All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:56:01
The Raw Deal (30 September 2022) with Allen Burton
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I need somebody.
Not just anybody.
You know I need someone.
When I was young, I was so much younger than today.
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured.
Now I find a gentle mind and open up the doors.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate your being loud Help me get my feet back on the ground Won't you breathe, breathe, help me This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
I'm delighted today to have a scientist with me today as a PhD in material science.
He's a very smart guy.
I have no doubt will gravitate to discussion about 9-11.
His name is Alan Burton.
I want to begin with some of the major developments of the day, which are rather startling, beginning with this unprecedented hurricane.
It's been described as perhaps the most powerful to ever hit Florida.
I'm getting multiple reports that it's not behaved the way a normal hurricane behaves.
I'll explain why I believe this is man-made.
And this is deliberately designed to punish Florida and its governor on political grounds.
Believe me, this Biden administration knows no bounds.
It has no ethics, no morality, no principle, and it's dedicated to destroying America.
Here you have Mike Adams reporting now.
Hurricane Ian takes out fertilizer production for North America.
The power grid is down.
Widespread supply chain damages.
This is all the more reason.
The devastation of Hurricane Ian has implications far beyond Florida.
One of the largest fertilizer companies in the world, Mosaic, is located right in the Devastated Path, which lingered for over 12 hours in Central Florida.
I lived, by the way, in Bradenton, adjacent to Sarasota, myself, for five years.
Dropping actually feet of rain in some areas, causing widespread flooding and infrastructure damage.
That, combined with hurricane-force wind rips some communities to shreds, left off no structural standing in certain areas.
I have a number of dear friends in the area who have been Hit very, very hard by all of this.
The Mosaic Company provides 50% of the granulated phosphate fertilizer used by North American farmers.
Isn't that a remarkable coincidence?
The company also provides 12% of the global supply.
This means Hurricane Ian just made the global fertilizer shortage far worse than what it was already, even caused by the natural gas shuts down in Europe and the recent sabotage of the North Stream pipelines.
More to come.
The upshot?
Expect even more food scarcity and price inflation in 2023 and beyond.
Power grid is down.
Cell phone tower is down.
Many will stay that way for weeks to come.
There's a whole lot going on here.
I'm very, very troubled by all of this.
Some areas of Florida look as though an atomic bomb had been set loose on it.
Total devastation, barely anything left standing.
It's been covering the news virtually 24-7, suppressing other major stories, even including the sabotage of the North Stream off the map.
Even including a host of other developments politically that are all adverse to the Democrats, including, by the way, an ABC poll showing that nationwide the Republicans have an advantage of five points and that in the The states that are crucial, the swing states, the Republicans have an advantage of 21 points.
21 points.
These people are desperate.
They know the end is near.
If they don't do something dramatic, I'm convinced that that's going on here.
Mike Adams continues.
Ian should be a reminder to us of the devastating events that can strike at a little moment with little warning.
He's now picking up on what I believe to be the case.
Namely, that this is man-made, that this is weather engineering, this was done deliberately, and I'll elaborate on the consequences as to why I believe this is the case.
Food scarcity is now a certainty.
Food prices are on the rise.
The strategic petroleum reserve is nearly drained.
The world's fertilizer supply is on the brink of collapse.
Geoengineering, weather weapons, has unleashed droughts, floods, and possibly even hurricanes.
There he mentions the possibility.
I believe it is a reality here.
Someone blew up the North Stream 1 and 2 pipeline.
Gee, I wonder who that could have been.
The financial storm already underway as the stock market unravels and the fake currency systems of the world teeter on the verge of collapse.
Finally, the insane, deranged leaders of the illegitimate Biden regime are trying to push the world into a nuclear Armageddon so they don't have to go through with a midterm election to lose control of the House and, I predict, the Senate too.
And guess what?
I have suggested repeatedly on this show that if you think of George Soros as the acting president of the United States, you get what's really going on, why we have the open borders, why we have the revolving door with a crime, why it's all soaring, why defunding the police, all that other nonsense.
Get this.
Biden admin gives $41 million in contracts to SorosLink Group to help illegal aliens fight deportation.
I mean, think about it.
If you wanted to destroy the United States, what would be the measures you'd want to take?
Well, they would include attempts to destroy the identity of the United States.
Statues and monuments, especially those for reconciliation between the states, would be the first to go destroy the identity.
Then you want to bring in as many illegal migrants into the country to change the demographics, potentially even permanently.
You'd want to allow lawlessness to be promoted on every hand.
You'd want to defund the police.
I'm telling you, we've got a George Soros-inspired agenda to remember his wet dream has been to destroy America before his death.
Now, just to elaborate, by taking out Florida, what do you do?
Well, you're punishing Ron DeSantis, who had the brilliant idea of sending 50 migrants up to Martha's Vineyards.
It was a stupendous stunt, very effective, to refocus the midterm election from abortion Which really isn't turning out to be as much of a motivator, but still, it's the best the Democrats have.
So you're punishing DeSantis.
What you're doing is making it very difficult for Floridians to vote.
This is going to create chaos for the midterm.
You're going to have to make them dependent upon the federal government through FEMA to come to the rescue.
That's going to mean their hostility, their dependence on the government increases, their hostility toward the Biden administration is going to diminish.
It's going to affect the vote at the midterm.
I think all these add together and more, including now what we've just reviewed from Mike Addams about taking out a fertilizer.
My God, you see, I mean, that's part of the Great Reset.
Bring about world depopulation, mass starvation.
Here's another stroke in that direction.
And believe me, this weather modification is something they can do.
I won't say it's child's play, but it ain't far from it.
And the fact is that we've had experts on the weather saying this hurricane didn't behave like any normal hurricane behaves.
It appeared to be steered.
I believe that's the case.
Alan, your thoughts?
Yeah, it's way too convenient.
You know, they're desperate.
Like you said, they have very few cards in their hands right now.
So I agree with your assessment.
Well, it's like a cornered rat, you know.
Desperate people will do desperate things.
This is a desperate act.
And it's not the only.
And I do believe it's intended to push other news off of the table.
I mean, there's so many despicable things going on with a Biden administration.
We even had Ginny Thomas be dragged in before the January 6th commission, and I admire—she just stuck right up her gun.
She explained, you know, evidence that this thing had been stolen, that the election was massive fraud.
In all the newspapers' articles, of course, they always preface any discussion of those who claim fraud by saying, false.
They're telling us what to think.
That any claims of election fraud are false, and they're suppressing the fact that the Democrats, for four bloody years after 2016, non-stop, 24-7, were telling us Trump was an illegitimate president and that election had been stolen because Hillary wasn't elected.
And believe me, it was rigged for Hillary.
What they didn't anticipate was the uprising for Trump in the rural communities.
As Richard Charnin, who's an expert on voter fraud, explained to me, if you want to steal an election, you've got to go where the votes are, and the votes are in the big cities.
So they couldn't control the rural vote, which came to the salvation of the country by bringing in Trump.
Alan, more thoughts of yours.
I agree, but you know, there have been some suggestions of that, you know, they have the ability through the machines perhaps to control votes, even in rural areas, so we can't count that out as well but it's most easy for them to control the fake ballots and things like that in the cities.
And so yeah and Jim I'll say one other point I want to make here is that they will refer to people like us as conspiracy theorists.
Okay.
And it's a it's a term that I think that we embrace, but a lot of times what I will tell people is that I'm not so much a conspiracy theorist, as I'm not a conspiracy denier.
Very good.
That's very good, yeah.
I was on the way to a JFK conference, this is a decade ago, when I was contacted by a Minneapolis TV station and they asked, how do you want to present yourself as a conspiracy theorist?
I said, well, even better, conspiracy realist or conspiracy analyst.
As I explained in one of my first studies about conspiracy theories, which everyone can download off of the Internet, thinking about conspiracy theories, JFK and 9-11, conspiracies are as American as apple pie.
Commonly prosecuted crime in the United States.
Conspiracy to this, conspiracy to that.
Most American conspiracies are economic.
In that article, I discussed going through the then-latest, current issue of the New York Times, and on every single page there were stories you could not understand if you didn't recognize they were explaining conspiracies.
I published quite a lot on this subject, by the way.
A nice piece appeared in the UNZ Review not so long ago.
That's unz.com, under the title of What's Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?
And let me say, I tried to convince...
Philosophical journals to publish an article like this in an earlier version again and again, and they wouldn't do it.
The Journal of Philosophy, for example, very mainstream, wouldn't consider it.
The point I'm making being conspiracy theories are theories.
What I do, I specialize in taking conspiracy theories from theories in the weak sense of rumors, conjectures, or speculations.
to theories in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses, as in case of Newton's theory of universal gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution.
And then when you sort out the authentic from the inauthentic, You get rid of the fabricated evidence and apply the principles of scientific reasoning, particularly the principle of likelihood, which hypothesis, if it were true, could confirm the higher probability upon the evidence.
It becomes relatively easy to straighten these things out.
I mean, just to give a trivial example, we now know Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository when the JFK motorcade went by.
So what's the probability Oswald was a lone, demented gunman if he was standing in the doorway of the motorcade?
But of course, the government will never change.
In fact, a fascinating conversation I had with James Files, who actually claims to be the second gunman, which I believe is a role into which he has been cast, but with whom I had dinner right here in Madison, whom I like tremendously.
I think the guy's super smart.
He explained to me two times during our conversation That once the government takes a position, it's locked in.
That it will never change.
And I think we find that with JFK here, Alan.
This is a perfect illustration.
My God, if you know Oswald was in the doorway.
And by the way, Warren Commission staff were aware of this at the time.
Harold Weisberg in the second of his whitewash series on assassination, the second photographic whitewash, 1967, in the last four pages, talks about the trouble they had concealing the fact that Lee had been in the doorway.
Jim Garrison, of course, bought the only real criminal prosecution against Clay Shaw, who was on the fringe.
He wasn't at the center, but he was on the fringe of the assassination.
He also believed Lee had been in the doorway.
Well, he was in the doorway.
We've established it for a fact, but the government's never going to change any more, Alan, than it will.
From pointing out that Osama bin Laden was our man in Afghanistan, that he was instrumental in getting Stinger missiles into the hands of Abu Hajjadeh, which they used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes, that he actually was an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman, an official from the agency Colonel Tim Osman, an official from the agency visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death in Afghanistan in 15 December 2001 from his medical maladies.
As you've heard me say many times, tough to get dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
But the government's never going to change.
You know, even though David Ray Griffin is pointing out that a half a dozen or more of these Islamic terrorists turned up alive and well the following day in his magisterial, the 9-11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, If they're alive and well, they didn't die in suicidal plane crashes, right?
I mean, this is not top inference, but the government isn't going to change.
Alan, it's just stupefying.
What this means is the government is not a rational institution.
It's not operating on the basis of reason, logic, and evidence.
Rather, it's a political entity, and it's promoting its agenda, and that does not involve revising To establish the truth of these historical events that it finds beneficial to its political agenda.
Your thoughts?
Well, Jim, you made a statement in one of your writings recently.
I can't remember which one, but the statement I really liked was, you know, our society that we live in right now, rather than truth being the authority, the authority acts as if it's the truth.
David backwards.
Okay.
And the other thing I'd like to say here is that any society that will not acknowledge the presence of conspiracies in its midst as a society that's going to be most easily preyed upon by the by conspiracies.
And that's what's happening right now.
And we have a media that goes out of its way to deny the existence of conspiracies, particularly those that are promoted through the government.
Yeah, absolutely right, Alan.
Yes, yes, yes.
Instead of treating truth as the authority, they treat the authority as truth.
Here we have the North Stream Pipeline sabotage and only one country benefits.
This is a very nice analysis I want to share.
Another, of course, conspiracy theory, which once again is going to turn out to be true.
Three deepwater explosions destroyed the North Stream pipelines under the Baltic Sea Monday.
While the mainstream media and governments reported leaks in the pipeline, Swedish seismologists knew better.
One of the three measured 2.3 on the Richter scale, but this was no earthquake.
It was an explosion, like a gigantic undersea mine.
Reuters Well, Jorn Lund, seismologist at the Swedish National Seismic Network at Uppsala University, said seismic data gathered by him and Nordic colleagues showed that the explosion took place in the water and not in the rock under the seabed.
The explosions guaranteed Germany and the EU won't go wobbly with regard to sanctions against Russian energy imports that damaged the pipelines.
We'll take months to repair and are unlikely to begin until next summer.
Even if Germany were to cry uncle and civil unrest were to intensify over lack of heat and energy, even if Russia were to decide to turn the power back on, the conduit for Russian gas to Europe is broken.
Tess reported details.
The first explosion was recorded about 2 o'clock in the morning, the second at 7.04 p.m.
the same day.
Gas leak warnings were issued on Monday at 1.52 p.m.
and at 8.41 p.m.
respectively.
Vessels passing through the area notified the Coast Guard of something on the sea surface.
Lund argues there are usually no military exercises in the area of the incident, which could theoretically cause damage to the pipeline.
No military exercise Monday, but there were military exercises in the area recently enough.
So Nord Stream is dead, and the question becomes, who done it?
To fix a crime on a suspect, police attempt to establish means, motive, and opportunity.
If the victim was shot in his home with no signs of forced entry or struggle, the suspect would be people known to the victim who had access to the weapon and reason to kill him.
Take away any one element means, gun, motive, gain, opportunity, access, and the case falls apart.
If we bounce those three elements against the reasonable suspects here, one stands out.
Means eliminates most suspects.
Only a government with an advanced naval warfare capability could have executed the sabotage.
That limits the suspect to Germany, Great Britain, France, the United States, Russia, and China.
But means also involves proximity.
Chinese or French naval activity in the area would have raised flags.
Geography would seem to preclude the United States, except for the fact that the U.S.
Navy operates in every ocean in the world with advanced warfare capabilities.
So the list with the means to destroy Nord Stream is down to UK, U.S., Russia, and Germany.
Now turn to motives.
Germany has no motive to damage its energy lifeline.
Germany is highly dependent on Russia for natural gas.
Entire German industries are being nationalized because of the lack of energy due to sanctions against Russia and Russia reducing flows through the pipelines.
Germans held massive protests over the weekend demanding Germany pull out of the anti-Russian alliance in exchange for a return to energy.
Great Britain has also suffered under the sanctions imposed after Russia invaded Ukraine.
The British economy is in shambles, forcing the UK central bank to pivot back to quantitative easing.
Additionally, the new government in the UK has its hand full with forming a government.
It's unlikely the Brits would attempt such a caper.
Russia seems to have a motive in long-term pain on Europe for sending lethal arms to Ukraine.
But Russia didn't need to blow up its own pipeline.
Russia controls the bowels that send or halt gas to Europe.
She's already turned off the spigot.
Russia paid for a portion of pipeline, expects to resume profitable energy export to Europe once the war is resolved.
Why would Russia cut off its own nose?
I mean, it's ridiculous to suggest Russia did it, but that's what we're getting.
Remember, Russia did it.
Putin is bad.
It's all we get from the Democrats endlessly.
That leaves the United States.
So what would be its motives?
The U.S.
became the number one exporter of liquefied natural gas to Europe once Russia cut the flow.
German dependence on U.S.
gas is a carrot to keep Germany in the sanction alliance.
With winter approaching, German unrest on the rise, the State Department would have been concerned the Germans would go wobbly, reduce sanctions, cut off arms to Ukraine, and beg Putin for energy.
The loss of the Nord Stream eliminates that path.
Second, the Biden family has long been tangled up in natural gas in Ukraine.
Hunter was on the board of Ukraine's largest natural gas company, a position that provided Ukrainian oligarchs with access to Joe.
Hunter, who has no experience in energy, made millions from the deal, and Ukraine got a bottom paid for President of the United States.
Third, The Democrat Biden needs to staunch the popularity bleeding that threatens to kill Democrat control of Congress come November.
So, only the United States has a compelling reason to destroy Europe's energy lifeline from Russia.
Only the United States has both the means and the motive.
But what about opportunity?
Operation Balltops 22, June.
2022.
Sea Power Magazine, the official magazine of the Navy League, reported in June on a U.S.
exercise in the Baltic directly over the spots where the two massive undersea explosions took out the North Stream Pipeline.
Remarkable!
Sea Power's story highlights new technology allowing the Navy to detonate targets from miles away.
An additional critical objective was to continue to increase the communication range and data transfer capability to give the operators more flexibility in mine hunting operations.
Advancements in communication technology demonstrated this year have shown a significant improvement in operating ranges over currently used systems.
This provides additional standoff flexibility to the Navy in conducting safe mine hunting operations.
In other words, The Navy had the opportunity to plant explosives on the pipes in June for remote detonation at the time of the President's choosing.
And the world's largest amphibious ship, the USS Kearsage, was recently in the area.
I mentioned in passing when I was in the Marine Corps as a commissioned officer between 1962 and 1966, I was aboard the Kearsage at one point in time.
And only the United States had this opportunity.
Also in June, Operation Baltops 22 was underway.
The CIA warned Germany sabotage was imminent.
How would the CIA know unless the CIA had been in on the planning?
Alan, I think this is disgraceful.
We have scientists internationally regarding this as eco-terrorism.
It's releasing vast volumes of methane into the atmosphere.
And here, ironically, Biden wants to clamp down on the use of gasoline and oil and coal because it's supposed to be contributing to the production of CO2, which is indeed actually scientifically provably not responsible for global warming.
On the false premise that it is.
And here he's just unleashed more methane into the atmosphere than has ever occurred before in world history in a single event.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, right.
And methane is supposed to be a worse, supposedly supposed to be a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
But Jim, it's even better than this.
Several months ago, in press conferences, Joe Biden And Victoria Nuland in separate press conferences, they said that if Russia invaded Ukraine, that there would be no Nord Stream 2.
They said it, they signaled it.
So of course, they're going to be the obvious suspects to look at.
They told us, they signaled to us that that's what they would do.
Yep, that's absolutely right.
You're absolutely right, Alan.
They did.
Tucker did a wonderful job about this, exposing and showing video clips where you see Biden saying that if Russia invades, and he talked about sending troops and tanks over the border, there will be no more Nord Stream.
And Victoria Nuland said the same thing.
We'll bring it to an end.
So what could be more obvious?
Only the United States has demoted the means and the opportunity for this grotesque act of eco-terrorism.
Stunning stuff.
Meanwhile, we have Ginny Thomas telling the January 6th panel she still believes what The article is telling us our false election fraud claims that Chair said.
This is Representative Bennie Thompson.
Said the Select Committee may incorporate her testimony in the rescheduled hearing if there is something of merit.
I'll bet you Ginny went in there.
and laid out proof after proof after proof that the election had been stolen.
So, of course, that's the opposite of what they want.
So here you've got Benny Thompson saying if there's something of merit, but obviously falsifying the whole motivation, the whole premise of the January 6th hearing, where they're not allowing cross-examination, they're not allowing representation of where they're not allowing cross-examination, they're not allowing representation of the president or the alternative position.
That's not something they're going to find to be of value.
Here's a take.
Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence, told the January 6th panel during lengthy testimony that she still believes Here again, they use the word false, telling us what we're supposed to think.
Claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, according to the panel's chair.
The information was typical of a lot of information we received from other people who were involved in this effort around January 6th.
A lot of, well, I believe something was wrong.
Select Committee Chair Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi told Reporter Thursday of Thomas' testimony.
She was one of these people we wanted to talk to and ultimately we eventually got there.
Thompson told Reporter Thompson that Thomas had answered some questions during her interview.
Thomas, also known as Ginny, sat with a panel behind closed doors for over four hours in a congressional office building where they have conducted many of their interviews.
She's one of the Select Committee's major outstanding witnesses as investigators start to wind down their probe.
And he wanted to ask her questions about her connection to John Eastman, a legal architect in Trump's last-ditch plan to subvert the 2020 election, actually to correct the outcome where it was stolen.
I mean, this is a crime against the American people and the Constitution, mind you.
This is wholly independent of the fact that Donald Trump happens to have been the target.
This is a violation of the Constitution.
This is a theft of democracy.
This is a crime against the American people.
She had a conversation with who was messaging John Eastman.
We have questions about that, said panel member, Representative Peter Aguilar of California.
Thomas had invited Eastman to speak to an activist group in the aftermath of the election, though Eastman is denied ever discussing Supreme Court-related matters with Thomas.
CBS and the Washington Post had also published text messages from her to top Trump allies in which she urged them to investigate.
And again, they introduced the word debunked, which doesn't belong there at all because none of these have been debunked.
Claims of election fraud and a fight harder to overturn the election results.
The select panel had been trying to talk to her for months, finally reaching an agreement with her last week.
A panel spokesperson declined to comment on Thomas' appearance.
Her attorney, Mark Paoletta, said in a statement she was happy to cooperate to clear up misconception about her activities surrounding the 2020 election.
She answered all the committee's questions, he said.
He added, she told the committee her election-related activity focused on ensuring that reports of fraud and irregularities were investigated, and that she played no role in post-election events beyond her push for investigation.
Meanwhile, the select panel is currently searching for a new date for its likely final hearings, which they postponed due to Hurricane Ian.
The House plans to leave D.C.
Friday, not schedule a return until November due to midterm campaigns, possibly complicated efforts to reschedule.
They're canvassing everybody for their schedule, and travel panel member Jamie Raskin of Maryland told reporters.
He summed up the issue.
We were all set to go, and then the hurricane laid waste to the best laid plans.
Some of Thomas' testimony could be incorporated into the rescheduled hearing if there's something of merit, Thompson said Thursday.
But you can count on there being nothing of merit.
Here's a short clip.
We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.
Let me say it again.
The 2020 election was the most secure election in American history.
Let me begin by asking a very simple question.
Do we know the truth about what really happened in the 2020 election?
I think millions of Americans know something went wrong, and they have little pieces, and no one's really put it together.
I'm agnostic on this question, and I am awaiting more information.
If I believed the president were a Nazi, I might steal an election.
Bold accusations require bold evidence, and they haven't seen it.
We have been working on something big.
Show me the money.
Can we meet?
I've been working with Greg Phillips.
He has a deep background in election intelligence.
True The Vote has the largest store of election intelligence for the 2020 elections in the world.
No one has more data than we do.
We identified in Atlanta 242 mules that went to an average of 24 drop boxes.
But Philadelphia alone, we've identified more than 1,100 mules.
What is a mule?
This is not grandma walking her dog.
Bad backgrounds, bad reputations.
They are interested in one thing, that's money.
This is organized crime.
Four million minutes of surveillance video around the country.
What you're about to see is disturbing.
So this is one o'clock in the morning.
Don't we all vote at one o'clock in the morning?
One night, this person, this mule, went across six counties to 27 different drop boxes.
I call it the Mexican Mafia, seriously.
Because they work like that.
This is jaw-dropping.
What you showed is frightening.
It's just sickening to me.
Now we come to the most important question of all.
Was the magnitude of vote trafficking enough to tip the balance in the 2020 presidential election?
It's not a leap to say this would have made a difference.
They have ruined Election Day in the United States of America.
That's provable.
And that's enough for me to fight the left with every fiber in my body.
Without free and fair elections, we are not a democracy.
We are a criminal cartel masquerading as a democracy. - The 9/11 Commission is in massive denial.
They're trying to pretend everything was on the up-and-up when the evidence of fraud is simply overwhelming.
Mike Lindell sponsored a three-day symposium where proof after proof of election fraud was presented.
We know that Dominion machines were designed to steal elections.
Alan, they even have a built-in printer.
If they need extra ballots to make it come out, they can print them on the spot.
It's outrageous.
Your thoughts?
So, in addition to that, there is another movie documentary that came out recently called Selection Code.
And I like this one because this was about Tina Peters in Colorado, Mesa County.
It talked about the extremes to which the government went to actually persecute or go after her when she was doing the right thing.
Okay, so I highly recommend that.
Also, there's another book Or a book that just came out called the Parallel Election, and it was written by people who were investigating the election in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Now, I have not read this book myself, but I have followed the investigators, and I suspect that this is probably one of the better books on the details of how the election fraud was carried out.
So I want to make sure that everyone is aware of that, and that they take the opportunity to read that book.
It just recently came out.
Repeat the title and author, please, Alan.
Yes, so one of the authors is Leah Hoopes, and I think the other author is Greg Stentrum, and the title is The Parallel Election.
The parallel election, the parallel election.
Very good.
And what they do is they look at Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
So this is just one isolated county where the election was, the fraud was massive.
Okay.
And just in that one county.
And so I think this probably goes into the best detail that I've seen as of yet.
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
I mean, they had to steal the election to bring in Biden and Harris so they could flood the country with migrants.
They believe today's migrants are tomorrow's Democrats, but they're doing immense destruction to the population.
This is a version of the clergy plan that was used in Europe to flood Europe with African migrants, and now we're flooding America with Central, South American, actually there are migrants from some 150 different nations that are coming across our border non-stop.
They're claiming, they're pretending the border is secure, but we all know it's anything but.
This is permanent damage to the United States.
And now they're giving money to a George Soros-affiliated organization to help them defend their right to be here to clog up the judicial system.
It's going to make it Virtually impossible to get them out of the country, no matter how legal they may be, how much damage.
The fentanyl trade is just skyrocketing.
MS-13 is bringing all kinds of child trafficking, sex trafficking.
It's grotesque.
This is all brought to you by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
All brought to you by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
And then we have the endless Recycling their criminals, bring them into government, but get rid of cash bail, turn them back on the streets.
We even got this guy who ran under the Christmas crowd in Mishawaka.
I mean, it's just incredible.
He's back out on the street.
Just stunning stuff.
He's not being asked to He's not even having to put up bail.
I mean, how incredible is that?
Not even having to put up bail.
And it's happening all over the country.
In California, they've made shoplifting up to $1,000, not quite $1,000, a misdemeanor.
They're not even going to prosecute.
Well, how many times can you do $1,000 shoplifting, you know, in a single day?
One person?
How about bringing whole caravans to do it?
This is all completely deliberate, and now I guarantee 100% I have no doubt about it.
Look at the motive, the means, the opportunity, with regard to Florida, the hurricane, weather engineering.
Look then at the motive that means the opportunity for the eco-terrorism of the North Stream pipelines.
This is an international criminal act.
This is an offense against humanity, and I guarantee you 100%, as Alan astutely observed, both Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland told us this is what the United States intended to do if Putin intervened in Ukraine.
Alan, more thoughts?
Yeah, so I think for a lot of people out there, sometimes we refer to them as normies.
I was once a normie, okay?
It's hard for people to believe that they are capable of doing this.
And once you've learned about 9-11, and especially once you've learned about school shootings, you realize that these people are willing to do anything.
And the level of deception that they will go through, the level of deceit and lying that they will go through, in order to make us believe these lies.
It's really phenomenal.
So that's all I have to say on that, Jim.
Well, I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, and the fact that the mainstream media simply abdicated its role here is embarrassing.
Here, I reside in Wisconsin.
Get this.
Wisconsin residents notified to expect a 34% natural gas home heating increase this winter, 15% propane, 13% heating oil.
And this is prior to Ian hitting Florida.
Prior to taking up Nord Stream, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association is estimating it'll cost Wisconsin residents, of whom I am one, more than $1,200 to eat an average home this winter, an increase of more than 17% compared to last winter.
Roughly 50% of Wisconsin residents use natural gas for home heating.
Natural gas costs are increasing 34% versus last winter.
That's also a 66.1% increase over the winter of 2020.
In my furnace, my home furnace, runs on natural gas.
Absolutely 100%.
So that's going to hit me hard, personally.
But much more serious is all the damage being done to the whole country nationwide, and the whole idea of promoting green energy, which is going to be destructive to the economy, is stunning.
And here we got Joe laughing.
Just go green, Jack, he wants us to believe.
How stunning is that?
Meanwhile, just an additional observation about January 6.
The Secret Service took the cell phones of 24 agents involved in January 6's response and gave them to investigators.
Well, maybe that'll help.
We got another story about the FBI admitting it had A group of undercover agents that were involved in January 6th.
That really comes as no surprise.
Here we get the story.
Senior leadership at the Secret Service confiscated the cell phones of 24 agents involved in the agency's response to the January 6th riot at the Capitol and handed them over to the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General.
The agency handed over the phone shortly after a July 19th letter was sent by Inspector General Joseph Khafari's office around the time he launched a criminal probe into the Secret Service's missing text messages from January 6th.
The revelation that Khafre's office had access to the phones since late July or August raises new questions about the progress of his criminal investigation.
Into the missing text messages and what, if anything, the public may be able to learn about communication between agents on January 6.
One source familiar with the Secret Service's decision to comply said some agents were upset their leaders were quick to confiscate the phones without their input.
But given that the loans belong to the agency, they had little say in the matter.
Alan, remember, we had some nitwit from the White House who claimed that.
Donald Trump had tried to seize the wheel of a Secret Service vehicle when they weren't going to take him to the Capitol, implying he wanted to egg on the protest when, in fact, he had spoken at the Ellipse.
He spoke until 111.
The Ellipse is a mile and a half away from the Capitol.
He urged all of his followers to be peaceful in their protest, which the January 6th Commission edited out when they showed Trump speaking down.
They edited out his declaration to be peaceful.
He would subsequently encourage everyone to go home.
He had two days before offered to send the National Guard to provide protection, 2,000 troops, which the mayor of D.C., Bowser, declined.
She, Bowser, being in it with Nancy Pelosi, who controls the Capitol, please to make sure this happened.
Not to disrupt the electoral count, by the way, but the discussion of evidence of fraud.
It was very cleverly timed.
We know major events were taking place already a quarter to 12 at 1255 by noon.
They already had called for reinforcements.
Donald Trump had not even finished speaking.
A mile and a half away, his followers weren't there until probably around...
He spoke to 1.11, 12.30.
It's a mile and a half.
I walk a mile in 15 minutes.
So, you know, a mile and a half, that'd be 20, 25 minutes.
He finished at 1.11 at 20, 25 minutes.
They're not there until about 1.35 or 1.40.
and a half, that'd be 20, 25 minutes.
He finished at 111 at 20, 25 minutes.
They're not there till about 135 or 140.
They really were not part of this supposed insurrection And since nobody had the intention of overthrowing the government of the United States, which is what, in fact, the Democrats actually did by stealing the election of 2020.
But those who were protesting the theft of the election had no intention to bring about the overthrow of the government.
And Trump cannot be guilty of incitement because that requires encouraging imminent lawless action.
And since it took Nearly a half an hour to get from there, point A to point B. I mean, he cannot have been guilty.
The Federalist had a brilliant article about this.
The whole thing is a sham.
They're simply terrified of Donald Trump.
They're shitting in their pants over the prospect he's going to clean their clock again, as he did in 2024, just as he did in 2016 and 2020, which is why they had to commit this monumental theft, which was a bona fide insurrection in electronic form, Alan.
Yeah.
I mean, Jim, it's, you know, Cui Bono, right?
You know, who benefits from such an action?
And the idea that you would have people showing up to do, you know, to commit insurrection without being prepared to actually commit an insurrection, it's absolutely ridiculous.
All right.
So it's so clear.
And by the way, when you were going through the litany of things that Trump supposedly had done, was this before or after he had flushed the documents down the toilets with the... Or maybe it was during it.
Who knows?
OK.
But anyway.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's just it's incredible.
It's absolutely incredible.
It is disgusting.
When you have a lawless administration that's out to destroy America, this is the result.
We're watching it.
We're witnessing it before our very eyes.
No one who is an objector of observer of the scene can believe this administration has the best interest of the nation or is remotely responding to its obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States when they're sabotaging.
I mean, remember, Biden's first act as president was to cancel the XL pipeline and to rescind permits to drill on federal land.
And he's been depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And, Alan, I'm convinced that just to bring down the price of gas domestically because it was a killer politically.
And now it's going to resurge.
It's going to go back up?
I mean, the Democrats have to do drastic things to forestall the midterm election, whereas I've observed in this ABC polling, I mean, Republicans have a five-point lead nationwide.
ABC, no friend to conservatives.
No friend to Republicans.
But they're reporting the GOP has a five-point lead nationwide, and in the battleground states, 21 points.
That very much confirms my prediction that we're going to win 100 seats in the House and three or four seats in the Senate.
I still believe it will happen, assuming We have the right to exercise our constitutional right to an election, which is fundamental to democracy.
These people are anti-Democrats.
They're anti-American.
They're anti-freedom.
They are anti-law and order.
They're destroying everything for which this nation, this once great nation, has stood.
Well, I mean, Jim, one thing you mentioned about them selling the reserves or using the reserves to bring down the price of gasoline.
But remember, didn't they sell a lot of these reserves to China?
Yes.
Yeah, they did.
You know, so that kind of even that argument is hard to make at this point.
But yeah, I mean, I mean, look, these are straight out authoritarians.
Globalist, communist, this is the goal.
It's very clear what they want to do.
Okay.
Now, the other thing that I'll say in terms of, you know, the election and, you know, and everything else that's going on, I have sort of a rule of thumb that I use in life when it comes to deciding who's telling the truth and who's not telling the truth.
And I would say that, you know, 90 plus percent of the time, the party that is asking for transparency is usually telling the truth.
And of course, the party that doesn't want any transparency is not telling the truth.
To me, you know, that's usually a sure sign of who's telling the truth, okay?
So, you know, again, that's all I have to say, Jim.
Oh, you're spot on, you're spot on.
And you know, I used to think the idea that Democrats were communists was just a gross exaggeration.
Would you believe in Illinois, in the state of Illinois, as of January 1st, Police will not be allowed to remove trespassers from your property.
In other words, this is in essence the abolition of private property.
That's one of the most important differences between a capitalist society and a communist.
In capitalism, we have private property, the ability to profit from our enterprise and benefit therefrom.
In a communist society, there is no private property and you have no opportunity to benefit from the results of your own effort.
Illinois is a tip of the spear for the Democratic agenda.
If you go on a trip and come back to find that trespassers, homeless people, have occupied your home in Illinois after January 1st, you will not be able to call the police to have them removed.
You will be on your own.
Alan, this is just such a stunning and revealing development.
It's enough to make you gag.
I mean, Jim, the way that these people think is very different from the way that most of us think, okay?
In their minds, they think that all, you know, our property is just on loan to us, even though supposedly it's supposed to be our private property.
The way that they think is that it's just on loan to us, that really doesn't belong to us as individuals, right?
And as you said, I mean, that's supposed to be a right.
I mean, private property.
Like you said, I mean, that's one of the fundamentals of a supposedly capitalist economy.
They don't believe that.
They don't believe that people in general should be entitled to having their own property.
And they've gone on this racist rant.
They're practicing all forms of discrimination, which are illegal under the laws.
The Civil Rights Act, the anti-discrimination laws, not only preclude discrimination against blacks or brown people, it precludes discrimination against white people.
But the Democrat Party is whole hog going in on discriminating against white people.
It's just staggering what's going on here, Alan.
To imagine in my lifetime, I would say this transformation of America is mind-boggling.
Well, it's by design, okay?
They have to have as much division in the country as possible, and this is an easy way for them to do this.
And they have the media on their side to do this as well.
I would say without the presence of the media, I don't think people would even believe that this much division was possible.
So, this is by design.
Oh, I think you're absolutely 100% correct.
And as I've frequently emphasized, the Rothschilds own the AP and Reuters.
That's the source for all non-national news, the AP and Reuters.
And I have a panel of 100 executives from CNN.
Every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
I have another panel of 100 executives from NBC.
Every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
I have another panel of 100 executives from the New York Times.
Every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
Donald Trump did this nation such great good by calling out the fake news media.
If that had been all Trump had done for the nation, much less making us energy dependent, giving us a surging economy, creating a situation by clamping down at the border where the lowest earning wage earners were seeing their wages rise at the highest rate, Which, by the way, is one of the reasons why both the black and Hispanic communities are turning against the Democrats.
They resent all of this immigration!
If the Democrats thought they were going to sign on and be overjoyed, the outcome is precisely the opposite.
It is stunning, Alan, and as you say, all by design.
Oh, by design.
Yeah, I think, I think right now, the Hispanic population is, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but I think they're polling above 50% for Republicans at this point.
Is that true?
I think it was.
Yeah, yes, yeah.
And just just to add to that, and I think blacks are also pulling much higher for Republicans, as they did in the in the in the 2020 election, by the way, too.
Yeah, I mean, what you said about the media is dead on.
You know, control of the newspapers, control of the major networks on television.
You have control of the movies.
You have control of just about every form of major media in the United States.
So they can they can give or portray whatever narrative that is that they want to do.
And, you know, people have to wake up and realize that, you know, what they see on TV is not the truth.
And I'm telling you, that television has a very, very powerful effect on people.
And in fact, I made an analogy, Jim, to my parents the other day, and some of my colleagues, and I said, look, Imagine, you know, it's back in, you know, the time the moon landing, and, you know, you see it on TV, but imagine someone had come to you with the photographs of this instead of what was on TV, and they were trying to tell you, hey, look, they landed on the moon.
You wouldn't have believed them then, but it was only because it was on the television that people believed it.
So, we've got to wake up to the fact that, you know, just because something is on the television doesn't mean that it has authenticity.
Here's a perfect illustration, Alan, just as we come up to the break.
We're seeing photographs of lines of vehicles that are said to be leaving Russia.
Those were actually Ukrainians trying to get the hell out of Ukraine that are being misrepresented grotesque.
We'll be right back with Alan Burton after this break.
All right, Jim, when did you want to start Uvalde?
I'm sorry.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomflips.com.
- Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
No.
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do!
and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, You burn with us!
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution.
Radio.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
Take guns, impose tyranny.
It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com.
100% listener-supported radio.
And now we return you to your host.
Thank you.
Don't forget, Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com.
Tell your friends, your neighbors, and tell people to listen.
We are searching for the truth.
It takes a lot of paths, a lot of steps to get to the truth today.
We have to dig for it because they hide it.
They shave it.
They trim it.
They make it fit their pattern.
Or not their pattern.
That's a wrong word I want to use.
It makes it fit their agenda.
And then it keeps you confused.
So, yeah.
Remember, to tell the truth in this time of universal deceit, you want to see a liberal's head spin like a top?
Yep.
It certainly is.
Anyway, we're waiting for Jim to come on back.
Let's see.
Once I thought I had some story kind of relating to some of this stuff that Jim's been talking about, I got to pull up my bookmarks and and look for it.
But yeah, it's it'll be October.
Hey, just think, October coming tomorrow, right?
Okay, what, where was I going to, um, what was I gonna look at here?
Oh yeah, Ukraine has applied for accelerated NATO membership and General Stolenberg was supposed to speak about noon Eastern Standard Time.
Hi Jim!
Yeah.
Yeah, Mitchell.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm so glad to have Alan with me today.
Let me bring him back in.
And because of his background in material science, I want to take advantage of that opportunity to talk about 9-11.
Remember Judy Wood, who has her book, Where Did the Towers Go?
represents one of the three movements within 9-11 research.
We have Scholars for 9-11 Truth, which I founded in 2005.
Which has done extensive research on the planes, the fakery involved there.
We've established that two of the planes weren't even in the air.
Flight 11, North Tower, and Flight 77, the Pentagon, they were not even in the air.
Pilots for 9-11, truth is added, with information that Flight 93, Shanksville,
...was still in the air after it had officially crashed and was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and that flight 175, South Tower, was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it had officially hit the building, where I did additional research and obtained FAA registration records showing that the physical aircraft used for those flights were not even deregistered or formally 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?
This is all such poppycock.
And if those planes didn't crash, then the passengers aboard those planes didn't die, and the alleged Islamic terrorists were not responsible.
I've already mentioned a half a dozen or more turned up alive and well the following day.
Which means there was no rationale or justification for the War on Terror.
Now, mine alone is the only of these three major groups, the other two being architects and engineers, heretofore led by Richard Gage, which has focused on Building 7, and will not talk about who was responsible and why, and maintains a manothermite theory, which is not even physically possible as an explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Because nanothermite only has one-thirteenth the explosive force of TNT, the international standard.
It cannot have been responsible for blowing apart the building.
Look at it this way.
In order to destroy concrete requires an explosive with a detonation velocity of 3200 meters per second.
In order to destroy steel requires an explosive with a detonation velocity of 6100 meters per second.
But!
The highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite is 895 meters per second.
Niels Herent, who's an associate professor of chemistry emeritus from the University of Copenhagen, was asked to estimate how much nanothermite it would take to destroy a twin tower.
And he said 29,000 metric tons.
Think about it!
This is absurd!
Completely absurd!
And yet architects and engineers still want to peddle this nonsense?
Not only that, but Judy Wood, too, and her do group Who I declare have the character of a cult, because they have a sacred text.
Where did the towers go?
They have a mystical leader, Judy Wood herself.
They have a Praetorian guard, including figures like Thomas Potter and Andrew Johnson, who go viciously after anyone who questions any aspect of their work.
Where I originally published a five-star review of her book, explained it was the best compilation of photographs and studies that I'd seen, but that I disagreed with some of her conclusion that while I felt she'd excluded large nukes, she hadn't excluded many nukes.
And after I posted that five-star review, it was hit with over 2,000 attack.
2,000 attack.
This is not on her book, on my review of her book.
And I published that just before I went to Vancouver.
Well, I organized the Vancouver hearings and much evidence was presented of the use of mini nukes on that occasion, so when I came back and discovered, I revised my review to a three-star and explained how Judy was ignoring the results of the U.S.
Geological Survey, which had done dust studies at 35 locations in lower Manhattan and discovered elements that would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event.
Barium, strontium, lithium, lanthanum, tritium, many of which only exist in radioactive form.
But Judy refused to deal with it.
I revised my review to Three Star and added this, and would you believe the result was Over 7,000 more attacks.
I mean, it's stunning.
I believe it was after this that Amazon abandoned allowing comments on reviews, which I understand is the case.
It got so messy, I couldn't even open the page.
Now, like architects and engineers, Judy Wood will not talk about who is responsible and why.
She does insist it was done with directed energy weapons, just to illustrate how open-minded I was about this.
On the 11th of November, 2006, I began interviewing Judy Wood on my then radio show and pioneering interaction between radio and the computer, because we'd have people go to their computer to Judy Wood's website, and we'd focus on various photos, videos, diagrams, whatnot, and go through and discuss it.
I interviewed her 15 times.
And it was only after I had her on with her friend John Hutchison, who claims to have levitated massive metal objects in his garage, which I found a bit much and hard to take, and asked him during the interview what was his background, given that this is in the area of electromagnetism among the most complex in physics.
And he said he had flunk crayons and coloring books, which Judy thought was hilarious.
She has refused to have any contact with me.
I even invited her to speak at the Vancouver hearing because I believe in representing all points of view.
John Hutchison actually agrees to speak.
Another physicist on her side, it agrees to speak.
So she talked him out of doing it.
She wouldn't let him do it.
She's very authoritarian, but most importantly, no longer scientific.
Because if you won't take into account new evidence and alternative hypotheses, you have forfeited your right to qualify as a scientist.
What I find fascinating among other points about Alan is that he himself has a background in material science.
I touted Judy as the most qualified individual to address 9-11 because she had a background in mechanical engineering and material science and was indeed a professor of material science at Clemson.
And Alan is very familiar with her work, and I want to take this opportunity, therefore, to take advantage of that background.
Alan, just begin wherever you like.
I know you have a keen interest in 9-11.
You've gone through Judy Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go, twice.
Tell us more.
Okay, so about the nanothermite.
So when you talk about the detonation speed, is that detonation speed, is that for thermite or is it specific for nanothermite?
Nano.
I did this with a chemical engineer, T. Mark Hightower, went through the scientific literature and discovered that the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite was only 895 meters per second.
395 meters per second.
Okay.
Now, the nanothermite that they found was composed, if you believe the reports, was composed of layers of aluminum metal, iron oxide, and there was a carbon matrix iron oxide, and there was a carbon matrix inside of it.
Because one of the questions that I always had was, okay, you know, it can produce lots of heat.
That's what the reaction is known for, hence the name.
Um, but you need to produce gases in order to get the explosive force.
So when they revealed that the chips were composed or had an organic matrix in it, the combustion of the organic matrix would supply the release of gases that could explain how it would have the explosive forces in it.
Now, in terms of what the detonation velocity of that would be compared to a conventional thermite that didn't have the organic matrix, I don't know.
That's not the area of my expertise, but those are the questions that I would ask Jim.
Oh, that's all very good.
And by the way, it turns out that the...
From the mini nuke hypothesis, there would be a causal interaction between the aluminum colliding on the twin towers with these massive steel beams that would interact and would produce residue in the form of these nanothermite modules that Stephen Jones has made so much of.
Just to show I had no animosity towards Steve Jones, I invited him to be the co-chair of Scholars for 9-11 Truth when I founded the organization.
2005, December, after David Ray Griffin declined the honor.
He would explain to me later he thought at the time that creating a society wouldn't have much effect, but in fact it was sensational and I brought together hundreds of experts from around the world.
We had a website.
You can still find what remains of it because they've taken jamesfetzer.org and because a number of the articles published there are jamesfetzer.org and they've changed the URL, You'll only find residue, but I'm hopeful when the Supreme Court reverses the case, then I'll have it restored.
The problem being the deterioration and the linkage that's occurred in the meanwhile, because this all takes place more or less automatically and inevitably.
But the fact is, it looks as though we can even explain those alleged nanothermic droplets on the basis of the mini-nuke hypothesis, Alan.
Continue.
Okay, so so that okay so that's that's the next thing.
So, one of the, if I were a proponent of the, of the thermite or nanothermite theory.
One of the things that they point out is the fact that throughout the dust.
Um, in the city, you know, the dust that was distributed everywhere.
When they go in and examine the dust at a microscopic level, they see the little iron spheroids that are approximately about a micron, maybe half a micron in size.
And it's just throughout all the dust.
It was even inside of the dust that was in the neighboring buildings.
And it was approximately, depending upon where it was, it could be anywhere from about 2 to 6% of the dust that was Ejected throughout the city.
So that ends up being, you know, tons and tons of iron.
So the iron definitely had to be molten and you had to be producing, you know, a lot of this that was very small particles.
That to me, you know, I find that aspect to be fairly compelling.
You mean on behalf of a nanothermite hypothesis?
Yeah, yeah, I do.
I do.
Because I'm not sure how you would get that effect otherwise, you know, these little iron particles that were just distributed everywhere.
Well, that's what I'm telling you, that residual effect of the interaction.
I mean, steel, of course, is iron and carbon.
And the interaction between the aluminum colliding on the building and the steel would produce those little droplets.
I could invite Joe to talk about this too.
Joe Olson, who's in engineering across the board and has addressed a lot of these questions.
But I want to take advantage of you, Alan, especially in relation to Judy Wood's directed energy hypothesis, as opposed to nanothermite.
But you're welcome to continue any avenue you'd like.
Yeah, sure, sure.
So with the directed energy weapon, And wow, you know, if I if I knew that we were going to be discussing this I would have prepared even more but it can conceptually when you look at the buildings, and you know they're coming down level by level by level so the explosions are occurring in a sort of coordinated sequence in a manner similar to a controlled demolition.
Yeah, the way I put it is they're blowing apart in every direction.
All the floors are remaining stationary until their turn to be blown to kingdom come in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds, who is a close ally of Judy Wood, by the way.
And they're being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which, by the way, is a signature of the use of nuclear devices.
Go on.
Okay, so when I think of a Of a directed energy weapon, and even that term is kind of ill-defined.
There's not a lot of help in suggesting, you know, exactly, you know, what this weapon was, what kind of energy it was, the intensity of the energy.
But I would think that the damage should be, you know, you would expect it to be outside in rather than inside out, unless the directed energy weapon was, you know, conveniently stored inside of the building at different levels.
So, to me, I find it difficult to imagine how you would have that coordinated sequence of the forest going down sequentially from top to bottom, all the way down with an external energy source, because, you know, the weapon has to cut the
Cut the steel at every single floor in a very coordinated fashion and how you get the directed energy weapon to on all four sides to move conveniently down all the way to the base of the building where you would think it would cut through the neighboring buildings as well.
I just I'm just having a difficult time imagining how that could occur.
Um, so that that's the problem that I, that is the biggest problem that I have with the directed energy hypothesis.
I have others, but, um, I'm not prepared to talk about those.
I could tell you.
Excellent, excellent points, Alan.
And of course there was nothing left.
I mean, what, what, what we know from classic controlled demolitions was illustrated by building seven, which came down at five 20 in the afternoon, about seven hours after the destruction of the The North Tower, Building 1.
All the floors came down at the same time.
This required all the support columns being blown simultaneously, virtually the speed of free fall.
When it was over, there was a pile of debris of five and a half floors, which turns out to be about 12% of the original height of 47 floors, which we know from other experience Blowing up coliseums, casinos, resorts, and all that is a predictable outcome of a controlled demolition.
You get a residue about 12% of the original height.
In the case of the Twin Towers at 110 floors, that would have been Around 13 and a half floors of debris for each, but it was nothing there.
I had Father Frank Morales, who was a first responder from St.
Mark's Episcopal Church on my show twice, Alan, and both times he emphasized those buildings were destroyed too, or even slightly below ground level.
I mean, there's nothing there.
So not only is it, it's no controlled demolition.
That's a mistake.
It is a demolition under control.
But it appears a mini-nuke hypothesis can explain it by being in the sub-basement actually lower level and then destroying the inner tube from the bottom out and then the outer tube from the top down, which corresponds to what we were able to observe.
But I think the points you've already made about directed energy weapons are devastating all by themselves.
Well, let me ask you, okay, so do you think, do you visualize this as there being nukes on every single floor?
Or, you know, how do you, I mean, how do you explain?
No, it turns out to have been one mini nuke that was in below the sub-basement that went upward to destroy the inner
So there was a time when I thought there was a distribution of mini nukes in the building but that's not feasible because once one is ignited it would blow off the others and I no longer find that plausible.
When we have a more elegant hypothesis, a simpler hypothesis that appears to be capable of explaining the data, even to the toast at cars as effects of radiation.
So these are, you know, fourth, fifth generation nuclear devices that have a lower radiation content.
Go ahead, Alan.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, okay.
So if, if the, if the explosion occurs at the base of the building, How do you, it's difficult for me to visualize how you get the building, you know, to fall level by level.
That's the part that I have a problem with.
That's not falling at all, right?
We don't want to use the word fall.
We don't want to use the word collapse because they weren't... It's exploding level by level, right?
So your energy source emanates originally, at least from the base of the building.
Yes.
And so you would expect the base of the building to suffer The initial damage, but the wave goes from top to bottom rather than bottom to top.
Externally it goes from top to bottom.
It initially goes from bottom to top.
Remember the building is a A tube within a tube.
You got the inner tube around the massive 47 core columns.
Then you got the 230 external steel support columns, which are massive, connected by steel trusses that are loaded with four to eight inches of concrete on each floor.
So it's a matter of destroying the building from the bottom up with regard to the inner tube, but then from the top down with regard to the outer tube and what you observe externally.
What we have in the videos, therefore, is blowing apart in every direction from the top down, but no floor is moving.
They're all remaining stationary.
Okay.
And, okay, so the, now you recall the testimony from, what was his name, Willie, the guy who worked in the maintenance?
Gonzalez, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Willie Rodriguez.
Yeah, he came here to Madison and we had dinner and he started talking about, you know, he's talking about the prior explosion that occurred at approximately the time when the planes were supposed to be hitting the building.
And he talked about the basement filling up with water, which led me to infer it was they were taking out, draining the sprinkler systems that had been installed in 1975 after there was a huge fire in the North Tower that Burned intensely.
They didn't actually have to replace any of the steel, but they did install a sprinkler system that would have extinguished the very modest fires that remained after the spectacular pre-positioned, you know, napalm jet fuel explosions that only lasted about 15 seconds.
And then, you know, we even had that fire commander up on the South Tower saying, I am just modest fires.
I think with two lines, we can take it out, which is when they triggered off the demolition of Okay, so do you think the explosions that Willie felt from beneath him on the floor, do you think that was the initiation of this explosion?
No, these were separate.
You have two different seismic reports.
Greg Furlong and Gordon Ross did a brilliant piece called Seismic Proof 9-11 Was an Inside Job, where they were studying the seismic reports, which we have.
Uh, that showed these were earlier and much more modest demolitions compared to those that would occur when the buildings were taken down.
These coincided with the approximate impact of the plane on the building and was supposed to be explainable by jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts.
To rate these explosions in the sub-basement, but in fact they had independent causation and there was a hand-eye coordination problem so that the explosions in the sub-basement took place premature to the plane seeing the building by 14 and 17 seconds.
I mean, it's a brilliant piece of research.
Yeah, they couldn't even get the timing right, Jim.
We got it right.
Not to mention the nose out phenomenon with a projected image, which was most embarrassing and all Adam to go to the fade to black, as you know.
OK, so so the OK, so when the explosions, the initial explosions occur from the presumed impact of the of the airplane, which a lot of us don't believe, OK, including yourself.
What do you think is the source of it?
It looks like explosions were on the inside of the building, right?
And that's what they use to simulate that effect.
What do you think caused those explosions?
Well, no, I'm assuming that it was just the mini-nuke in the sub-basement that caused the destruction, and it was an effect of all of that coming out.
But look, this is good.
This is good.
I'll get Joe in.
I'll bring you back, and we'll talk about this in greater detail with Joe, who's more expert on this than am I. I want you to lay out what you think is the most plausible explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers, based on your expertise.
Yeah, so so Jim, you know, like I said, I'm open minded about these things.
And, you know, there were there were times I mean, Jim, there were times when I felt the idea of there not being an airplane involved.
I thought that was crazy, you know, and I no longer have that view any because it's really it's difficult to argue against the physics.
Okay.
We got a break here, Alan.
I'm going to invite callers to call in.
I'm sure you're going to get a lot of questions.
540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
Call in with questions for Alan Burton or me about any of the above we've been discussing, including 9-11.
0352445 to calling with questions for Alan Burton or me about any of the above we've been discussing, including 9-11.
We'll be right back.
Maybe we got a minute more.
Keep going, Alan.
It's possible Mitchell did not kill the break.
Go ahead, go ahead.
Okay, so one other question.
Okay, so the molten material that was observed after the event, you attribute that to the high temperatures that were produced by the by nuclear.
I think that you mean you're talking about that molten is supposed to be pouring out of the building?
No, no, I'm talking about like after the effect where you had the people in the debris And they claim, you know, they see molt material afterwards.
This is one of the points Judy makes about the vast temperature of the molten metal beneath, which of course could be produced predictably by the use of mini nougs.
So yeah, I mean, I agree.
And we have all the heat signatures and all that of enduring for weeks after the event.
Yeah.
Is that where of you speak?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, so that you definitely, okay, so you attribute that to the nuclear devices and that's the reason it burned so long.
Okay.
All right, because I always, in terms of the thermite explanation, that was always a sticking point for me, was how do you explain how long the heat was being generated?
Because that was for several months.
Yes.
And, you know, the best, you know, in terms of trying to rationalize that, the best thing I could think of, Jim, was that they had, you know, if they had used nanothermite, that they had packed the basement so full of the nanothermite, that they had these different areas of it, that it took a while from the heat of one area to reach the heat, or to reach the other areas.
In other words, the thermite is set off by, by reach, by heating it to a certain temperature.
I think it's around 430 Celsius.
And so if you have these pockets of nanothermite, That was my best attempt to rationalize how you could end up having so much heat still being generated underneath the rubble.
Maybe the rubble could keep the surrounding areas insulated, but yeah, it's kind of difficult to rationalize how you could keep the heat going for such a long period of time and for it to be so intense.
That's why the thermite, you know, thermite itself generates temperatures up to 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, I mean, that would be an explanation for the molten metal, if it had been prevalent and sufficient.
As I said, we get this absurd estimate from Neil's Heritage, 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite being required.
I mean, My God, that's like filling the building with circus peanuts, it seems to me.
Do you find that even remotely plausible, Alan?
Now, when he says that, is that just to take out the steel or does that include, you know, all the other supporting structure, the concrete and so forth?
Is that just steel?
I think he meant that to destroy, to demolish a twin tower would require that amount of nanothermite.
OK.
I mean, I guess, you know, if I were If I were trying to come up for an explanation to that, I might suggest that they could have used nanothermite to take out the columns, the steel columns, but then have other explosives in there to take out the rest of the building.
In fact, sometimes they'll hedge the argument and they'll say, yeah, we, you know, they'll say that there's nanothermite there, but we're not excluding that, you know, from other conventional explosives.
But, you know, I don't know.
I don't know, Jim.
Well, I think they want to exclude unconventional because it so limits who could have been responsible, but already we know it can't have been the 19 Islamic Terrorists.
The whole thing is such poppycock.
Yeah, Alan, I want more of your critique about Judy.
I know you went through her book at least twice.
Tell us a little more of what troubled you about what Judy had to say about 9-11.
We have a caller standing by, but I want to discuss this further first.
Okay.
Okay.
So, you know, I, I'm not going to say that I'm an expert in Judy's area of research.
Okay.
But what I will say is I can, you know, I can read papers and, you know, I can sort of get an idea of the, the logic of the science, you know, in terms of how it's presented.
You saw, you know, I read her papers and they, they seem to be fairly reasonable papers that she wrote in her graduate work and then subsequently as an academic.
The book itself seems to me to be written in a different manner.
Again, this is just my speculation, but I wouldn't have been surprised if the book had been written by a different person altogether, because the writing style was so different.
I think the book suffers from a lack of discipline.
So, let me give you an example of this because, you know, you follow logic a lot.
Your expertise is in philosophy.
Okay, so one of the explanations that she gave to rule out the use of nanothermite, whether right or wrong, was to say that there was no Okay, that might be true.
to show that nanothermite had been successfully used to take down a building.
Okay, that might be true, but those proof of concept experiments, you know, if they were carried out, just weren't publicized.
But on top of that, there were no proof of concept experiments to show that buildings had been brought down by a directed energy weapon either, right? - Yeah, it's very bad.
Yeah, so there's a lack of, you know, there's really a flaw in the kinds of arguments that are being given that to me speak to either a lack of discipline or, you know, is this the person who really wrote this book?
So, here's an example of another thing, and I found, I was kind of shocked by this.
There was a part in there where she was doing an elemental scan of, I can't remember if it was parts of the steel, or maybe it was some dust, but anyhow, the essence of the logic was something to the effect that, oh, she was seeing these elements that were in the steel, And it was surprising because these elements should have a boiling point or a melting point, you know, that would not have been expected in steel, right?
But we know, Jim, that elements have different properties from the compounds that they formed, you know.
So, for example, sodium chloride, you know, sodium is a, you know, it's a metal.
It's a very reactive metal.
Chlorine is a gas, but you react the two together and you get a, you know, sodium chloride salt.
So, the properties of the material you're looking at are not necessarily indicative of the elements that compose them.
And so, I found that kind of argument to be shocking to me, coming from an expert in material science, and that's what was in her book.
I, you know, so I just didn't think there was a lot of Discipline vetting of the hypotheses or arguments that were being made.
There was another one where she was surprised that there was fluorine in an elemental scan, but clearly in the very image and text it said that there was Teflon that was used as, I think it was, I can't remember if it was part of the sample stage or if it was part of the holder, but nonetheless Fluorine is a component of Teflon.
So, you know, you should not be surprised that when you see fluorine in one of these scans, if there's Teflon present.
It was things like that.
There was just a real lack of, you know, careful vetting in what she said.
I think those are very telling points.
I mean, she's an expert in the area.
She's a professor of mechanical engineering.
He ought to have got them right, and I think when you talk about it written in a different style, I think he got it right.
I believe it was ghostwritten, not written by Judy.
When Thomas Potter, by the way, sent me an attack, it had a list, and I did a reply all with a rebuttal, and one bounced, and it came from the ADL.
And I believe that they financed Judy's work in the publication of this book to create conflict by means of a limited hangout.
With regard to 9-11.
Let me bring in, we got a couple callers here, let me bring in first Bruce from Texas.
Bruce, join the conversation with Alan and me.
Bruce.
Yes, hello Alan, and hello Jim, and you just hit the first point I was going to make.
Judy Wood is a gatekeeper.
Yeah, and it was ghostwritten, and I just went to Amazon, and yeah, her book is still there.
You can buy that book.
Yeah, surprisingly cheaply, as I recall.
It's like only 40 bucks for this messy book with all kinds of color photos.
I mean, that's also a sign that something's going on here.
Continue.
Yeah, just like COVID-19, you have people with credentials who use them maliciously to mislead the public.
These are sellouts.
Tell me, have we even figured out how many kilowatts of energy it would take to create an invisible beam that would destroy the Twin Towers?
I'm glad you brought that point up because... Hang on, Scott.
Alex is going to answer.
Go ahead.
Scott, I'm glad you brought that point up, because there was a point that there was another 9-11 scientist who had gone through the energy requirements that would be necessary in order to carry this out.
And she wrote this in her book, and I found this an astonishing statement to make.
She said, essentially, that the amount of energy that would be required is largely not important.
Only the source of the energy but of course she doesn't really, you know, talk about what the source of the energy is.
And of course the amount of energy that would be needed is very important because it might give you an idea as to what that source of energy would be so it was it was those kinds of statements that that I that I found astonishing.
And Jim, if you ever want to have me back on again, I can go through the list in the book.
We'll do that.
We'll do that.
I'll bring you back with Joe and we can get into greater detail about the conflicting explanations.
But I love what you're doing, Alan.
It's wonderful.
Bruce, did you want to have an additional question?
Yes.
It all doesn't add up.
When you look at the steel beams that were displayed out there at Grace Kills Landfill, They were bent in a U-shape.
That means that they were superheated and simultaneously weighed down by falling debris, turned into essentially gigantic horseshoes.
And only a nuclear blast can create that kind of heat instantaneously and also disassociate the concrete, pearl, and external cladding across the street into other buildings.
And it's just, it's really frustrating that There are people in our movement, high level people or high visibility people that just won't look at this because they just, I guess it's just too incredible for them or they've been hooked into the nanothermite, which is nanothermite, when you get down to it, it's powdered aluminum, iron oxide with an accelerator, basically a sparkler.
It's a paste.
I deployed a thermite grenade on a hulk of an armored personnel carrier.
Yeah, it popped a little bit, went straight down through the aluminum, but it's not going to explode an entire building like that.
And it's like you say, you fill it up like the towers are full of circus pina.
There's a website that you can find on web.archive.org.
It's mutualdemolition.com.
That has been taken offline, but the last time I looked, it's still on the archives.
There was another site by a nuclear physicist in New York that also went offline, so you gotta ask yourself, why are they deleting all the material that points to nuclear demolition?
Yeah, well, the answer is a little obvious, but Alan, go ahead.
Okay, so these are all very good points, and these are points that I wrestle with myself.
In terms of the nanothermite, they wrote a paper Um, Jones did, he was probably one of the main authors, but they wrote a paper in which they said they went around and they collected dust samples from different places in the city.
And from each of these individual dust samples, they were able to discover these chips.
And if you look at the chips, they're synthetic.
And they're very thin, they're very small, hence the nano, but they do have both aluminum and iron oxide in them with an organic matrix.
So, whatever this was, I think this was synthetic, this was made for that purpose.
So, unless these were, you know, unless these were just planted samples, I have a hard time believing.
I mean, personally, I think Stephen is an honest man.
I have a hard time believing that they didn't legitimately believe that there's nanofermite there.
Again, this is more than just, you know, finding a piece of aluminum here and a piece of iron oxide there.
These are made in very intimate contact along with an organic matrix that I think is very important in both of its preparation and possibly in its ability to produce gaseous Explosions.
Let me bring in Scott from San Diego.
Scott.
Hey guys, what's up?
Go ahead.
You know, I haven't heard anybody point out the fundamental flaw in the dripping fuel that's supposed to cut the building on fire.
Didn't the fuel blow up in the impact?
Yes.
So you want to answer, Jim?
No, you go ahead.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Okay.
So yeah, I'm glad you brought this point up.
This is a very important point.
Hang on, Scott.
Alan's answering your question.
Go ahead, Alan.
Okay, so FEMA put out a report in which they sort of divided how much of the fuel that they thought was burned up in the initial explosion.
You know, how much would have remained on the floor where the impact was and how much would have been available to go to the rest of the building.
From the amount of fuel that they expected, there was another 9-11 researcher, his name is Kevin Ryan.
This guy is a true patriot in my mind, because he worked at Underwaters Laboratories and he lost his job, but he went through and did some very simple calculations.
Okay, so if you know how much heat is generated by the combustion of the fuel, and you know how much fuel you have, then you can calculate what the temperature rise should be by making some assumptions.
So what Kevin did is he assumed that all of the energy that was released was confined to a single floor.
Okay, so this is a very extreme assumption.
But what he's doing, he's trying to calculate the maximum temperature that can be generated.
He assumed that it was completely closed system, that you weren't losing heat to the outside.
Okay, and so he could use the heat capacities of all the materials there, the concrete, the steel, the air, and he assumed that the fuel burnt cleanly in oxygen.
Of course, we know none of that happened, but he made all the assumptions that you would need in order to assume that you would get a maximum temperature rise just for one single floor.
And again, he's assuming that you don't even have heat transfer along the columns, which is completely ridiculous because, you know, metal on metal, it's going to transfer heat.
After doing all those assumptions, The steel would not even reach a temperature to weaken, right?
So a lot of times there's this discussion about whether or not the fuel would burn at a high enough temperature to even raise it to the point where it would weaken, but there was not enough energy from the amount of fuel that was there to even raise the temperature of a single floor to the point where the steel would even melt.
That's a brilliant thought experiment.
Scott, I want you to stand by Bruce to while I bring in Paul.
Paul, go ahead.
Join the conversation.
Well, as I made clear on a previous call, I think that the Mohammed and the hijackers survived the initial crash.
They rappelled down the elevator shafts and they went to work with super strong carbide blade saw balls.
Can I can I add to that?
I'm sure glad you spelled that out for us, Paul.
We needed to know.
Go ahead, Alan.
Can I add to that?
No, no, because that had to be part of the plan, because that's what allowed Muhammad Atta to go in and do the controlled demolition on Building 7.
Very good, Paul. - And on the, And in between the buildings, he dropped his passport on the sidewalk.
I was going to come with a little bit of an insult and talk about, I'm surprised sometimes how much dim-wittedness can come out of the state of Texas.
But, okay, the idea that you need super, super heated, super high temperatures, you know, to deform steel in a, you know, U-shaped manner, whatever it is that, you know, what this face was talking about, it's ridiculous, okay?
You don't need any heat at all.
You just need a large enough hydraulic press, okay?
If you've ever been inside of a steel plant, you know, and I'm not talking about where they make the steel, but they do everything you can imagine with steel, you know, you'll be amazed at, you know, the kind of bending and cutting that takes place with just the hydraulic press.
But, Paul, they do.
But Paul, they didn't have hydraulic presses in the Twin Towers on 9-11.
And Bruce is talking about remnants with which we're all familiar.
We've seen the photographs of massive steel columns that are grossly distorted that requires an explanation.
I'm familiar with that.
I've also seen the angle cuts, but the point being, The steel melts at approximately 2,500 degrees.
Why do you need kind of superheated temperatures of a nuclear explosion to bend or deform the steel in that manner when it melts at 2,500 degrees?
So it's an absurd statement.
And I just wanted to point that out.
And I guess the last thing I'll say on the matter is, as Lewis Gossett Jr.
famously said in An Officer and a Gentleman, Only two things come out of the state of Texas, steers and queers.
Come on, come on, Paul.
You don't have to be unkind.
We got plenty of good people.
I have many excellent commentators who come out of Texas.
Paul, don't listen to me for a second and I'm done.
He's gone at me on air and he's made comments in the comment sections in multiple places.
So when he shuts his mouth and he stopped, Say my name on Republican broadcasting and other places.
Okay.
Then I'll stop this.
Thanks.
I'm glad.
Even when he opens his mouth.
Glad you got that off your chest, Paul.
Scott, Scott, let me go back to you, Scott.
I know you had more you wanted to ask with Alan.
Go ahead, Scott.
Well, I was just wondering, has anybody thought of the possibility that the 1993 bombing was just a smoke screen or for an excuse to go in there and do inspections and repairs?
And that was when they laid the explosives?
No, they had plenty of opportunities.
There was the biggest elevator renovation project in history prior to 9-11.
So I think that's just a red herring.
I don't think that was the occasion.
But they did, I think, use it as an opportunity to do tests to see how much explosive would be necessary in order to destroy a Twin Tower.
I believe it was used for that.
As kind of a pilot study to make calculations.
Bruce!
Okay, anything else, Scott, you wanted to add?
I'm going to bring back Alan.
Go ahead.
Yeah, no, that's fine.
Alan, go ahead, address whatever.
Okay, so let's see, 9-11.
I didn't know I'd be talking about 9-11 today.
Okay, that's all right.
I wanted to take advantage of your expertise, but I'll bring you back.
Okay, so I have a few questions for you, Jim.
So the planes, the supposed planes, Do you think those planes were actually in the air, or do you think those were images that they had just put on the FAA screens and all the military screens for the drills?
Oh, no, no.
Richard Hall of the UK sorted it out.
They used a hologram, a holographic projection.
It's really fascinating.
This is the most complicated aspect of old 9-11, how they projected the image of Flight 175.
But the key is there were three, with the absence of collision effects, you know what we're witnessing is impossible.
You've got the nose out phenomenon.
When the nose of a plane is the most fragile part, there's no possible way a real plane could come out the other side of the building.
So we know something's wrong.
There have been three theories about it.
One of that was a CGI, another that it was video compositing, or the third, holographic.
The problem with CGI and video compositing is we have hundreds of witnesses reporting having seen what they took to be a plane in real time prior to impact with a building.
And on either CGI or video compositing, That would not have been possible because you'd only see the image of the planes in the broadcast, the subsequent broadcast.
And what he figured out was, I mean this is really fascinating stuff, There's some 52 videos, Alan, of the Flight 175.
About 27 he found sufficiently precise so he could create plots of where the plane was at specific times.
And he found that the NIST had published a similar series of plots claiming it was based on radar data, but the radar data they identified looked fishy to him.
He found there actually was radar data, But that it showed a plane 1,200 feet to the right of the images he had plotted, leading him to speculate that the reason why the plane was traveling at an impossible speed structurally of Boeing 767 would have come apart in flight at the altitude of the Twin Towers.
Pilots themselves have documented this in their documentary, 9-11 Intercepted.
It was traveling at an impossible speed.
They appeared to have blundered by assuming that the cruising speed at 35,000 feet could be attained at 700 to 1,000, which is of course ridiculous.
You got the absence of the collision impact.
I mean it enters effortlessly.
So in two videos you count the number of frames and the plane disappears its entire length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its entire length through air.
Obviously Physically impossible unless a massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.
It would have been actually crumpling external to the building, body seats, luggage, parts below, but we have video photos below the facades in both cases, and we don't have any airplane parts, no bodies, no tail, no whatever.
And the fact is that, with that nose out, what he speculated was the plane that was in the actual radar data was projecting the image of the plane.
It had to fly faster than would normally be the case.
Aerodynamically possible for a 767 to preserve the integrity of the image, and it just flew right into the building with no resistance because it was only the image of a plane, not a real plane.
And that's why in the radar data, it only showed the real plane 1,200 feet to the side and not the projected image because it wasn't physical and therefore radio waves wouldn't bounce off it to create the radar image.
I think he's got that exactly right.
And the oddity is, and it's confirmed by them planning an engine at Church and Murray and all that, you know, they were trying to fake it.
But he claims he's abandoned it, so I say, okay, if that's not Richard D. Hall's, that's James H. Fetzer's theory, because I'll tell you, he got it right, and I will acknowledge, but for him to disavow it is to my, he's just buckling to some kind of political pressure.
This may be the single most brilliant piece of analysis done in relation to the aircraft on 9-11.
Your thoughts, Alan?
Yes, so Jim, I gotta tell you, you know, when I was first looking at this, I Look, you know, before I went down the path of thinking that there wasn't a plane at all, I looked at all the images that I could capture, because I thought maybe it was like a military jet, something like that.
And I looked at the images, every image that I looked was consistent with the Boeing jet that it was supposed to be.
And there was even a photograph, and again, I don't know if it was a docker photograph, supposedly they got it from a postcard, but there's like a A photograph where supposedly the person is, you know, standing almost underneath or at the base of the building and gets a photograph.
That's it.
That's a Fairbanks.
That's one of the two Evan Fairbanks film.
That's one of the two I talk about where we count the number of frames and it's equal distance and equal time, which means equal velocity.
So, but, you know, what's scary to me is how convincing, if that's a hologram, Yeah, it's very convincing, you know, and I don't, do you know of any technology or any example since then of people showing holographic images that are that convincing?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, absolutely, 100%.
And here's the thing.
They thought in the past you had to have a solid object to project a hologram, but it turns out, you know, military technologies are maybe decades ahead of what the public's informed.
They can use the air molecules as a transient screen to project the holograms.
But just look at it this way, Alan.
You're witnessing a physically impossible event.
No real plane could have...
No real plane could have entered the building, so it's obviously fake.
The question is, how did they fake it?
I agree.
There are only three theories available, and two of them won't cut it, once you acknowledge the witness testimony.
These are hundreds of witnesses.
I actually went with Andrew Johnson.
He found 500 witness reports about the aircraft that had been archived by the New York Times, and they were all over the place.
Some large plane, small plane, military, commercial.
But the point is, they were seeing something they took to be a plane.
Which excludes the CGI and the video compositing.
And when you see the nose-up phenomenon that led them to fade to black, I think that's conclusive.
It's because they had a hand-eye coordination problem again, just as they did with the sprinkler system when the plane's supposed to be hitting the building and having the explosives go off early to drain the systems.
I want to thank you so much for coming on, Alan.
You've been absolutely wonderful.
I want to thank our callers.
I want to thank Bruce.
I want to thank Scott.
I want to thank Paul.
And we're going to have you back, Alan.
Thank you so very much.
Super.
▲
Export Selection