermite cannot possibly have destroyed the Twin Towers.
Many nukes, however, would have had the observed effect.
And we know, too, from health maladies incurred by up to 70,000 first responders and local residents, which have included multiple myeloma, leukemia, esophageal pancreatic cancer, are the sort of things that are predictable from a nuclear phenomenon similar to the pattern discovered after Chernobyl, where a reactor melted down in the Soviet Union.
Now, in a glitch, without precedent, where a major network got out of sync with the intelligence agencies and got ahead of the script, Jane Standley of the BBC reported that the Solomon Brothers building had collapsed at 4.57 in the afternoon When that event would in fact not take place until 520, and in fact, over her shoulder, you can see the Solomon Brothers Building, which was another name for Building 7, which would not come down for 23 more minutes.
And when it did, it was a classic controlled demolition.
Just look at what you're seeing here.
Buildings aren't blowing apart from every direction.
Floors are not remaining stationary.
They're not being converted.
It isn't being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
And when it's over, there's a pile of debris equal to 12% of the 47 floor original height or five and a half floors.
By that standard, Applied to the 110-story buildings, the Twin Towers, there should have been 13 1⁄2 floors of debris had they collapsed.
But of course, that's ridiculous.
Look here.
In the upper left, you have the 5 1⁄2 floors from Building 7.
But right in the immediate foreground, you have where Building 1 stood, no stack of debris, no 13 1⁄2 floors.
But as Father Frank Morales observed, They were actually destroyed, too, or even below ground level.
Remarkably, even the Wisconsin State Journal today published a residue of the North Tower where they don't realize that it contradicts the official account because there's no 13 and a half floors of debris.
It's destroyed, too, or even below ground level.
Meanwhile, much was going on in New York.
There were some 200 Mossad, I'm convinced, agents who were brought into the United States as Zork students, some of which were in the North and the South Tower.
There were also five known as the Dancing Israelis at Liberty State Park who were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers were destroyed.
They had a variety of tasks on 9-11, including planting jammers on buildings to block court authority dispatchers and first responder radios, planting explosives on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, where the cables are anchored in order to collapse the bridge, explode a truck in the Lincoln Tunnel, explode a truck in the Holland Tunnel, park trucks with demolition devices in specific parking areas.
Also, allegedly to coordinate with Mohammed Adda and his group.
But that's a farce.
The 19 Islamic terrorists had nothing to do.
They were patsies of 9-11 just as much as Lee Oswald was a patsy in relation to JFK and Sirhan Sirhan in relation to Bobby.
Now the witness who saw these Israelis celebrating in Liberty State Park notified the police.
And when they arrested, the driver told the arresting officer, we are not the problem.
The problem, our problem is your problem.
The problem is the Palestinians.
They were driving an urban moving systems van that had a mural of the Twin Towers and a plane painted on it.
Inside the van, they found residue of explosive passports, money, box cutters.
Meanwhile, they were arrested and held for 71 days until an assistant to then-attorney John Ashcroft released them, and they returned to Israel.
Three of them went on Israeli television and explained they had been there to document the destruction of the Twin Towers, which obviously implies foreknowledge.
Meanwhile, between the destruction of the North and the South Tower, we had the very peculiar phenomenon of displaying, running a video of Palestinians rejoicing, which was clearly intended to convey the impression That they were overjoyed at what was going on in New York at the time.
I was convinced when this was shown that this was archival footage about which I have been proven correct from an earlier political or a religious event where the Palestinians were celebrating, but they, like the rest of the world, were just as slack-jawed and stunned by what was going on in New York as the rest of us.
Meanwhile, I dug in about the two planes that actually were in the air, Flight 93 and Flight 175, and discovered that the aircraft, the physical planes used for those flights, where one and the same plane can use for multiple flights today from Tampa to Chicago, tomorrow from New York to San Francisco, were not even formally deregistered or taken out of service until 28 September 2005.
So how can planes that weren't 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?
Meanwhile, we have the past seats.
15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.
None, to my knowledge, was from Afghanistan.
The whole thing was ridiculous and a complete farce.
In fact, a half a dozen of these guys turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with the British press.
Mohammed Adda's father reported his son had called him, terrified that they were going to be tracked down and killed because they had nothing to do with his event.
And he spoke the truth.
Meanwhile, note, if no planes crashed, then no passengers died, and no Islamic hijackers caused them to crash.
And if no Islamic hijackers caused them to crash, then there was no warrant or any justification for the war on terror.
So what's going on?
Wesley Clark explained the real agenda.
After he returned from serving as Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, that is, Commanding General of NATO, he visited the Pentagon and encountered a general of his acquaintance who told him that we were planning to invade Iraq.
They both thought that was very strange, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
General Clark asked the general to keep him posted.
He returned a month or so later, saw him again, and asked, are we still planning to invade Iraq?
And the general said, oh no, sir, it's much worse.
Step into my office.
He said, we've just received a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that the plan now is to overthrow the governments of seven countries in the next five years, beginning with Iraq and Libya, ending with Syria and Iran.
Well, that was the agenda.
It hasn't played out that way because of the intervention of Russian and Iranian troops at the request of the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
And yes, If you were laboring under the illusion we were in Syria to bring democracy for Syria, we can't do that because Syria is already a democracy.
Here you see the two masterminds behind 9-11, Ehud Ullrich and Bibi Netanyahu.
Who already had a conference in the late 1980s talking about terrorism and how the West can win, where with a dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, they formed the Neocon Project for a New American Century, insisting that if the United States would only move aggressively into the Middle East and exert military and diplomatic pressure Outward from that geopolitically sensitive region, with the demise of the Soviet Union as the sole remaining superpower, they could create an American empire that would endure for the next 100 years.
That was all nonsense, of course.
The plan instead was to bring U.S.
forces into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states.
That served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region.
And eventually to confront the Persian nation of Iran.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney and George Bush had to be in office to bring us 9-11.
This is why the election of 2000 was stolen in Florida, where Jeb Bush was the governor.
Dick Cheney, as Michael Rupert concluded in his masterpiece, Crossing the Rubicon, based upon publicly available sources, concluded Dick Cheney was the executive director of 9-11 from a bunker beneath the White House, which appears to be 100% correct, where George W. Bush, because he was such a dim bulb, was for the most part left out of the loop.
Meanwhile, I have a book where I bring together 17 experts on what happened on 9-11, America nuked on 9-11, compliments of the CIA, the neocons, and the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
The contributors include Ed Ward, M.D., Jeff Prager, Susan Lindauer, Preston James, Ph.D., Dennis Camino, Jack White, Nicholas Kohlstrom, Ph.D., Mike Palachek, T. Mark Hightower, Jim Fatser, Ph.D., Steve Forme, an aeronautical engineer, Joshua Blakeney, and Don Fox.
We're in the midst of withdrawing from Afghanistan, where the Taliban declared there was no evidence bin Laden was involved in 9-11.
And indeed, that's what they asked at the time when the United States asked for bin Laden to be turned over for prosecution.
They said, we'll be glad to do that if you can provide any evidence that he was involved in 9-11.
Which we could not, so we simply went ahead and invaded anyway.
Indeed, Osama bin Laden was our man in Afghanistan.
He was instrumental in getting Stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujahideen.
They used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes that drive them out of that godforsaken land.
He was an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman, Where an official of the agency visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death on 15 December 2001 from his medical maladies.
It's tough to get dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
He was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance with Muslim tradition.
There were local obituaries.
By 26 December, both CNN and Fox News picked up on his death and reported it in the international press.
Barack Obama found it expedient to resurrect Osama and have him die again in a completely staged raid on a compound in Pakistan on 2 May 2011, a decade after his death, so he could pose himself for a triumphal re-election as the man who got the most wanted man in the world.
I close with a development that I find quite fascinating.
Now, about 10 days ago, Richard Gage resigned as the head of architects and engineers.
There are members there who grieve over this and think it was a great loss.
I, on the contrary, believe this was a giant step in the right direction.
Richard Gage was managing a limited hangout.
He would not allow the organization to address who was responsible or why.
He gave an inadequate explanation of how it was done, focused on nanothermite, and members of his organization argued that a plane really had hit the Pentagon, which of course was complete and utter nonsense if we have discovered So it's fascinating to me that Gage has stepped down.
I do believe he has siphoned up so much of the donations from the American public who wanted to support 9-11 Truth, thinking mistakenly that architects and engineers were the right guys.
But under the management of Richard Gage, it wasn't going to happen.
Hopefully that roadblock, that obstacle to 9-11 Truth has now been removed.
Then I would like to believe progress can be made.
Thank you for this opportunity to present today the 20th observance of 9-11.
All right, Jim.
I want to thank you first of all for the, like I said, I am having a lot of trouble believing this, but you do make a good case.
You do make a good scholarly argument and I must say I'm intrigued quite a bit.
Um, recently, uh, our current president Joe Biden is asking for the declassification of certain 9-11 documents.
What do you think we'll find?
Well, if these were bona fide documents, we'd find that 9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense who came from the Project for a New American Century, the overwhelming majority of whom were dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, and the Mossad, Osama bin Laden had died on 15 December 2001, and that the raid on the compound in Pakistan was a complete fabrication.
All of that would be in the documents were they authentic and to be released.
But I don't count on it.
And the fact that this was actually a nuclear event, you can put together from publicly available sources, such as the U.S.
Geological Survey, as I have already explained.
So you're contending that a mini-nuke is what brought down the towers, correct?
Yes.
Okay.
And by the way, if you want further substantiation, last year I conducted a conference on false flags and conspiracies 2020 on the 5th and the 6th of December, which I've now made available and free to the public.
If you go to falseflagconspiracies2020.com, You can download any of the presentations, but I mention this especially because Joe Olson, who's an engineer qualified in structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering, presented a talk about the use of nukes to destroy the Twin Towers, which
He is quite brilliant and gives much more elaboration because his whole talk, which was approximately the same length as the one I just presented, was on the use of nukes on 9-11.
So can you put a link in the chat to it, if you don't mind, for the benefit of our audience?
Sure, sure, sure.
It's just falseflagconspiracies2020.com.
False flag conspiracy.
I can maybe post a link in the chat.
Karina, you got your hand up.
Go ahead.
What happened to the people who were in the airplanes?
Well, remember, two of the flights, 11, the North Tower and 77, the Pentagon, weren't even in the air.
So they just made up lists of victims.
We find this in many other situations.
At Parkland, actually, interestingly, they even forgot to put up the obituaries.
At Las Vegas, where we're supposed to have lost some 50, The obituaries were based upon persons who died in different states or on different dates or from different causes of death, so putting together fabricated passenger lists is not a great challenge.
Two of those planes now, remember, 93 and 175, remained in the air.
So those passengers also didn't die.
But I suspect, just as the case of the casualty list from the Pentagon, they simply manufactured.
This is child's play for a script writer from Hollywood.
Let me mention, by the way, very significant.
We know we had a 9-11 commission investigation and a 9-11 commission report.
Now, the first choice to be the executive director of the 9-11 Commission was Henry Kissinger, but because he would have had to explain all of his financial entanglements, he declined the honor.
The fallback was a fellow named Philip Zelikow, who came from the academy, where as a professor he had, get this, as his area of specialization, the creation and maintenance of public myths.
M-Y-T-H-S.
Philip Zelikow is my candidate for the author of the script for 9-11 and therefore who better to put in charge as the executive director of the 9-11 Commission than a guy who actually completed a draft of the 9-11 Commission report a year before he shared it with any member of the staff and who is now And I find this very sad because I taught there twice as a visiting associate professor in 1977-78 and as a visiting full professor in 1981, a member of the faculty of the Department of History at the University of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson's University.
I have a question.
This is Ellen.
Go ahead.
Um, so what about the people who are claiming that their relatives died on that plane?
I mean, they're in the media, they're talking.
Well, they're liars!
I mean, you know, how much evidence do you need?
If the planes didn't crash, and nobody died, then anyone who claims they have a relative who did die is making it up.
They're receiving all kinds of benefits, or even sympathy.
They may be receiving, you know, massive donations, financial rewards.
I mean, look, at Sandy Hook, the parents who pretended to have lost children there were the beneficiaries of donations from the American public that ran $27 to $130 million.
Divided evenly between the 26 families, that's from $1 to $5 million for pretending to have lost a child at Sandy Hook.
Being a crisis actor and a liar in America these days can be very profitable.
What if even Barbara Olsen, is she, you think she's alive somewhere?
Yes, yes, Barbara Olsen's a fascinating case.
Let me just say, A.K.
Dudney, who was a professor of computer science at Western Ontario, was so disturbed about all the reports of the cell phone calls that he took three different types of cell phones and began flying around to test the hypothesis and discovered it speeds over 200 miles an hour or altitudes above 2,000 feet.
You cannot connect a cell phone call because it can't switch from one relay tower to another fast enough.
Now Barbara Olson reportedly called her husband Ted.
It was at the time the Solicitor General of the United States, where she herself was well known as a political commentator on the right.
Uh, actually claimed to have reported to him that they'd moved all the passengers to the back of the plane, which, by the way, would have made it aerodynamically unstable with that kind of shift of mass in the plane and very difficult to control.
But remember, this is Flight 77, which was not even in the air that day.
And then, of course, was supposed to have died, so people felt as though they knew somebody who died, Barbara Olsen.
Well, get this, the rest of the story.
She appears to have gone to Europe that she was arrested on the border of Austria and
Switzerland for some kind of financial impropriety, underwent cosmetic surgery,
and returned to the United States to remarry her husband Ted as Lady Booth.
Really?
She's married to Ted again?
She married her husband as a different person with some cosmetic surgery.
Wow.
That's a great story.
You can't make that up.
Boy, it's too quick.
I mean, Well, you could make it up, but it appears to be true.
I mean, this whole 9-11 scenario is a fantasy, except those buildings really were destroyed.
And by the way, let me mention Christy Whitman had a particularly despicable role to play here as a head of the EPA.
Get this, the Twin Towers were under a condemnation order from the Port Authority because they were laden with asbestos, but you couldn't deal with it by conventional controlled demolition because it would have released the asbestos and other heavy metals into the atmosphere.
You also could not do it by a conventional asbestos removal, because constructing scaffolds around 110-story buildings, it would have panned out about a billion dollars a building, so it wasn't financially feasible.
How convenient That terrorist just happened to come along and perform the deed, where Christie Whitman, and I damn her for this, said the air was perfectly safe to breathe when it was anything but.
Let me also say, Larry Silverstein, again, not only a dedicated Zionist, but a personal friend of Bibi Netanyahu, where they had phone calls, Larry and Bibi, every Sunday, When he took possession, he fired the security firm that had been looking after the Twin Towers since it first opened in 1970, hired an Israeli firm, Kroll, and renegotiated his insurance coverage for the World Trade Center, including an anti-terrorist clause so that he could claim, because there were two blames, therefore two attacks, therefore double indemnity, collecting $4.5 billion
Wow, yeah.
It's just amazing.
In fact, it turns out the designs for the new Freedom Tower were already in place before 9-11 occurred.
Wow, yeah, it's just amazing. You know, Homeland Security, Chertoff played a role, right?
Charlie's got his hand up, can we move on please?
No, there was no Homeland Security yet.
Remember that was in the wake of 9-11.
They passed the Patriot Act, created the Department of Homeland Security, consolidated 35 different Governmental agencies, including several that were in competition with one another to do intelligence, which means they took the really most successful way to collect intelligence, have smaller units in competition, so they don't want to be outdone by the other agency, into this behemoth of 35 agencies, so now they could speak with one voice, meaning they could suppress those who were getting off of the reservation by actually discovering the truth.
No, what you're thinking about, Michael Chertoff, is the following.
When the dancing Israelis were arrested and held for 71 days, they were released by an assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.
That assistant was Michael Chertoff, another dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who would become the second head of Homeland Security after Tom Bridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania.
I mean, having this man, the head of Homeland Security, is turning U.S.
intelligence over to Israel.
That's what is equivalent.
Right?
I just heard one thing.
Jeff Gates said that Chertoff was handling Giuliani.
And I don't know if you've ever heard that.
As a Zionist handler.
All right, Ellen, we want to move on too, but let Jim answer your question and we move to Charlie.
Okay, please.
No, I'm not at all clear with Ellen, man.
So I'm just going to let that pass because I know others want to have the opportunity.
Okay, Charlie, you're next.
You got your hand raised.
Yes, not to make light of you have made some rather sweeping generalizations here and assertions.
However, how can I say the devil's in the details.
Now you showed a photograph of a jet engine at the intersection of Church and Murray streets in downtown Manhattan.
And I worked 35, 40 years in the loop of Chicago and I don't precisely understand how you would deposit, when would you do it, a jet engine on an intersection
In the downtown of a major metropolitan city.
I mean if I went to work one morning and saw a jet engine on the sidewalk, it would be the subject of some discussion among my co-workers.
How I mean, you would need a crane and a crew.
I don't want to denigrate, but did you actually listen to what I said?
I explained the whole bloody thing.
There was a van there at the intersection and five men in FBI vests unloaded it using a dolly.
It was sitting on the sidewalk, which was undamaged.
It was under a steel scaffolding.
and a canopy which were undamaged. It was an antiquated engine. It wasn't even in use. I
explained all of this. I must therefore question your integrity in posing such a stupid question.
New York City was in chaos at the time. Nobody knew what was going on anywhere else.
I've spelled this out in detail.
And when you talk about sweeping generalizations, what in the world are you talking about?
I offered no sweeping generalizations.
I began this by explaining I've been dealing in collaborative research on 9-11 for 15 years from experts all over the world.
I began by explaining, too, where you can go and find twice as much detail, twice as much evidence, on my BitChute site.
Just go to BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, and you'll find it there.
This morning, I did, in honor of Robert David Steele, a two-hour presentation that may be the best and the most thorough, which has probably been posted there by now.
So, I'm not impressed.
Okay, Jim, I got a question for you.
Sure.
If somebody, since you've done all your research on 9-11, if somebody was wanting to find out about how to debunk you, what would be the best places to look?
Well, it would have been architects and engineers, see, because they're promoting nanothermite.
They're trying to defeat the nuclear hypothesis, but they can only do it by suppressing evidence.
They've got guys with whom I've debated who want to argue that a plane actually hit the Pentagon.
In other words, they've got some very skilled disinformation.
Operators there, and architects and engineers, which is a reason why I think it's good that Gage has stepped down, because he was running a limited hangout.
By the way, let me add, so too Judy Wood, with her directed energy weapons.
I'd spend more time about her in the longer presentations I've done.
And I have done so many about 9-11.
I've been flown all over the world to give talks about 9-11.
To Athens, Greece in December 2006, for example.
I was put on television, originally for three hours, extended to three and a half broadcasts worldwide by satellite about 9-11.
I've been flown to Buenos Aires, Argentina twice.
The first time in 2008 to give lectures on JFK and on 9-11, the second in 2009 to be the keynote speaker at an international symposium on 9-11 truth and justice that was held in the National Library of the Republic of Argentina, where there were like 20 major television networks that were covering the presentation.
Others were involved.
I just want you to know I organized a conference here in Madison, Wisconsin in 2007 on the science and politics of 9-11.
I organized a conference in 2010 at Friends House in London about debunking the war on terror.
I organized a Vancouver hearings in 2012 where a lot of evidence was adduced about the use of nukes on 9-11.
I make none of this up.
All of my research is collaborative and therefore, you know, I am really bothered by those who fail to attend to what I'm seeking to explain as clearly and concisely as I can.
Okay, we just had a quick question from the chat from a latecomer.
Who was to blame for 9-11?
I take it the U.S.
government and 9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA.
George Tenet was given the Medal of Freedom, I'm sure, for the collusion of the CIA.
With the neocons in the Department of Defense, the overwhelming majority of whom were dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, are the most sought.
The brain trust for 9-11 was Ehud Umar and Bibi Netanyahu, both prime ministers of Israel, who wanted to get American military forces into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states that served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region, and eventually to confront A Persian nation of Iran.
It didn't pan out that way because of the involvement of Russian and Iranian troops at the request of the democratically elected president of Syria.
But believe me, Israel is continuing and even doubling down on its threats against Iran, where I have encouraged the Iranians to obtain nuclear weapons.
If the Iranians had nukes and we'd have the same kind of stability in the Middle East we had for those decades between the United States and the USSR, where we were both nuclear-armed nations and knew, based on mutually assured destruction, that if one attacked the other that we'd both be annihilated if Iran had nukes, Israel would know, where Israel, by the way, has a vast arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in violation of international law it's never acknowledged.
And because it has that vast, even the Fulbright Amendment, the United States is not legally allowed to give foreign aid to Israel, yet we continue year after year to give foreign aid to Israel.
It's stunning!
Are you familiar with the Satan 2 ballistic missile coming out of Russia right now with the hypersonic aircraft?
Listen, Russia has the best military equipment in the world.
They have the best anti-submarine torpedoes.
They have the best anti-missile missiles.
They have the best anti-ship missiles.
If we get involved in a military exchange with Russia, we are not going to like the outcome.
And they're anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles.
They are the best in the world.
And this equipment we're talking about is unstoppable.
Right now, there's no way to deal with it.
Here, by the way, you may have heard of the Aegis destroyer frigate that was in the Black Sea that was completely immobilized by a Russian plane.
They neutralized the electronics.
It was just a sitting dock.
The Russians have that ability, and we don't have a way to cope with it.
Interesting.
All right.
Next question, please.
Ellen, you already went.
Let's try to see if we can get some other people in, and then we'll get back to you.
Don't worry.
Who else has a question?
Go ahead, Jian.
Jian, you got your hand raised.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Okay.
So it looks like, Jim, you used to teach philosophy in a university.
Yeah, for 35 years, yeah, quite a few.
I began at Kentucky, then I taught at Virginia, I taught at Cincinnati, I taught at North Carolina at Chapmell Hill.
I wound up being hired as full professor with tenure on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota for the last 19 years of a 35-year career, where I mostly offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning prior to my retirement in 2006.
So I'm just curious what prompted you to change the direction from from research and studying teaching philosophy to Yes, yes, yes.
Both historical and intellectual.
Is there a logical explanation for the journey of your change of your kind of change of career?
Yes, yes, yes. Both historical and intellectual. Historically, I began doing research, serious research on JFK in 1992,
in the wake of the release of Oliver Stone's magisterial film JFK, when my wife just came up, flipped on the TV and
said, you're not going to believe this, and I saw a very
distinguished looking man standing behind a lectern with the logo of the AMA.
His name turned out to be George Lundberg.
He was the editor-in-chief of JAMA, the journal of the AMA.
And he was denouncing Oliver Stone and anyone who'd ever done serious research on the assassination.
Mark Lane, David Lift, and a host of others, including a fellow named Charles Crenshaw, who had been a physician at Parkland.
He was actually the last to observe the president's body when it was wrapped in sheets and put in the bronze ceremonial casket.
He closed the president's eyes, for example.
And I knew what Lundberg was doing was outrageous, that he was abusing his position as the editor of this journal.
Well, I had a lot of editorial experience myself.
Ten years as an associate editor of Syntheas, which is an international journal for epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science.
I would found an international journal, which I co-edited for 10 years, Minds and Machines,
about artificial intelligence, philosophy, and cognitive science.
I got involved because it seemed to me – I mean, watching Lundberg, it told me if this
– a man of this position could abuse his journal for political purposes, perhaps some
of us with a technical background that otherwise would never have become involved ought to.
I began following what happened in the journal and found a letter to the editor complaining about the abuse of the journal that I resonated with.
I reached out to the author David W. Mantic, who has both a Ph.D.
in physics from Michigan, from Wisconsin, and an M.D.
from Michigan, who's board certified in radiation oncology, and invited him to join me in a long article or a book, which he agreed to do.
This was just before he entered the National Archives, with permission of Burke Marshall, who's a professor emeritus at the law school at Yale, a Kennedy family attorney.
And David told me, Before he went in that he thought he'd find both evidence of a second shot to the head and that the autopsies had been altered and that they were not original.
He was right on both counts so that I've done Actually, I published three books on JEFK that were in 1998, Assassination Science, Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, 2003, while I was still a member of the faculty of the University of Minnesota, and indeed in 1996, they elevated me in the very first group
To a new rank, second only behind Regents Professor, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, for faculty who in their first years as full professor had greatly enhanced the prestige of the University of Minnesota by their research contributions, and mine were pretty extensive at the time.
I mean, I published 24-plus books of scholarly work on the nature of scientific reasoning, on the foundation of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution, and mentality.
But now I've also published a dozen-plus works in the area of conspiracy research.
And let me say, I've been seeking to champion the point of view that conspiracy theories are theories.
And therefore they can be appraised by the same criteria we use to appraise scientific theories.
You could say my area of specialization has become taking conspiracy theories from theories in the weak sense, or conjectures, rumors, or speculations, to theories in the strong sense of empirically testable scientific hypotheses like Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution, so that they can be testable.
Indeed, among my most recent publications is one in the UNZ review UNZ.org, I believe, entitled What's Wrong with Conspiracy Theories, when I go through and explain how you can appraise them by the very same criteria, clarity and precision of language, scope of explanation and prediction, degree of empirical support, and economy, elegance, or simplicity with which those results are achieved.
So I'm seeking to take The idea of being a conspiracy theorist and explain conspiracy theorists are doing what we all should be doing, challenging official government reports.
I was asked when I was heading for a conference in Dallas on JFK by a major television station in Minneapolis how I would refer to myself, and I said then, as a conspiracy analyst or a conspiracy realist, Let me tell you how absurd it's become.
Robert David Steele, who was just a wonderful guy, former CIA, who had this sensational website where I collaborated with him on a memorandum for the president about Sandy Hook, and then on a second memorandum for the president about 9-11, which is still a wonderful resource, Was attacked as a conspiracy theorist.
Well, think about it.
He came from the CIA.
The CIA is conspiracy central.
What do you think the CIA does?
They conduct conspiracies all over the world, overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953, the government of Chile, machine gunning Salvador Allende.
Tried to overthrow Fidel Castro with a bay of pigs.
Took out Patrice Lumumba in the Congo against Jack Kennedy's Express.
Assassinated the Diem brothers, which he also opposed.
The CIA conducts conspiracies all over the world, and they're going to criticize a former CIA guy who's speaking the truth as a conspiracy theorist?
This is the reductio ad absurdum of the idea of denigrating people for being conspiracy theorists.
What we are doing is trying to solve crimes that the government hasn't been willing to solve because they lead back to the government.
So how do you feel if you are labeled as one of the conspiracy theorists?
How do you feel?
I embrace it!
I published a piece, you can find it online, why I, Jim Schatzer, am a conspiracy theorist.
I want everyone to understand we should all be conspiracy theorists if we all care about the truth.
Because conspiracies are as American as apple pie.
Conspiracy is the most prosecuted crime across the United States.
Check out the first scholarly article I wrote about all this entitled, Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, 9-11 and JFK, where I use JFK as an illustration to introduce how to apply scientific method to the study of conspiracy theories, which I have championed I mean, I'm telling you, I went to London.
At Cambridge, I gave a presentation on reasoning about assassinations, where I showed that just by knowing where JFK was hit in the back, which was five and a half inches below the collar, just the right of the spinal column, you could demonstrate that the assassination had been a conspiracy.
Well, it turns out There are actually eight different shooters in Dealey Plaza, and none of them was named Lee Harvey Oswald.
And I published a fourth book on JFK in 2017, JFK Who, How, and Why.
That book and my 9-11 book have not been banned by Amazon, but six other of my books on Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing, they've all been banned by Amazon.com.
I believe the last, because I have a series of essays addressing the Holocaust, which is surprising, falls apart relatively effortlessly if you undertake the least effort.
You're denying the Holocaust?
The least effort of serious research.
So the ADL asked Amazon to ban every book that disputed the official narrative of the Holocaust, and Amazon banned somewhere between 200 and 2,000 books on that ground at the request of the ADL.
And did I mention that when I replied to this criticism by a defender of Judy Wood to a group response that one of them bounced and came from the ADL?
In other words, Judy Wood and her whole duo approach is a limited hangout to complement the limited hangout run by architects and engineers and Richard Gage, which are intended to confound the American people so they have no idea which end is up.
All right.
Rabbi Zionist Mossad Agent, otherwise known as our Libertarian Chairman for Cook County, please go ahead.
And then HH, you can, which is Ellen, On the chat, there's a function where you can raise your hand.
I know Charlie's got his up, and then I think Gianna has hers up.
But let's go ahead, Mr. Mossad agent.
All right, Mr. or Professor Feltzer.
Feltzer.
Feltzer.
There's no L. Feltzer.
Gotcha.
It's German derivative and it means shredding machine.
Excellent.
I'm reading your Wikipedia article right now and it says here, quote, my research on the Holocaust narrative suggests that is not only untrue, but probably false and not remotely scientifically sustainable.
Now, when I was in Europe, I went to the Mannhausen concentration camp and it scared the shit out of me.
And I felt I couldn't sleep for several days.
And there's a lot of eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust.
Can you elaborate on how... Well, I'm surprised you're so naive about the history of this matter.
Excuse me, I'm not finished.
I'm not finished asking.
Can you elaborate why you think that it's untrue and probably false and unscientifically sustainable?
Was I hallucinating when I was in Austria?
Listen, not probably false, provably false.
It's provably false.
Now, I have an article.
Wikipedia is very interesting.
It's a Zionist op.
After I organized and participated in a conference on academic freedom where we focus on whether there were limits to inquiry using JFK 9-11 and the Holocaust as examples, my Wikipedia entry was gutted.
More than half of it was removed.
All my research on JFK, 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, and the Holocaust, they were just wiped out to punish me for disputing the official account.
Now, when you dig into it, it falls apart relatively effortlessly.
For example, The word six million, the number six million, has no historical basis whatsoever.
It turns out that there are 236 references to six million Jews being in dire straits or fear of loss of their lives in the international press beginning in 1890.
And all prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal.
You asked me, and I'm answering you now.
You let me answer.
You're as bad as Wikipedia, which gutted my entry.
to interfere when I'm explaining what's happening. You're as bad as Wikipedia, which gutted my entry.
Let me explain. The number appears to be derived from a disputed passage in Deuteronomy, which says
that the chosen people can return to the promised land only when they're minus six million who've
been consumed in the flame, but even that requires interpolation.
Because there was no word in the original Hebrew for six million.
Now, the International Committee of the Red Cross was keeping meticulous records on all of the camps on the age, the sex, the religion, the ethnicity, and the cause of death for all the inmates who died.
In 1996, they did a recalibration and they discovered the total number from all causes It was 296,081, not one of whom died from being put to death in a gas chamber using Zyklon B. And we have this brilliant Canadian who stood up and was subjected to trials for denying the Holocaust, Ernst Zundel, where his very first trial was notable because the prosecution could not produce a single witness who could testify to having seen
Anyone being put to death in a gas chamber using Zyklon B and whose second trial was even more impressive because the world's leader in gas chambers from the United States traveled to Germany, inspected the facilities Rabbi Zinus Mossad claims to have seen up close and came back to explain with his report that there was nothing there that could possibly have served as a gas chamber.
In other words, the whole business is a myth.
Indeed, we had Amy Goodman.
I saw the gas chamber!
Let me make one more point.
I saw the gas chamber!
Let me make one more point, then you can spout off all you want.
Amy Goodman featured a former cabinet member from Israel who said, when asked about the Holocaust, she said, oh yes, that's just a trick in Europe.
If we receive criticism of Israel, we bring up the Holocaust in America.
We say you're anti-Semitic.
It's just a matter of facts, and you, alas, don't have your facts straight, and you have obviously not done any research on the Holocaust, or you'd know better.
All right, Ellen is next.
Yeah, I'd like to say that there was a whole, first of all, there was a whole trial in England by a professor, um, I forgot her exact name, and she, uh, she was being, um, sued by this, um, she was being sued by this British guy who was a Holocaust denier.
David Irving.
David Irving.
David Irving, right, right.
And she, and she, They did elaborate research and they won the trial because there obviously was a holocaust.
They did elaborate research and they were able to prove it to the court of law.
If we went to the U.S.
government, they're going to tell you JFK was killed by Barack Obama.
It was brought about by 19 Islamic terrorists under the control of a guy in a cave off in Afghanistan.
What you're saying is just ludicrous.
Look, I have an article out there.
You can find it.
It's entitled The Holocaust Narrative.
And there's books written about the trial, and I heard an Auschwitz expert who was creating an Auschwitz exhibit all over, you know, that's going to travel around the world.
I don't know What happened to it because that was like uh five seven years ago where he would he or if they if maybe they he did complete the exhibit and he said he was going to start in spain because they were not very knowledgeable about the holocaust but yeah i mean there there is very significant evidence of of the holocaust over i'm sorry
What you're asserting is completely, totally false.
I know I'm treading on your toes.
I know I'm making you uncomfortable.
I'm saying things that dispute your deepest held beliefs, but There's a new book by a guy named Nick Kohlerstrom.
He's a brilliant historian of science from the UK entitled Breaking the Spell.
He invited me to write the preface, the introduction to his book.
Now, what Nick had the advantage of was the British death books.
The British had broken the German cipher.
They were getting copies of every German transmission.
The Germans were very methodical, very systematic.
They have records on every single person who died in every single camp.
And the British death books confirmed what the International Committee of the Red Cross had verified in 1996, that the total who died in all the camps from all causes Was 296,081, none of whom died from being put in a gas chamber.
They were using Zyklon B, by the way, to delouse the inmates because the the lice were spreading typhus and dysentery and they wanted to maintain the health of the inmates because you can't get work out of a corpse.
These were labor camps.
They were by munition factories.
Only some of of the people who are doing labor.
All right, Ellen, let's- That's ridiculous.
Can I ask you a question, sir?
Have you ever seen a conspiracy that you disagree with?
That you say, oh, that's not true?
Look, look, there are millions of events that occur every single bloody day.
the overwhelming majority have nothing to do with conspiracy or as I explained before
you understand that conspiracy is the most prosecuted crime in the United States
that all this can I anti-conspiracy stuff is because we as conspiracy theorists are
seeking to solve crimes the government doesn't want to be solved because they lead back to the
power of the government. Have you ever seen any major conspiracy theory that you know of? No. Not really.
I don't think I don't think we have bases on the moon.
I don't think there are slaves, child slavery on Mars.
There are a whole lot of ludicrous theories that I don't give a second.
But look, what I do do is take seriously those that raise suspicion.
There are four stages of scientific reasoning.
One is puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
The second is speculation.
What are the possible explanations?
Now, Alex Jones is very good on those, the first two, but he's not good on the third, which is adaptation of the alternative hypotheses of the evidence, where it's crucial you sort out the fabricated evidence from the real.
That is the heart of the matter.
They altered the x-rays in JFK to conceal a fist-sized blowout to the back of the head, for example.
They substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK in the National Archives.
I'm telling you how to think these things through for crying out loud.
You might actually learn something if you would shut up and listen.
And the fourth thing is when all the evidence tends to converge to point in the same direction, you're entitled to accept the conclusion is true in the tentative infallible fashion of science.
Meaning, as you get more evidence, Or more alternative hypotheses.
You may have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense, which is where we are here with some of these issues, except you're not willing to look at the evidence.
Look at Robert Faurisson's essays about the trial of Ernst Zondel.
You can find it online.
Just read about the first and the second trial, which were like in 1984 and 1988.
You are going to be very surprised, because as I was explaining, the prosecution couldn't produce a single witness who could testify to seeing anyone put to death in a gas chamber, and the world's leading expert on the gas chamber testified there were no facilities in any of these camps that could possibly have served as gas chambers.
Okay.
With that, let's move on.
I think I just posted in the chat.
Charlie Padox next.
Then Ellen Corley, then Joseph Kurian in the question order.
I'm taking these down on the list now, so right here.
Go ahead, Charlie.
Mr. Pfeffer, you just somewhat introduced my question about producing witnesses.
My job was to put together cases, and we'd line up, as you've done, subject matter experts.
On buildings, the science of buildings and airline crashes.
However, you just stated that you have to produce witnesses.
Charlie?
Charlie, did you pay any attention to the fact I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth?
I brought together experts who were pilots, engineers, structural, mechanical, electronic, civil, aeronautical, physicists.
My God, that's what I do is bring together experts, Charlie.
Mr. Fitzgerald, I represented the federal employees who are air traffic controllers.
And my real question is, did you find anyone who is willing to testify in that workforce?
Now I didn't represent the workforce that would involve in this matter.
You said those airlines were over Illinois.
That's why I raised my clip.
Just slow down a minute.
And has anyone in the air traffic control workforce been willing to testify that they were involved in methods that were questionable, sir?
Charlie, do you understand that you can't violate the laws of physics and engineering?
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that what I've been explaining here is that 9-11, the official story, is impossible because it violates the laws of physics, engineering, aerodynamics?
Do you understand that the story cannot possibly be true?
And for you to coming up and asking for witnesses who are going to confess, I mean, that's just silly when we have powerful, the most powerful evidence you could possibly have, that these events we're being told occurred on 9-11 are impossible.
Impossible, Charlie!
Do you get that?
Impossible!
Okay.
Look, look, look, Charlie, there are all kinds of witnesses who thought everything was peculiar as all hell.
We had air traffic controllers who said that the approach to the Pentagon, where this plane is supposed to have taken this tight 360, was preposterous.
They'd never seen anything like it.
No pilots have been able to say they could have done it.
It was impossible.
We have pilots from 9-11 Truth, two dozen who tried repeatedly to hit the Twin Tower in simulators.
One of them could do it once after they'd done like 27 efforts.
It's damn near impossible for a pilot to hit the Twin Tower.
And those weren't even real planes, Charlie.
I mean, good God, I hope you've been paying attention to what I've been explaining here for the last hour and a half.
We have real plane.
Okay.
Well, okay.
Okay.
Let's roll.
All right, Charlie.
We've got we've got four, four more people next three more people next year.
Yeah, I wanted to get in to address the Ellen issue there.
I saw that movie of David Irving.
And I think what this is deliberate, David Irving is a kind of misinformation target.
They create a kind of controlled story.
And so if you look at that trial, they got him on kind of a technicality.
And I've kind of looked at it both ways.
But the truth is what they're covering up.
And this is what maybe you could tell us more about this idea
of limited Hangouts.
There's a great site called Whitney Webb's Unlimited Hangout.
And what I do like him is investigate research, try to get the truth.
This is what, actually, I typed into the computer, you know, do I have a right to an honest investigation?
And some troll said, no, you actually don't, you know, if you read the Constitution and take it literally, which, and that's what the thing is, we, that's why we're all screaming about these, 40, 50, 60 years ago.
What's your question?
Why haven't we gotten to the truth?
I'm still moderating, Charlotte.
How can we get to an honest investigation?
Why not?
Because the government was involved, Ellen!
Come on!
Why can't we get an honest investigation of JFK?
Why can't we get an honest investigation of 9-11?
The moon landing was fake.
Why can't we get an honest investigation of the moon landing?
Paul Wellstone was assassinated.
Why can't we get an honest investigation?
Because the government wants to cover up these events in which the government was involved, Ellen.
It's very simple.
Very simple.
Every government, Justice Department, William Barr, William B, all of them should be fired.
I just, I mean, if we had a basic HR function that says, you lied, you know.
I'm sympathetic.
I understand where you're coming from.
Believe me, it's all, it's politics, Ellen.
It's politics.
Right, right.
But I just think that, you know, if we don't have honest Socrates that, you know, look, without justice, you got no, you know, it's the ideal.
You have a very philosophical turn of mind.
And let me say, just in general, however strongly I may have disagreed, I respect every one of your right to your opinion, every single one, no matter how strongly I may have replied.
It was meant to be respectful.
I have done this huge amount of research, and it's collaborative, so we're critical of each other to make sure we don't make mistakes.
And I'm giving you a purified, you know, sampler of some of our most important findings.
But I tell you, go to my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, and look at this.
I think it'll be up already.
RDS is Robert David Steele.
I gave two hours today.
Maybe the single best I've ever done and I cover a whole lot of points that are questions in your mind because I wasn't able in the time frame to cover them.
Have you seen this?
We are taking control.
Ellen, if you don't mind, we'll come back.
We'll come back.
Put it in the chat, Ellen.
Put it in the chat.
And, uh, you know, okay.
Cause right now I've got Joe, uh, Joseph Kurian.
Rabbi Zionist, otherwise known as Justin Tucker, then Bob Madder.
So, Joseph, go ahead and ask your question.
Thank you, Tim.
Professor Fetzer, I'm looking at the pictures of Barbara Olson and Lady Booth, and I see a very unusual resemblance and It could be logically coincidental.
But regardless, my question is, did you say that this operation was pulled without President Bush in the loop?
Yeah, basically, Bush is such a dim bulb.
Let me give you an illustration of the risk they ran with Bush knowing too much.
Uh, he would, several times on 9-11, he talked about watching the first plane hit the North Tower.
Now, there was no footage of the plane hitting the North Tower until the following day from the Naudé brothers, who were there, obviously just to do it.
Leslie Raphael, who is, uh, A Scottish student discovered there were a hundred improbable circumstances that had to be satisfied for the Naudets to be there.
And actually, their name is just a variation on Duane Street.
The street they were on, they changed the letters around to call themselves Naudet.
In other words, they're totally fake.
Now, let me recollect exactly where you wanted to go.
Repeat your question.
Oh, my question was whether Bush was... Oh yeah, Bush, okay, here's the deal, here's the deal, here's the deal.
Even that footage by the Nade brothers wasn't available until the following day,
yet Bush, several times on 9-11, said when he saw that plane hit the North Tower,
he thought, man, what a terrible pilot.
He said it more than once.
Now, the only way he could have seen that in real time was through a closed circuit Secret Service
television in the presidential limousine.
Because when that happened, he was heading to Booker, Washington Elementary in Bradenton, Florida,
where I lived for about seven years, after teaching at New College at the University of South
Florida, which fronts on Sarasota Bay.
So he was making a report that revealed That the Secret Service had a camera facing that facade of the North Power where no one would ordinarily suppose anything of interest, even remote interest, would be taking place, which further implicates a Secret Service in knowledge of 9-11, and that Bush was, you know, a loose
Cannon that they had to bottle him up.
In fact, he did another interview where he was talking about again about how bad that pilot had been in hitting the North Tower, implying that he'd seen it in real time, which they actually edited.
They wouldn't allow to be published.
That was on PBS or something like I mean, you know, Bush Bush was not smart enough to know what was going on and what he should talk about or not.
I mean, he's a nitwit.
Okay, so do you think that he knows it, at least now?
Does he subscribe to your position or the like?
I have no idea, but, you know, the guy might have an IQ of 90.
I mean, that's ridiculous that he was president.
I mean, he looks like an Einstein, however, compared to the guy we got in there right now.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
My next question is, let me follow up.
All right, Joseph, sorry.
You were a philosophy professor.
Yes.
Respectfully, may I ask why you are a little unusually I'm a former Marine Corps officer.
Is it that it's your style or righteous anger or is there any personal stake or significant
injury in.
I'm a former Marine Corps officer I was commissioned as second lieutenant when I graduated magna
cum laude from Princeton, which was at the time ranked number one in the world and math
physics and philosophy, where I majored in philosophy for the leading philosopher of
science in the world Carl G. Hampel.
And after four years in the Marine Corps, I resigned my commission as a captain to enter graduate school to study with his leading critic, Wesley Salmon.
So I had a very strong philosophical background, but I also care about the future of my country.
And there's nothing more important than the American people having access to the truth, because they're being played with all these flim flams, all these stage events, which, by the way, Barack Obama legitimated by the Smith-Mutt Modernization Act of 2012, where he nullified the Smith-Mutt Act of 1948, Which had precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that were being used without, just in time to bring a Sandy Hook.
So, Barack Obama opened the floodgate to all these phony events.
We know abroad they fake riots, shootings, mob scenes, all this other stuff.
We now do it here in the United States on a regular basis, thanks to Barack Obama.
Okay, thank you.
I guess vibrant patriotism, nationalism, etc.
Okay, our next question.
I care about the future of the country and the constitution and the threats.
You see, it's very curious.
I regard what I'm doing as applied philosophy because I'm taking the principles of scientific reasoning and applying them to conspiracy theories so we can take them apart systematically And I bring together groups of experts to do this again and again and again.
So these books I'm talking about where I'm dealing with JFK or 9-11 or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, that's all mutual contributors.
17 contributors to my book on 9-11.
So, you know, it's not just my opinion I'm giving here.
Let no one think that.
I have benefited from collaboration, from the best people I could bring together to work on these issues together.
Certainly, certainly.
You don't look or talk like a traditional philosopher.
All right.
Say that last part.
Say that again.
You don't look or talk like a traditional philosopher.
No, I agree with that.
I agree with that.
I don't look like I'm 80 years old either.
All right.
We got to move on to the next question.
Rabbi Zionist and Bob Madder.
Okay.
Here's what he looks like.
Go ahead.
All right.
So, are lizard people at all involved in any of this?
No, that's a great example.
I'm not done asking my question, sir!
And if they're not directly involved with 9-11, are there lizard people involved in other conspiracies in America?
I don't believe there are.
I mean, that's a great example where I was asked before, is there some conspiracy theory I don't believe?
That's a perfect example.
I don't believe in lizard people or shapeshifters and all that, even though some who espouse those theories are pretty smart guys.
David Icke, for example, was the first to realize that the coronavirus pandemic was really to set up for the Great Reset to wipe out the middle class and to make, you know, return to a feudal society where the rich were the equivalent of in their castles and the rest of us were toiling as serfs and slaves in the field, but no.
I don't subscribe to lizard people.
I don't subscribe to shape shifters.
But some people who do have views that on other subjects that I respect and David Icke, I offer as an example.
OK.
All right.
All right.
So we have.
Do you have any more questions there, Mr. Rabbi?
If not, we have a Bob Madder.
First, I want to thank you for your service in the Marine Corps.
your question and then first I want to thank you for your service in the Marine Corps.
I hope you were in the first first Marine division. I was in the first battalion 12th
Marines third Marine division.
I was in Okinawa in the Far East for 13 months, but not in country.
And when I returned to the United States, I'd been trained as an artillery officer, by the way.
And when I returned to the United States, I was assigned to the Recruit Depot in San Diego.
Where I had 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command for a year going through the training cycle, and then I was moved up to regimental headquarters to revise the training program where we could train 8,000 Marines in 11 weeks to one where we could train 11,000 Marines in eight weeks using the same facilities, and I was there to see it operate.
At peak, but I have mixed feelings because I believe the war in Vietnam was a terrible mistake, as has all of our involvement in the Middle East.
Okay, well, so you sort of already answered a little bit of my question previously.
I was going to ask you for, you know, kind of an update on current conspiracy theories, and especially what this whole, what do you think this whole COVID thing is really about?
Who started it, and why?
Oh, this is very clever.
Well, you know, I mean, Klaus Schwab doesn't leave any doubt about it.
The World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, and Ted Turner, and other of these genocidal globalists want to take control of the entirety of planet Earth.
In fact, their ambitions are so grandiose that no one, no ordinary person can take them seriously, and they get swept away.
It turns out that the pandemic is generated largely by reclassifying instances of the flu, a bona fide respiratory disease, as though they were something new called COVID.
So that last year there were 38 million cases of the flu, this year less than 2,000.
Because they took 37,998,000 cases of the flu and reclassified them as COVID.
Now, the problem is not the alleged pandemic.
The problem is the vaccines.
These are not bona fide vaccines.
They've never isolated the virus.
Having never isolated the virus, they could not actually have a vaccine, because a vaccine would introduce a weakened version of the virus, so your body could develop antibodies.
What they've done instead is going in a completely different direction.
They're using a form of gene therapy, mRNA vaccines, that actually change your genetics.
And what it appears to do is to at least partially wipe out your immune system so the next time you're confronted
with what would have been in the past a relatively benign, meaning non-harmful or injurious to you
because you had the antibodies, they've been wiped out, where Sherry Tinpenny, among the bona fide experts
addressing these issues, has described these vaccines as perfectly designed killing machines
and where Luke Montagnier, the world's leading virologist, has been quoted as saying that everyone who gets a jab
will be dead within five years.
Judy Michovitz is another brilliant person.
Hope he didn't say that, because it could lead to those who have the jab to be panicked.
Now, I'm telling you, members of my own family have taken the vaccination.
They did it without letting me know.
They knew I was opposed to it.
They went ahead and did it.
And I'm in the same boat with a lot of others who are very apprehensive about what's going to happen, because this is all on a time delay basis.
We do, however, have like 45,000 who died within days of taking the jab, and the CDC turns out to be a private company masquerading as though it were a federal agency, but it's a marketing firm for big pharma.
Practically everything coming from the CDC is false, damaging.
There seems to have been some loss of the Hippocratic Oath, where physicians are supposed to do nothing that will harm first, do no harm, and total, total violation.
...of the Nuremberg Code that was passed after World War II that has 10 elements, including informed consent, that the process must not be more risky than the threat, and on and on.
Every one of which has been violated by the Biden administration in its attempt to mandate our health.
We're in an era of medical fascism.
That is the most threatening situation the entire world has ever confronted in history.
That's my short take.
And I'll tell you, I've been reporting on the coronavirus since May of 2020, virtually every single day, some days more than once.
Okay.
All right, Bob, are you satisfied with your answer?
Yeah, thank you very much.
Okay, Jian, you're next.
Okay, so I'm thinking about methodology.
So, as you know, one of the main characteristics of scientific methods is you set up a hypothesis, and then you try to falsify it.
If you can, so there are two ways.
I think there are many ways of doing things.
Some people set up a hypothesis and try to confirm their hypothesis.
And some, I mean, scientifically, You should set up a hypothesis and try to falsify it.
If you cannot falsify it, then you cannot prove it as a valid theory.
So my question is, it seems you have done a lot of research on different subjects.
Have you ever tried to falsify or try to modify your thoughts?
If you had, What are the examples that you have changed or modified your thoughts, or you have never need to modify your thoughts or theories?
Let me give you an illustration with regard to the moon landing until I went to London with my wife in 2001 and turned on the BBC and they were playing on the channel conspiracy theory that man go to the moon that just offered one scientific proof that we'd not gone to the moon after another.
I tended to take for granted we'd gone to the moon.
In fact, it was an elaborate hoax.
It was political.
Sputnik had been embarrassing, making it look as though the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in science and technology, which it was at the time.
JFK would never have declared, put a man on the moon had he understood the obstacles.
I've done a huge amount of research.
We didn't have the propulsion power.
We didn't have the computing power.
Well, we didn't have the communication capacity.
We could never have navigated the Van Allen radiation belts.
I mean, I'm telling you, there's one where I say we're in a state of naivete.
There was other cases where I thought, with regard to JFK, that Oliver Stone might have it right when Oliver Stone I posited three teams of shooters, but it turns out now, as
I continued my research, which is vast in the area of JFK, there were actually eight.
So yeah, and look, I love your bringing about falsification.
My very first book, entitled Scientific Knowledge, a Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration,
is dedicated to Sir Karl Popper.
And Popper, of course, has advocated falsificationism as an alternative to conformationalism.
And with regard to many, many of my presentations, I begin by talking about the methodological
difference between confirmationism and falsificationism, using as a simple example the hypothesis, all
pennies are made of copper, where you can produce billions of confirming instances.
And yet, it turns out in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes,
they were made out of steel.
So I'm a great advocate of falsificationism, and yes, of course, that's why I do collaborative research, so we can criticize one another.
As Sir Karl Popper has emphasized, the most direct route to the truth is critical debate, the use of reason, science, experiment, observation, measurement to discover the truth.
What Popper emphasized, however, is that if you attempt to falsify an hypothesis that doesn't show it's true, you may have simply not figured out the right way to falsify it.
But it does give you reason, at least, to think that it may be true.
So that all scientific knowledge is tentative and fallible.
I'm a great fan of Sir Karl.
So do you have an example to show that you have Modified your theories, especially so-called conspiracy theories, you have thought about and then you thought it could not be true.
All the examples that you told us, it's like reinforces, it looks like reinforces your assumptions and more and more.
So is there ever an example that you have questioned your hypothesis and just say,
no, this may not be true.
Every time- Look, look, look, look, look.
I don't want to accuse you of being simple minded, but I only go with issues that are complicated
and controversial.
If they're simple, why bother?
If they're not controversial, who cares?
So I go for the issues like the moon landing, JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, where there's political significance and where there may be reason for the government to be lying to the people.
I don't waste time on nonsense.
I'm a professional, for God's sake.
I taught courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
So, you know, please don't be denigrating.
My God, I'm not a simpleton, and I'm not going to mess around with issues that are obviously silly.
I was asked before, do I believe in shape-shifting reptiles and all that?
I do not.
Do I believe there are bases on the other side of the moon?
I do not.
Do I believe there are child sex Camps on Mars, of course not!
I can give you a reason for every damn position I take because I don't take positions for which I do not have good reasons.
Yeah, okay, can I go?
Have you been threatened your life, fired multiple times?
My sense is people like Michael Parenti wrote about how he he can't teach because he's been so hurt because he tells the truth.
I mean, and Kevin Barrett said he got, you know, shot at.
It seems that there is a the method in the madness behind the You know, the way they, you know, they call us conspiracy theorists to make, you know, to basically the disinformation, call us disinformation and where the information is, you know, I mean, but I, I have found like when Michael Parenti talked about in the 70s getting slammed and not being able to work, it, it gave me comfort because I knew that as a truth seeker, that, you know, I don't feel alone.
Well, I stepped on a lot of toes in my first position as an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky.
I won the first Distinguished Teaching Award given by the student government to one of 135 assistant professors in the hope that would show this was someone the students thought was deserving of tenure.
I'd published more articles in better journals than any candidate they ever had at the time, I don't know, 13, 14.
I'd published hundreds.
But I also had given talks, like a dozen talks at eight different departments, which is unheard of.
I don't think anyone has ever done that before, and it had to do with the fact my background was interdisciplinary in the history and philosophy of science.
So I upset three members of the six tenured faculty, which was not enough to block me from a reappointment, but was enough to block me from being promoted to associate.
And I later learned one of them had taught logic.
And he'd always said, because it was such a difficult subject,
that's why he got such bad course ratings.
Well, they gave me logic.
And I took a group of grad students.
And we were turning out these little logicians who just love logic.
Because I'd had a struggle when I was an undergraduate.
And it had taken me a long time to sort out that logic is actually a simplified model of language.
And you have to understand ways in which it does and does not
resemble language to understand it's an artificial system.
But we were turning them out.
I was getting great course evaluations.
He voted against me.
The head of the department had represented himself as a philosopher of religion when he actually
had a PhD in religion.
So he wasn't even a philosopher.
He wanted to have a PhD program at Kentucky, where we had a very successful NA program.
I opposed it.
He wanted me out so he could get his PhD.
program, which he did.
And the last time I looked, there were, like, 94 Ph.D.
programs in the United States, and the 94th, dead last, was the University of Kentucky.
And then this guy who got his Ph.D.
at Harvard in, like, 1942 and was an elder in the Presbyterian Church confided to a former colleague that he'd voted against me because I was living with my girlfriend without the benefit of marriage.
I was on a 10-year sojourn of visiting appointments for 10 years.
And let me say, Ellen, this is when interest rates were skyrocketing 70% and 18%.
I didn't get a nickel for 10 years into my retirement.
And then I went into a program for PhDs in philosophy and linguistics at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
And my very first paper created a sensation, a worldwide sensation.
Because I just discovered computer science was just laden with all the philosophical issues about ontology, what kind of thing is a computer, epistemology, with what certainty can we know what happens when you have a computer execute a program.
My very first paper, which my professor, you know, just said, Fascinating!
Well, I thought of my professor that was fascinating, maybe the rest of the world would, so I submitted to the Association for Computer and Machinery, and I got the right editor, and he put me through three revisions, and each time it increased by seven pages, and when it was published, It was under the title Program Verification, the very idea.
It created an international sensation, and for like a year they were publishing letters to the editor and so forth.
I mean, it really was quite phenomenal.
Well, I think the fact that I was doing this hands-on research Even though, I gotta confess, I never completed a single computer program.
People thought that I'd be sensational because programming is a lot like logic, but I never got the hang of it.
So I hung in there.
There were five of us in my class.
The other four got their degree, but I'm the only one the world has ever heard of.
And as far as death threats, yeah, since I got out.
And the University of Minnesota, by the way, was very supportive of my research on JFK.
They funded a conference I held in Minneapolis on 1999 on the death of JFK.
They funded a second conference at Duluth in 2003 on the Zapruder film, where I had the six best experts How we were able to prove the Zapruder film had been massively revised.
In fact, there are more frames missing from the original than are present in the extant, which has 487 frames.
Well, over 500 were taken out, and all kinds of revisions were made.
I have a whole book about it, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, published in 2003.
I have had an occasional death threat.
I never took them particularly seriously.
When they sought to size me up, they did it by using what I regard as a completely fabricated lawsuit to try to tie me up.
And we had a circuit court judge Who wouldn't allow me to introduce all the evidence I'd published in the book about how we knew Sandy Hook.
Nobody had died that it was a femidryl.
He wouldn't let me introduce any of that.
He said it was irrelevant where I was being sued over having asserted that a death certificate was fake.
Even though it says right on the death certificate, the decedent died at Sandy Hook Elementary on the 14th of December, 2012 from multiple gunshot wounds.
The judge said, all my evidence, nobody died at Sandy Hook was irrelevant.
Now you think about that.
So when I, when I submitted an appeal to the appellate court, they reaffirmed, they actually quoted that, you know, Sandy Hook, they might've taken it out of Wikipedia for God's sake.
Right now it's before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and you may have heard about this purported settlement between Remington and nine of the parents for 33 million dollars.
Just yesterday I submitted a motion to intervene actually It may have been Thursday.
In the last two days, I submitted a motion to intervene because they are basing the settlement on the presumption that the Sandy Hook event was bona fide, where one of my two attorneys has written to all of them probably a dozen times to point out that this is an issue that needs to be resolved, and where I have the unique standing of intervening because of a Connecticut Supreme Court decision That says, without any doubt, Adam Lanza had committed all these killings, was used in the cases against me, which means my legal rights are being violated, and if they go before it, I could be subjected to further fraud.
So this is a very unique set of circumstances, Zell, and where I'm actually in a position to do something about all this nonsense.
And that's why, you know, there's nothing in my opinion more pressing than the American people knowing the truth about all these events.
And to me, it's a most appropriate dedication of the final years of my life for that purpose.
I can't think of any that would be more worthy of every effort I can make.
And because I bring together such an unusual combination of resources, Who out there has a background in epistemology, methodology, and the velocity of science could actually take these things apart?
That's what sets me separate and distinct here and why I may be able to make a difference.
Tim, why don't we give the speaker a rest and go to remarks, rebuttals.
Tim, are you awake?
I can maybe tell you...
Yeah, we should go to rebuttal.
It's getting late.
We should go to rebuttals.
Are you there?
He's not paying attention.
All right, I'll take over.
Who wants to start?
No, I think he's... Tim, I think you're mute.
Yes, I'm paying attention.
I'm sorry.
All right, thank you.
There's an off switch in my microphone that I forgot was off.
So anyway, we have a real quick before we go to rebuttals.
I just have a real quick question.
Oh, let's go to rebuttals.
All right, I'll save it for later.
Who has a rebuttal?
I do.
I do.
Ellen Corley first.
All right, who's next after Ellen Corley?
Bob?
Okay.
I can be poor at the end, but I wanted to give a rebuttal.
All right, Charles Paydock after Ellen, and then Bob Madder.
Or do you want to go last, Charlie?
All right, we'll go Ellen Corley, Bob Madder.
After Bob, we had who else?
I know Charlie Paydock.
Ellen, the other Ellen.
Okay.
So, so far I have four.
Ellen Corley, Bob Manter, HH, and our Charlie Paydock.
Anybody else?
And Ellen.
Ellen does, right?
Yeah, I know.
The other Ellen.
I know.
That's who's right now on us, HH, on the Zoom screen.
All right.
And Jim, you'll get the last word.
So I have five rebuttals.
Anybody else?
You want a rebuttal, Tim?
Did you put yourself in there?
Uh, I would like to rebut, but, uh, I'll go, I'll go, uh, right before.
Okay.
I'll go right before Charlie then.
Uh, it's going to be very quick.
Um, because I think I have a quick rebuttal to, uh, Jim Fetzer's, uh, stuff that might make the point very quick.
I'll maybe be about 30 to 45 seconds.
Anybody else real quick who wants a rebuttal?
We have Ellen Corley, Bob Madder, the other Ellen that we had.
Then we had a Charlie Paydock and then I said me and then Charlie Paydock and then Jim Fetzer will get the last word.
All right.
I'm probably thinking about five minutes of time each.
So Ellen, if you want to give you a rebuttal, I'll have a I got a timer here on my other computer that I maintain a strict time.
Let me just get it ready.
So Ellen, I'm going to start your clock.
Go ahead, Ellen.
Yeah, okay.
Well, thank you, Jim.
One of the best talks, this and the other one.
I think you're talking about the most important issues of our time.
John Pilger said, we have to say what is not being said, and that's kind of how I ended up going from market research and Teaching philosophy to basically, you know, conspiracy research, you know, conspiracy analysis.
It's just crazy the way I have.
I gave a talk recently on Fascism today, you know, and I looked at my thousand books around me and I said, you know, fascism is the only thing that explains what is going on it, and there is revisionist Zionism was a plan that came out the Cold War.
Probably before that, but James Burnham, CIA, Zionism, and it sounds so ordinary, revisionist history, but one thing, they control the Inslaw Promise software.
Look into that.
I'll come on your radio show and talk about it.
Johnny Danny Casolaro died 30 years ago.
He didn't commit suicide he was suicided because he done this research, and he basically with Bill Hamilton who made the insular prosecutor management information system that in 1981.
William Barr and Reagan and and the Justice Department CIA, right after they wrote executive order 12333 saying that they will not investigate themselves as long as they.
You know, agree on it.
You know, it's so they were able to bring in all the drug trade, all the, you know, Rancontra and just cover it all up based on executive order.
That explains a lot, right?
I mean, most people are like, well, didn't they already investigate that?
You know, wasn't there a Warren Commission?
Wasn't there a Rancontra?
Lawrence Walsh and the guy that, another hero, I've just discovered, Danny Sheehan of the Christic Institute, who was in the 60s, Harvard Law, came up with, he was in the Green Berets, about to become one, until they said, you know, you got to kill people and children, and he said, I'm not going to do that, and then went on to defend The Pentagon Papers and Aaron Brockovich and Iran Contra, and you know this, he's now he had the Christek Institute, after defending Iran Contra with Lawrence Walsh, honest investigators, they
He, they sued him, so they had to close down Christic Institute, now he's Romero Institute in Berkeley, where I wanted to be this week, but there's a series of talks where he explains exactly what has happened.
And Peter Diel calls this deep state history, and this is what he, whenever I write I need a radio show like yours, but I write and I'll tag Mark Crispin Miller, Peter Dale Scott, and now it's, I'll put you on there, Jim Fetzer, right, and Kevin Barrett, Truth Jihad, Whitney Webb, Cynthia McKinney, and myself, and you know, we have to have this truth.
My goal, well yesterday, after I You know, because it's 9-11, I was like, they're not going to be able to let me on the plane to get out to the 9-11 Truth Conference or to, I was afraid of, I don't know what though, they probably won't let you go where there's a 9-11 Truth in Washington out of Colorado and Cynthia McKinney.
But and so I'm like okay I'll just type online 9-11 truth and COVID truth and and don't take this vaccine and you know my like just like Jan before and you know my three smart liberal women organizers I was almost going to be happy they're like tell me what's your evidence about the 45,000 deaths and I'm like oh good finally a client wants me to research and then she comes back you know you stupid idiot you know Right and then I'm because I'm listening to red, you know, red state, you know,
Misinformation, isn't it?
And it is the perfect weapon that it's got the left wing.
You know, the woman at church, she goes, I can't talk to you.
Because the nurse said she didn't have a vaccine, I'm going to make sure she doesn't come into my house, which is the church's house.
I was like, is that your house or is that God's house?
Because I thought it was God's house.
You know, why don't we just talk about whether this is true or not?
It is, they have disinformationed us, dis-educated us.
I was a teacher and I studied philosophy of education.
John Dewey was my favorite, my favorite professor.
And I believe, like, you know, I understand Dewey now when you realize what you're going through, you know, the McCarthy era.
And that's why you need progressives like you and me to be the one voice when everybody else has gone McCarthy on us, and it's on the left and the right.
And I just want to say one thing, you talk about logic, because we need philosophy.
I was studying logic at Colgate with Chris Hedges, and I was just so dumb feeling the whole time until the very end.
They got to inductive logic rather than deductive.
And I was in the back of the room, and he said, well, what would you ask if you looked at the Legionnaire's disease?
What is going on there?
And I said, well, I would ask some questions.
I would investigate.
And the guy's like, who is she?
She hadn't had a right answer yet.
It comes down to investigating, inductive logic, seeking the truth, helping others find truth.
I can find the truth.
All right, Ellen, you're close to six minutes now.
Yeah, okay.
All right, Bob Maddow, you were next.
Go ahead.
Okay, well... Five minutes, Bob.
Okay, I tend to disagree with most conspiracy theories Including the 9-11 one, because I think you're giving, I think our speaker and other people I've heard, you know, Andy Anderson and other people that, you know, advocate these ideas.
I think they give way too much credit to the government's capability to do things.
So, I've worked closely with A lot of government agencies for the last 13 years on a daily basis, and I'll tell you, the government is the most incompetent organization that I've ever had to deal with in my life at every level.
They can't deliver a goddamn letter From State Street in downtown to across the street from O'Hare Airport.
I mean, they just can't do anything right.
Look at how Biden fucked up this Afghanistan withdrawal.
I mean, it just goes, you know, right down the line of incompetence.
You know, look at everything, everything they touch, you know, the school system, the Department of Energy.
It's just a total, you know, total fuck-up, every which way we loose.
I just don't think that the government could pull off something as complicated as 9-11 and, you know, have nobody, you know, uncover it, you know, or keep quiet about it.
I mean, you know, the President of the United States can't even get a blowjob from an intern without it, you know, You know, blowing up in his face, essentially.
So, I just don't think the government's got that capability.
And, you know, the CIA, as much as I admire, you know, a lot of what they do and what they have done, you know, they have their problems, too.
They're also subject to the same problems of government.
So anyway, I kind of look at that with a, you know, Now also, I did meet the last two surviving members of Engine 6 in person when they were traveling with a documentary film that was being shown at Facets Multimedia, where I was a volunteer for about 20 years.
And I asked them about the Building 7 controversy, And they explained to me that, you know, the building had been on fire all day.
You know, all the beams had also softened up like they had in the towers, and that it was going to collapse.
There was nobody in there.
They had already lost so many men that day, first responders and stuff, that the brass didn't want to risk, they didn't want anybody else to get hurt.
And you know, they so they decided that this building is going to come down anyway.
So they hooked up some cables to it.
They just yanked it down.
So it wouldn't just fall down by itself and hurt somebody.
And they weren't going to send anybody in, you know, try to, you know, save the building or anything like that.
They said they they lost too many people.
And I believe those guys, I believe they were the real guys.
I don't think they were actors, you know, sent by the CIA.
I actually had a funny, you know, kind of a comical personal experience with one of the guys, which I don't want to talk about here while we're being recorded, but if you guys or any of you ever come to the college when we meet again live and you want to sit down at the table and ask me in person, remind me to tell you the comical story between me and one of the firemen.
But anyway, I think you can be a fairly good judge of character.
I think these guys were, you know, I think they were the real McCoy.
They were both on medical leave.
One was already fully on medical leave.
He had, of course, he had PTSD and everything because, you know, all of his buddies got killed.
And the other one was soon to go on it.
And, you know, they both had breathed a lot of the toxic fumes and everything there.
And also, you know, he had PTSD as well.
So, you know, I believe they're both, you know, off and retired now.
Kennedy, I think a lot of people, it's hard for people to sometimes accept things that are just sort of like unbelievable.
They don't want them to be true.
It's just so bizarre.
They can't believe it's true.
And I think that's the case with With the Kennedy shooting, people just figured, no, there's got to be more than just one crazy guy, you know, that took shots.
But no, sometimes it is just, you know, it's just one crazy guy that did it.
And of course, our speakers should know from being in the Marine Corps that the most dangerous weapon in the American arsenal is a Marine with a rifle.
And Lee Harvey Oswald proved that, and Charles Whitman proved that a few years later.
Charles Whitman took out 11 guys from the 28th story of the Texas Bell Tower in Austin.
So these guys can shoot.
And Lee Harvey Oswald, I think, did it by himself.
All right, Bob.
It's over.
About five and a half minutes.
Okay.
All right, uh, HH or Ellen, the other Ellen, can you ready?
All right, I'll give you okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Um, I wanted to say a few things.
Um, I strongly disagree with what you were saying about the Holocaust.
I heard the Auschwitz expert that they had in that trial for John Irwin was suing that woman.
I heard him give a speech.
And he had a lot of great knowledge about Auschwitz.
And he is going to be, you know, and he said at the time that he was going to be creating an exhibit on like a museum On Auschwitz, where he can travel.
I mean, there's just a huge amount of evidence.
You know, John Irving lost that lawsuit and there was a huge amount of documentary evidence.
I've read lots of stories about survivors of the Holocaust.
Some of them were, you know, like the Anne Frank kind of stories or people hiding in there.
Just all sorts of horrendous things happened.
And I think that's a very serious matter.
I do think that conspiracy theories should be, you know, use scientific methods to discover to determine whether they're true.
So in that way, I do agree with you.
My dad's colleague co-authored a book about the JFK assassination.
I believe his name is Tom Job and my dad still works with him.
I don't know quite what he believes.
I didn't read the book.
I do have a real issue with the pandemic.
I am not sure how accurate the The tests are for COVID.
I'm not sure if they just, if you just have one or two tiny cells.
Does it just say you're COVID positive?
And all these kids are being forced to quarantine.
They're going to school.
And they say to the kids, oh, if you're only, uh, you can, you can be just three feet away from your schoolmates and everything will be fine.
But if the other kid tests, quote, positive for COVID, then they say, oh, you are within six feet and you got to quarantine at home.
You're messing with kids a really big time.
And there isn't evidence that You know, that they are, you know, their chances of dying of the regular flu are just as big, probably, or greater than of dying of COVID.
Probably greater of dying of the seasonal flu.
And I have an issue with lockdowns.
I really do strongly oppose these vaccine mandates.
I did get the vaccine.
I did get kind of scared into taking it.
But most vaccines take about 10 years of testing before they are approved.
These vaccines did not, obviously, did not go through anywhere near that amount of testing.
We don't really know what the long-term effects are.
And, you know, it's people, you know, I believe in like your body, your choice.
You know, you should have the right to put things in your body, take things out of your body, especially things that are completely untested.
I mean, they have been tested, but they haven't been tested long term.
There was skipping and some people haven't.
And oh, the other thing about the vaccines is about the people who have natural immunity because they got COVID.
Why on earth do they need to take the vaccine?
I personally know someone who got COVID, a mild case of COVID, and then she got the vaccine.
And she had a very strong, bad reaction to the vaccine.
She had pulmonary problems.
She had cardiac problems.
And the doctors believed that it was due to her system being overloaded with antibodies and the reaction to the vaccine.
She didn't need it.
And the fact that Biden would just, you know, force all these people,
including people who don't need the vaccine because they already have natural immunity
to take the vaccine, that strikes me as quite unethical and kind of dangerous
because some of those people are gonna have bad reactions when for the most part, they don't need it.
And then what are now they're in not only that, but they're saying that vaccine wears out after eight months.
So what are they gonna force people to take the next booster and the next booster and the next booster?
I mean, how long is this gonna go on?
I mean, when especially people have natural immunity, you know, so I just, um, I think this is a very serious violation of people's liberty, and I hope that somehow it can be changed or... Okay.
Okay, okay, okay.
I suppose those were my main... Alright, alright.
I wanted to say one thing real quick about 9-11.
I was opposed to the Afghanistan War, and I don't I haven't examined the evidence.
I don't think it's like someone like me, who's a lay person, who's not in the sciences, can really know what's going on.
But I, you know, I did think... All right, it's been about six minutes.
It's been about six minutes, okay?
Lana, I'm going to give you a couple minutes, go ahead, and then we'll go on.
I'll go after.
Can I say very briefly?
Go ahead, Lana.
Okay, thank you.
So, first of all, Ellen, I somewhat agree with what you said, because I'm also in the medical field.
So, what I tried to say very briefly, number one, people, I understand they're desperate, they go and vaccinate themselves, but People, whatever places where they do vaccine, those people don't know this patient.
They don't know their chronic disease before.
They don't know their blood pressure.
They don't know if they're diabetic or not.
So reaction could be any moment.
Different reaction, very controversial, and the reaction side effect can be very, very bad.
So I know already, so a couple of senators, I received sometimes emergency news, and he not hide.
He had two vaccinations, and he right now have this disease.
Okay?
So it's not guaranteed.
It's very, very controversial.
It's very, very careful.
People need to choose voluntarily.
Okay?
So, and I'm agree what you said about side effects, and I hear what you said, and somewhat I'm agree what you said.
Thank you.
So about 9-11, for me, it's very controversial.
And I don't know what to say.
I don't know what to say.
I'm very sorry.
I'm very sorry.
So it was, I remember, I will never forget.
It was before I went to work.
It was happened and TV was automatically turned on.
And I said, what?
Not radio, but TV.
And I will never forget.
How they show those from the news, this stuff.
I was so scared.
I was so scared.
I was feeling so hopeless.
I was feeling so aggravated.
I don't know.
I was crying.
I was screaming.
I was by myself in an apartment before, you know, went to work.
So because I'm about to go to work.
So anyhow, it was devastation.
It was terrible.
It was controversial.
I hope people will be much stronger after what's happened.
Much more focusing.
Much more, you know, polite to each other.
And especially right now, this pandemic.
Epidemic pandemic, or whatever you call it.
It's terrible.
So, let's be friends!
If it's not friends, because we have disagreement.
But we can be just But we're acquaintances and we can agree or disagree and which is very good.
And then it's controversial.
So anyway, Tim, I have a question.
This guy or somebody can tell me, this guy really rabbi?
Who, who claimed him?
No, no, Chuck.
Okay, Lana, we're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna stop.
That was, uh, he was, no, he's not a rabbi.
He was just changing his name.
That was, that was our infamous guy from the Libertarian Party with, from, from, uh, Cook County.
All right.
Thank you for the answer.
Thank you so much.
All right.
I'm going to go very briefly and then Charlie will go.
I'm not going to take the full five minutes.
The only thing is that, uh, Mr. Fetzer, I think that your prepositions about 9-11, about the COVID virus and other stuff are basically fantastic and preposterous.
The reason I'm going to say that is, is how can you have these two clowns back in 2000, uh, One, operating the federal government.
And then, of course, when we re-elect these two clowns, how in the heck are they going to be smart enough to pull off what you're saying on these huge conspiracy theories?
With that, I'm going to stop my rebuttals.
So, Charlie, go ahead.
All right, Jim, I want to, let's, first of all, let's thank our speaker for a nice presentation, very thorough and detailed, and for fielding these questions, despite the lack of a moderator at times.
I have six issues.
Please let me speak.
You didn't bother to interrupt anybody else when you should have.
All right, I've got six issues I'd like to cover.
In theology, there's a question that comes up, does God exist?
And they ask, is there, the question is, is there a gardener?
And I noticed the 9-11 people rely on photographs, enormous numbers of photographs.
I believe Judy Woods claims her research consisted largely of looking at 2,000 photographs of 9-11.
So if I show you a photograph of a garden with tomatoes and lettuce and carrots, the question is, is there a gardener?
How did the garden get there?
And the 9-11 truth has come along, and they present all sorts of farmers to give us theories.
Now you've got to figure out which farmer you're going to listen to.
And when they're done with that, they bring along guys and make tractors.
They'll tell you all kinds of stuff as well.
But I'm sorry, that method doesn't quite work.
And you're never going to arrive at a definitive information or answer in that regard.
The question is, do you have testimony of participants?
Because the only thing is solid, you have to have people that testify, as I indicated, or try to indicate.
I work with air traffic controllers and this is a community of individuals who are directly involved in events.
And yet we have not one of which is willing to testify as to the events as described.
All right, moving on.
Very good.
I mentioned this before.
Keystone for 9-11 is often given as the reason for implementing the Patriot Act.
I was very much involved At the time, in the passage of the Patriot Act, we had an organization called the Chicago Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights that had concerns about it.
I put together academic conferences in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Unit and academics at universities.
As it turns out, our concerns were Not really necessary.
To date there has, to my knowledge, been no nefarious situation or application in that regard.
So the keystone of the 9-11 doesn't With the past, Patriot Act is often alleged, yet there's no evidence that it was normal security adjustments, uh, which conceivably were necessary at the time.
But there is no evidence that I'm aware of, of any harm in our organization.
In fact, disbanded a few years ago for lack of anything to do.
Uh, I came across a very interesting documentary.
I'm not able to locate it again, but it was, they interviewed all the reporters at 9-11.
Um, it's called Reporting 9-11.
If you come across that video, I've watched many, many videos, as have you folks have, regarding 9-11.
But to me, this was the most singularly informative one that I come across.
I'm sorry, I wasn't able to find the link to it.
But they interviewed all the reporters who were reporting on that day.
And there's many, many photographs as well regarding what took place.
Regarding another matter, this figure of 45,000, As a matter of fact, I contacted Ellen regarding this because I came across the figure several times in emails and so forth.
I did a little quick research.
I found the fact there's no basis for the figure 45,000 from multiple sources.
I contacted Ellen where she arrived at that figure and received no response.
It appears that it was posted by a woman.
Then when inquiries were submitted as to how she arrived, what method did she use for arriving at that figure, she would not respond to any inquiry whatsoever.
doing this so now folks I'm sorry I the burden of proof is this the criteria you're using decided to stay here several times this evening and I don't find any validity to it nor will the person responsible for it indicate the methodology that they used I'm a librarian.
I'm not afraid of telling what books I look something up in.
If I give you information, I don't have to suddenly remain in a cloak of silence.
Come on.
Let's see.
I mentioned air traffic controllers and finally I'd like to say this.
Bob Manor was lamenting the fact I work downtown and very often during the course of my responsibilities as a union official I had to do mailings from the post office situated downstairs from my office.
For years and to my colleagues and steward workforce Dispersed across the suburban area and very often the
Very often, all the time, the letters and parcels would arrive the following day.
We never had any need to use express mail for years, but Bob Madder seems to like to accuse us of being totally incompetent.
Now regarding COVID-19, I heard some rather peculiar assertions regarding this.
Where it stands right now, I'm the I'm on the national negotiating team.
Okay, Charlie, you've had about six minutes.
Yeah, and you've gone longer than anybody else.
All right, and the way it bottomed down is about 10% of the employees, our figures are, will refuse to go along with the vaccination.
The thing is, now do we bring, let them into the workforce, the workplace, where they will potentially infect the other people employed there?
That's the issue.
All right, thanks a lot, Jim.
Come again next year.
All right, maybe next year or so.
Okay, Joseph, did you want to say anything before I have Jim give the last word?
Because we still have, okay, do you want to say something, Joseph?
Just unmute.
We're still in a rebuttal phase.
Certainly, certainly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tim.
Well, succinctly, I would say, Professor My kudos, thumbs up to your passion and convictions.
But substantively, you are leveling massive criminal charges against responsible or supposedly responsible people.
And the burden of proof is on you.
It is not the propensity of evidence, By law, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
And unfortunately, from my vantage point, you failed.
Thank you.
Back to you, Tim.
Hey, Ken or Vicky, I'll let you get in a little bit if you needed to say anything before we go on to Jim.
Can you kind of something that you want to add to the discussion?
I'll just quickly say I agree with Joseph.
I agree.
I thank Jim for the presentation and it was very well put together and I am going to check out that channel.
What was the channel again, Jim?
Yeah.
It's my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
Just put in BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
You'll get it.
And the presentation I did earlier today in honor of Robert David Steele is the one you want to watch.
It should be up there now.
It's an hour and 57 minutes and 19 seconds.
And I cover a whole lot of the issues that I couldn't do in the brief time span here.
I think you'll like it.
Yeah.
Well, I'm convinced.
Yeah.
We'll see if that pushes me over.
Okay, Vicki, anything before we get to let Jim to go on?
No, I just wanted to say, in terms of something else, that I don't see Biden forcing anybody, you know, I was not forced to get a vaccination.
I guess the military is and certain others are, but nobody held the gun to my head.
So I don't understand where that accusation is coming from.
Thanks.
That's all.
All right, Jim, I'm going to show real quick a screenshot of your blog real quick before we let you go real quick.
You can get it by just Google.
Okay, I'm going to just do my brief, brief, brief share screen here just to show how people can see your blog.
All I did was I just B-I-T-C-H-U-T-E Jim Fetzer right there on Google.
You go right there and his blog comes right up.
I think you're Jim, you're referring to this No, no.
Look, there's a lot of blogs out there that have a lot of my stuff.
I probably have 500 videos that you could find one place or another.
That's the wrong one.
Put in BitChute channel.
It's down here further, I think, if you go down further.
That one, Jim Fetzer, try that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Try that, see what happens.
Yeah, there you go.
That's it, that's it.
Now, and if this is current, then it's not up.
The Robert David Steele is not up, but it's available at the government rag, the government rag.
Actually, if you go to my blog, go to my blog, jamesfetzer.org, and it's there.
Go to jamesfetzer.org.
All right, we'll do that one.
J-A-M-E-S-E-T-Z-E-R, yeah, dot org.
Yeah, E.
Yeah, just go.
Open it, yeah.
Okay.
Okay, scroll down.
This is it.
This is where you'll find the one right there.
This is the front page.
You click on that, it'll take you to... The front page shows the six or eight of the most recent blogs.
The one you want is that RDS 9-11 special.
That's the one you want.
If you want to learn more, the evidence.
Okay, where do I see it at?
The top one.
You had it right there.
Tim, there it is.
There it is.
That's it.
You see where it says recent posts?
See right there, RDS 9-11 special.
That's the one I'm talking about.
I did earlier today.
So right there, correct?
Right there.
Click.
Yeah.
Click.
You got it.
There you are.
Okay.
Scroll down a little further.
There you go.
There.
Keep going.
There you go.
There you go.
RDS 9-11 special.
A thorough read.
Because it's in honor of Robert David Steele, who just expired here about a month ago.
Okay.
Well, I just thought the audience would like to see that real quick.
Yeah, I appreciate that, Tim.
That was a good idea.
Do you think he was killed?
That's my question.
I think Steele was probably killed.
He made a mistake going into the hospital.
He had respiratory distress.
He had his own ivermectin, but he's a very outspoken guy.
They wouldn't let him take his ivermectin, and they sedated him and put him on a ventilator, which killed him.
I think it was the equivalent to But you're not talking about this baby seal that we know, right?
He was a real champion.
He was a real champion.
Somebody else, right?
Somebody else.
Oh, okay.
My opinion.
Well, let me give a few brief remarks.
Yeah, abduction is really what you need is a version of induction where abduction involves What is the probability of the evidence if hypothesis H1 were true?
What is the probability of the evidence if hypothesis H2 were true?
Or you prefer the hypothesis that confers a higher probability on the available evidence?
See if you can find a used copy of the glossary of epistemology philosophy of science I co-authored with Bob Almeader.
It should be inexpensive, but you can virtually read it like a book, and it covers key distinctions.
And of course, I liked all your comments.
I thought you were easily the most sympathetic of those gathered here.
And by the way, I love the free flow of the College of Complex, and everyone speaks their piece.
You know, I love it.
I love it.
Now, Bob, He said about the incompetence of government, but how many blunders did I explain had taken place in 9-11?
One after another after another.
Bob, you know I can factor that in.
You don't understand about Building 7.
It didn't come down from fires.
No steel structure high-rise has come down from a fire in history.
And yet on 9-11, we're told, at least one and maybe three.
Larry Silverstein himself said he had a discussion with a fire commander what to do about Building 7.
And Larry said, there's been so much death and destruction, perhaps the best thing to do is to pull it.
It means to bring down by controlled demolition.
He said they made the decision to pull and we watched it come down.
They were clearing the area for at least an hour before that happened at 520 in the afternoon.
That was the most robust building ever designed by the hand of man.
There's no way fires could have brought it down, regardless of what you're told by these sincere-sounding people.
Liars can sound very sincere.
As far as JFK, you're unaware of a huge amount of research that's been done on JFK.
Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository when the motorcade passed by.
So he not only cannot have been the lone, demented gunman, he cannot have been one of the shooters.
Well, there turned out to have been eight.
I have identified six of them.
My name, rank, serial number, where they were located, the shots they took, and their effects.
I agree with Holy Domogar about the seventh.
There turns out to have been an eighth on the opposite side where there was a single tree.
You wouldn't even think there was a gunman there, but I've seen photographs of two JFK students where he's holding his rifle.
There was an eighth.
So you're just Behind the curve, that's all, Bob, but I think you're a very sincere guy.
HH, let's see.
Oh, the pandemic.
Yeah, sure, I agree.
The PCR test, completely unreliable.
Carey Mullis, who invented it, said it was never used for diagnostic.
It's only to multiply a sample.
It turns out if you do it at a high rate, you're going to get a guaranteed false positive, a low rate.
You're going to get a negative.
So they've been generating numbers any way they want.
It's all completely fake and phony.
And of course, my body, my choice, I agree completely.
I think the Supreme Court laying this Texas decision stand was incredible.
Roe v. Wade is one of the wisest decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.
In all those years of teaching courses and critical thinking, I had innumerable debates about abortion, Roe v. Wade, with my students who knew a Fantastic more about modes of birth control than I could imagine existed.
And when you have consider the reasons why a woman might want to not bring an unwanted child into the world.
I mean they're just vast and compelling The idea of the pro-life movement turns everyone into a reproductive slave.
We know sociologically, demographically, unwanted children tend to become juvenile delinquents and criminals place a huge burden on society.
The pro-choice is the only democratic American attitude to let everyone decide on the basis of their own conscience and their personal circumstances.
Jenna, you're a very dear person.
You said 9-11 was controversial.
Of course it's controversial, which is why I tackle it.
If it weren't both controversial and complex, I wouldn't bother.
Tim, let's see your preposterous.
When I say it's preposterous and you show a couple cartoons, Tim, I hate to say that's just silly, right?
You got to understand that was not responsive to the kind of thorough detailed evidence and when you look at this This Robert David Steele thing, you'll see the evidence I was giving was only scratching the surface.
Every point I made is substantiated by multiple additional evidence, which you'll find presented there.
Charlie, let's see.
I'm not quite sure I can read my notes here, Charlie.
You were talking a lot about the Patriot Act and so forth.
I think the Patriot Act was a calamity for the United States, and it's very unfortunate that it hasn't been repudiated, which I hope will happen.
Joe, let's see.
It's interesting, Joe.
I like your earlier remarks.
I was going to put you right up there with Ellen, but this thing about beyond reasonable doubt, you're not looking at the evidence I'm producing.
It's objective.
It's scientific.
It would be courtroom admissible.
In fact, that's what I have many people telling me about my books.
They're courtroom ready.
They could be submitted in court.
And I'm telling you right now, I'm getting more experience with the judicial system and the ways it's warped and has been used to defeat 9-11 Truth.
They got a judge in New York City, Alvin Hellerstein, who's a Zionist judge, who won't let any of those lawsuits go forward.
So, you know, I like your earlier remarks more than your final.
Ken, I have a note here.
I liked what you said, but I don't remember precisely what it was.
I'll just say I thought it was good and positive.
Oh, Vicky.
Vicky seems to have missed.
Joe Biden's imposing mandates on the American people.
Everyone who works in government is being mandated to take a shot.
So I don't know where she's been.
I mean, this is the news.
This is current for the last couple of days.
Joe Biden was going to issue mandates.
Joe Biden has issued mandates.
These are absurd.
And I'll just tell you, look at the Nuremberg Code.
Joe Biden is violating all the principles of the Nuremberg Code that were passed in the wake of World War II.
To guarantee you wouldn't have medical malpractice like Dr. Joseph Mengele was performing experiments on prisoners without their permission.
It requires voluntary consent which, among other points, requires you know all the risks as well as the benefits.
They don't know the long term.
This is an experimental procedure and even if you've read the FDA approved it, they haven't.
It's still experimental.
Insurance companies won't cover you if you die from an experimental procedure.
They're not going to cover you.
This is all so outrageous.
They don't know the long-term effects.
I'm telling you, this is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever.
Maybe the greatest in world history.
So look, I appreciate all of you.
I think you're good people, and I think it's fun.
To have a group like the College of Complexes where you can come and say your piece without any constraint.
I love it.
I enjoyed it before with Sandy Hook, and some were much more severe in taking me to task.
I don't mind that.
I'm here.
I welcome criticism.
I thrive on it.
That's what a professional philosopher does.
So as far as being critical, I'm the I'm the apotheosis of criticism.
I know I practice falsifiability in relation to other work, but I am self-critical about my own, and I invite others to show me where I'm wrong.
You know, if I've got something wrong because I want to get it right, So if you can show me where I've made a mistake, I want to hear about it.
Ellen, I put my email address in the chat room for you to reach out to me.
Oh, thank you.
If they want to write to me, they're welcome to do so.
And tell me what I got wrong.
It's been great.
I want you to know I gave up a football game with Wisconsin playing East Michigan, where we're predicted to win by 45 to 3 to join you tonight.
And we need it after our loss to Penn State.
We're going to redeem ourselves this season.
Mark my words.
So Kim, Carly, everyone, I want to thank you all.
I've enjoyed this immensely.
What do you think of Notre Dame?
Yeah.
What do you think of Notre Dame?
Oh, well, you see, we're going to play Notre Dame in two weeks from today.
Notre Dame has our former quarterback.
Jack Cohen is now quarterback for Notre Dame.
He played for us until he was bumped because we brought in a new guy named Mertz, who is a five-star quarterback.
We've never had a five-star quarterback.
Mertz' first game, he completed 21 of 22 passes through five touchdown passes with no interception.
This last game with Ben State, however, was a morass.
We dominated the time of play.
We had like probably 45 minutes of the 60 minute of the game.
We controlled the ball.
We moved it up and down the field, but we didn't score.
There were a couple of interceptions and fumbles.
I'm telling you, we're going to be a great team.
And remarkably, Ohio State lost today to Oregon, 35 to 28.
And that means we still have a chance.
I predict that Wisconsin will play Ohio State for the Big Ten Championship, and we will beat them.
You just gave us the most important stuff of the whole thing.
There you go.
There you go.
I hope you come back.
All right, Jim.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to stop the recording, but I'm going to keep the Zoom call open.
▲
Export Selection