Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 1, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:44

The Raw Deal (1 September 2023) with Alan

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody.
	Help!
	Not just anybody.
	Help!
	You know I need someone.
	Help!
	When I was young, 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 But now I find a gentle mind, I've opened up the doors Help me if you can, I'm feeling down And I do appreciate you being round help me get my feet back on the ground
	won't you please please help me well this is Jim Fetzer your host on the Raw Deal I have a sensational guest today to talk about 9-11 in New York and whether do's or nukes or nanothermite were involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers I think you're going to find this quite fascinating fascinating
	Before we get there, however, Mitchell's come up with a fabulous article by Victor David Hanson, who many of you will know as this very thoughtful historian.
	He's one of the few who seems to me to get the truth out, entitled Save the Rule of Law by Destroying It.
	I think he's got it exactly right.
	So before I bring in my special guest, I want to share this with you.
	It will be on my blog later today.
	I've been putting it up as we prepare for today's conversation.
	David Victor Hanson.
	Some truths are so staggering in the ramifications that Americans simply shrug and tune them out, as if strangers in a strange land.
	Is our current bewilderment because modernist America is unrecognizable?
	A non-existent border?
	Downtown homelessness?
	Juxtaposed to hipster professional elites?
	The EI racial essentialism cities?
	Reverting to pre-civilizational wastelands.
	Millions exiting blue states to red.
	An FBI and DOJ gone rogue.
	The normalization of violent theft and assault biologically born men sandbagging women's sports in their locker room privacy.
	We are reaching the point where the once unbelievable has become the bay now.
	As a single generation has done its best to undo the work of a prior 12 generations, considering the following.
	Three left-wing prosecutors are criminalizing politics with more than 90 simultaneous indictments of Donald Trump, the ex-president, currently the leading Republican primary candidate, by a mile I would add.
	A New York prosecutor, Letitia James, is Hounding Trump with a $250 million state lawsuit against a Trump organization and family on the pretense of supposedly Trump overvaluing his real estate and filing inaccurate financial statements.
	Is there any mafia, don, mass murder, or terrorist who's faced so many indictments or suits in so many jurisdictions at almost the same time?
	The prosecutor's immediate lawfare agenda seemed transparent enough.
	They wish to bankrupt candidate Trump with endless legal costs and humiliate him with his mugshot blasted over the internet and put endless Lillie Bouchon legal robes over a shackled candidate Gulliver and inflate the ego and agendas of loathsome prosecutors and purportedly earn Trump empathy enough to win the nomination.
	Only behemorrhage with still more indictments, gag orders, and court appearances that bleed them out in the general election.
	Americans ask themselves questions whose answers are never given.
	Why are all these Trump prosecutors left-wing or have Democrat connections?
	Would any of the 90-something indictments for crimes of years past been lodged against a citizen Trump who had retired from politics?
	Why are these indictments of alleged wrongdoing of years ago now in the summer of 2023 suddenly being synchronized in left-wing jurisdictions of New York, Washington, Miami, and Atlanta at the beginning of the 2024 election cycle?
	Are any of the indictments against Trump also applicable to others?
	Alvin Bragg is charged with campaign finance violations.
	How about Hillary Clinton in 2016?
	Jack Smith's allegation of encouraging mass civil arrest.
	How about Kamala Harris in 2020?
	Illegally removing and possessing classified federal documents.
	How about Joe Biden, 2009-2022?
	Letitia James' lawsuit alleging financial irregularities and fraud.
	How about Al Sharpton, 2009-2014?
	Fannie Willis claimed Trump was seeking to sabotage the constitutional duties of state electors, Martin Sheen and an array of B-list Hollywood actors in 2016, including to interfere with an election.
	How about Fannie Willis right now, 2023 to 2024?
	Will any losing Republican candidate in a contested election any longer question the integrity of questionable balloting?
	In the manner of Vice President Al Gore in 2000?
	Senator Barbara Boxer and 32 Democrat congressional representatives in 2004?
	Candidate Jill Stein or Hillary Clinton in 2016?
	Or Stacey Abrams, 2018?
	And thereby risk financial and career crippling indictments?
	Will conservative district attorneys in places like Wyoming, Alabama, or West Virginia now seek to indict a Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Gavin Newsom?
	Turn notoriety?
	To weaken the opposing party?
	To leapfrog the higher office in a manner that we should expect a Fannie Willis or Alvin Bragg to be currently planning?
	When Republicans retake the Congress and the White House?
	Will they begin indicting all the weaponized prosecutors who colluded to exempt a grifting hunter Biden for five years?
	Will they try Joe Biden as a corporate citizen for his prior corruption over the last 15?
	Why would Donald Trump believe that 2020 election was rigged?
	Was he cribbing that belief from liberal journalist Molly Ball's braggadocious 2021 Time essay?
	After all, She outlined what she called a left-wing cabal and conspiracy to change voting laws.
	Turn on, turn off.
	The 2020 Antifa BLM street protests absorbed the work of registrars and suppressed unwelcome social media news.
	Was it more morally suspect to question the ethics surrounding the election of 2020 or for Mike Zuckerberg to infuse $419 million To absorb in asymmetrical fashion the work of the registrars in key swing precincts?
	A cardboard cutout president.
	We are witnessing the daily deterioration of President Biden to the point that caricature and jokes about his senility are no longer funny.
	He's not just an embarrassment, but becoming an existential danger to the country.
	Does anyone believe that in a national crisis over Taiwan or nuclear escalation in Ukraine, Joe Biden would or could make the final decision?
	Biden cannot finish a teleprompter sentence without slurring his words, losing his place, screaming and whispering in an incoherent fashion.
	If that is his public persona, what is he like in private sessions of governance?
	He spontaneously both shouts angrily and creepily whispers for a fact, moving a lightweight aluminum beach chair because of a Herculean task.
	In almost every impromptu speech, Biden flat out lies or speaks self-serving autobiographical fantasies.
	Often in the midst of foreign dignitaries grieving families and refugees from devastating natural disasters.
	Biden often does not know where he is on stage or where he is to enter or exit.
	He is one fall from oblivion.
	Not since Woodrow Wilson finally earned office has any president simply been unable to fulfill his duties, both physically and cognitively.
	Or perhaps the country's in the same position as when an alien Franklin Roosevelt in late 1944 was deemed just hailed enough to get elected and continue democratic control of the White House, but not healthy enough to finish his first year in office, necessitating the rapid removal from the ticket of the socialist vice president and an otherwise likely 1945 president, Henry Wallace.
	Yet there's been almost no serious speculation in Congress or among the cabinet about invoking the 25th Amendment.
	This silence is doubly strange given the WEF's former fixation between 2017 and 21 with removing Trump by any means possible, including invoking the 25th.
	That silly effort led to the surreal the acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Scheming to wiretap Trump in private conversations to reveal his supposed craziness, or the Congress dragging in an incompetent Yale psychiatrist to testify in a dissent she had diagnosed Trump as demented.
	Do we recall Pentagon officials and officers talking openly about a military coup to remove the supposedly touched commander-in-chief?
	Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs contacted the head of the People's Liberation Army to warn him Trump might be unhinged.
	So is General Mark Milley now making yet another call to General Lee Tso-Chang of the People's Liberation Army to warn him that Joe Biden is dangerously disturbed?
	It is precisely that entire cast of characters now said, Mom, As Joe Biden believes we are fighting in Iraq against the Russians or that his late son Bo died in action in Iraq.
	It's impossible to square the tens of millions of dollars that flowed from abroad to the Biden accounts with any concrete expertise rendered or income reported as taxable.
	Is the tolerance of Biden's senescence because it's blank stares and mental confusion prove useful to the left?
	By exempting the president from offering any defense for his mostly defenseless policies or defending his absurd claims?
	To know nothing of the Biden family grifting operation that were predicated on his own office?
	Or do the puppeteers, the Obamas, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the hard leftists of the party, find a non-compost mantis Biden mannequin A useful veneer in pushing through their extreme agendas?
	Or does the media call the shots, especially after they propelled a basement-bound Biden to the White House?
	Mainstreaming corruption.
	There have been a few corrupt presidents in our past who, as in the case of Lyndon Johnson, left office far richer than when they entered or were surrounded by rogues Grant and Harding.
	Or were masters of leveraging and grifting long-term contracts and networks in their lame-duck tenures to ensure their embedding multimillionaire status the day they left office, the Clintons and the Obamas.
	But never in memory has an entire extended presidential family been involved in selling influence for millions of dollars in quid pro quo lucra The vast majority of such ill-gotten gains likely untaxed by being channeled through sham companies, foreign deposits, fake names, and alias email accounts.
	Never has a corrupt presidential family itself offered so much proof of its own guilt.
	Do the Democrats have any idea of the smelly Biden albatross hanging around their collective neck?
	How much longer can they continue to dismiss the communications of the Hunter Biden laptop, or the testimony of IRS whistleblowers, or the assertions of Biden family business associates, or the statement of relevant Ukrainian oligarchs, or the latest assertion to Viktor Shokin, or the extraordinary efforts of the Bidens to stonewall subpoenaed documents, use fake names, and shadow email accounts?
	Compromised federal prosecutors appoint sham special counsels.
	Is media toadies to the point of embarrassment to hide the ugly truth?
	In sum, what were the Bidens so afraid of that prompted them to corrupt the DOJ and FBI to stonewall any discussion of the huge cash infusions that came from abroad into their family coffers?
	Americans have impeached or nearly impeached presidents before for abuse of power, lying under oath, or supposedly using government to pursue their own personal agenda or harass their enemies, but never has a president been so clearly compromised by bribery from shady foreign government-related grantees in expectation of favorable treatment.
	In other words, There is growing evidence that Jim and Hunter Biden, and likely Jim Biden as well, Joe and Hunter Biden, and likely Jim Biden as well, made millions of dollars in the hope that then Vice President Biden, perhaps one day a future President Biden, would alter a compromise U.S.
	foreign policy on the expectation of getting rich.
	The State Department's Ukraine team, Team Victor Shokin, making progress in rooting out corruption.
	So why did Joe Biden, without consultation, fire him?
	Did Biden put his own financial interests above the country's in a fashion the founding fathers worried was impeachable treason?
	If the current investigation are not halted or compromised, we may soon learn why the Constitution explicitly specified bribery and treason as ironclad causes for impeachment.
	Can Americans even comprehend that they've elected a dishonest man to the presidency who's protected by his own senility, his decades-long everyman construction of old Joe Biden from Scranton, his usefulness as a prop to the radical left-wing agenda, and the defensive and offensive weaponization of the criminal justice system?
	Can Americans digest And instead of campaigning against Donald Trump, out-debating him, outspanning him, and out-foxing him, the government must unleash kindred prosecutors to destroy Trump by blowing up the entire tradition of blind American jurisprudence.
	Are the media and left claiming that to save the rule of law from Trump, they must first destroy it?
	Mitchell, I think David Hanson, Victor Hanson, got it exactly right.
	I think this is a wonderful piece.
	I want to invite first your and then Alan's comments.
	Mitchell, your thoughts.
	Well, Jim, you know, we live in a time, you know, it's often said a universal deceit, you know, particularly coming, you know, from government.
	But it's not an accident.
	It's a calculated plan, and it's a step-by-step brainwashing of all humanity.
	If we could get Obama, Biden, and the rest of his staff, you know, they should be indicted for what they did to Trump.
	I mean, there is no doubt, you know, It's still the continuing pattern that all of the crimes that have been committed by Democrats against Trump and the United States are now being foisted at Trump in kind of this, you know, this bastardization of justice.
	And it truly is political perversion of it all.
	Yeah, it's just.
	Unbelievable, the degree of corruption involved here.
	Alan, Alan, I'd like to invite you to offer your thoughts about the state of affairs, sordid, unbelievably lawless.
	The United States is not just a banana republic.
	It's far below that.
	It's a criminal enterprise.
	Your thoughts, Alan?
	Well, my thoughts are that You know, you got to think about, well, who are the bad guys and why are they bad and why are they doing this?
	And, uh, got to realize that this, it's really a battle against, uh, spiritual things in high places.
	And I think a lot of people are corrupted, coerced, blackmailed.
	Uh, they get into things.
	Um, you know, I believe in the living God who can, you know, make it rain and made the earth and people who can You know, we can do things in the material world, but I think there's a whole supernatural world, and these demonic entities, they can't really do things in the physical, but they can plant information.
	They can corrupt people's thoughts, just like Garden of Eden.
	So, I think that that's really, you know, and the satanic force has been around for many, many, many years.
	You know, we don't have a chance, and I think a lot of these people who do such bad things are kind of victims of satanic influences, and they can all be redeemed, but most of them probably won't.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, one of the ironies, of course, is that the more they indict, the greater the support has especially been illustrated in Georgia.
	Well, the black community is overwhelmingly supporting Trump now because they see him as subjected to the same kinds of abuse of the law to which they themselves have historically been subjected.
	But, you know, when they try to make out by bringing RICO charges against Trump, that he is actually the don of a crime family.
	When the evidence is so abundant and compelling that it's Biden who's the head of a crime family, you just see the PR stunt.
	This is just a propaganda ploy, a psyop, to make it look like Trump is the one who's running the crime family when it's overwhelmingly obvious it's Biden.
	I mean, in my lifetime of 82 years, I've never seen anything remotely comparable to this.
	And of course, the media has completely abdicated its responsibility to hold the government accountable in a fashion never before seen.
	And I do believe it has a whole lot to do with Israel having our control of our Congress and control of our media, so that none of this is really intended to publish a truth.
	I mean, just look at how many cases Financial violations, Hillary Clinton, encouraging mass unrest, Kamala Harris, illegally moving and possessing classified docs, Biden, the financial irregularities and fraud, Sharpton, claim Trump was sabotaging the duty of state electors, whole lot of Hollywood actors in 2016.
	I mean, it just goes on and on.
	The monsters.
	who are in control are not prosecuting those who are actually committing the real offenses, but rather using fabricated charges against Trump to achieve their own political agenda, which they manifestly cannot do if this were on the up and up.
	Mitchell, further thoughts?
	Well, Jim, I have been terming it, you know, this, the only way I can describe it is full spectrum dominance.
	Okay.
	You know, there was once this, uh, intelligence program where they really wanted to know everything, everywhere, all the time.
	And well, they have it.
	Now they can literally propagandize and effect in real time, but not just get the information out.
	But they can censor information in real time.
	So not only can they have gotten to where they propagandize at will, on cue, anytime, they will also censor anything, anytime, anywhere, to achieve their means.
	Yes, yes.
	Alan, any further thoughts of yours?
	Um, I'm just so sick of it, but, um, it just, you know, kind of is, it's frightening.
	You know, I'm kind of concerned about what we're going to talk about for the rest of the hour here.
	Um, you know, I don't want to get snuffed.
	Um, so it's, it's kind of scary to not be able to, uh, tell the truth in this world without, uh, facing repercussions.
	So of course the truth about JFK.
	9-11, even the moon landing.
	I mean, the government has perpetrated so many frauds on the American people.
	It's truly disgusting and outrageous.
	And the media, sad to say, has been complicit in perpetrating these frauds.
	If Trump had done no more than to call out the fake news media, in my opinion, he would have deserved the admiration and respect of every American.
	Because we've reached a point where too many were simply taking for granted they were playing the role of gullible savs in relation to what they were hearing from the government when it was remote from truth.
	It was pure propaganda.
	And as I endlessly explained, that has something to do with the fact that 100 execs of CNN are dual U.S.
	citizens, 100 execs from NBC are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
	A hundred execs from the New York Times are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
	Remember, the New York Times is the nation's newspaper of record.
	What appears in the New York Times is supposed to be, get this, the official history of the United States.
	That's what it means to be the nation's newspaper of record.
	And they're doing a miserable job of it.
	I had friends, for example, a woman to whom I was actually even engaged when I was an assistant professor at Kentucky, who lived and breathed the New York Times.
	She had a habit, first thing in the morning, last thing at night, she read every word and she believed it.
	Today, anyone who held that stance would be viewed as Having lost it, having no conception of what really is going on out there in the world, because almost 90% of what they publish is fake news.
	We'll be right back with Alan and talk about 9-11.
	Stand by.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, FreedomSubs.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Rainbow, rainbow, rainbow, rainbow.
	Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern. 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomstitch.com.
	The People Station.
	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.
	Well, as of course regular listeners are well aware, the beers-directed energy weapons were used in the beers-directed energy weapons were used in Maui.
	Whether they were lasers, masers, microwaves may be still open for discussion, but that this was not a naturally occurring wildfire is provable on multiple grounds.
	The official narrative was that Hawaiian Electric had left their power on and that High winds that caused some of them to fall, their electric top towers causing the fires to ignite.
	But it turns out that a Hawaiian electric shut off the power six hours before there was no juice in the lines.
	So that's not a possible explanation.
	We also know from isolated cars, not to mention the boats out in the water that were destroyed, parts of which melted, such as aluminum wheels.
	And their glass windshields, that since wildfires don't burn at temperatures above 400 degrees Fahrenheit, but the aluminum would not melt below 1300 and the windshields closer to 4000, we're being played.
	I mean, these are laws of nature that cannot be violated and cannot be changed.
	Now in New York, I initially invited Steve Jones to be my co-chair when I founded Scholars for 9-11.
	Steve, even though, and this is significant, he has a background in nuclear energy, advocated the nanothermite theory.
	By June of 2006, I was convinced thermite couldn't cut it, meaning that literally and figuratively
	I would subsequently publish three articles with a chemical engineer, T. Mark Hightower, in 2011, demonstrating the impossibility of nanothermite having blown apart the towers, including the fact that for cement to be destroyed, an explosive must have a detonation velocity of 3,200 meters per second, for steel to be pulverized 6,100 meters per second,
	And yet the highest attributed detonation velocity for nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 meters per second, meaning you can't get there from there.
	To compound the absurdity, Niels Herrod, who is a retired associate professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, has to estimate how much nanothermite it would take to destroy a Twin Towers over the figure 26 26,000 metric tons.
	26,000 metric tons.
	I mean, that's just staggering.
	And reflects the fact that nanothermite is a feeble explosive.
	Feeble.
	Only has one-thirteenth the explosive power of TNT.
	Therefore, toward the end of 2006, I began interviewing Judy Wood in what turned out to be 15 interviews where I was pioneering interaction between Radio and the Internet.
	Because in each of those 15 shows, we go to Judy's website, have our listeners go to Judy's website and talk about contents, videos, photographs.
	She has a stupendous accumulation.
	During the Vancouver hearings, which I organized in 2012, however, I discovered a vast amount of evidence that it had actually been done using nuclear devices, mini-nukes in the sub-basement.
	And because it appears that all of the phenomena, all the data points are explicable by the mini-nuke hypothesis, but some are not by the directed energy hypothesis, I have advocated the mini-nukes.
	But looking at what happened in La Hena, I'm now more open to the possibility that directed energy weapons were also used in New York on 9-11, even if it wasn't a pilot project as a supplement.
	And I'm delighted to say that in conversation I've had with Alan, he's gravitated in the same direction.
	He has very sophisticated insights about how all of this was done, and I'm therefore Ecstatic to have him here with me today.
	Alan, Alan, take the floor.
	Okay, well first let me give you just a little background.
	I don't want to say too much because I don't want to say too much, but I spent 30 years in the intelligence military community working on advanced weapons technologies and programs.
	I've got a degree in electrical engineering with the Okay, so let's talk primarily about 9-11 here.
	and waves.
	So, you know, I think about, I think about waves going around me all the time and what are the frequencies and stuff like that.
	But, okay.
	So let's talk primarily about 9-11 here.
	I believe that the primary target on 9-11 was the Pentagon and that the Twin Towers were kind of a, let's get two birds with one stone because they needed to come down anyway and maybe to refocus attention. let's get two birds with one stone because they needed But on the Pentagon, I really think that was the primary target.
	I think it was because they had just finished a hardened skiff with all the financial records for all the black world things that go on.
	And in the intelligence community, the DoD people tend to be More honest or upfront than the things that go on in CIA and NSA and places like that.
	Even though we have secrets, I think DOD seems to be more of an honest broker, primarily because the people get rotated.
	They don't sit in one place long enough to be corrupted and coerced and become part of the global network because they go to different jobs and things.
	Some of the worst people, I believe, or the biggest big element of this deep state is the Senior Executive Service, the SES civilians, are just not to be trusted from my experience.
	So I think that the primary target was taking out that database, those computers in the Pentagon that held all the black world financial information.
	And I think it was Donald Rumsfeld, is that right, who announced the day before 9-11 that, whoa, we were missing like $2.2 trillion?
	Something like that?
	$3 trillion?
	So sometimes, let me, this is one of my favorite analogies, you know, we kind of know about million, billion, trillion, we know one's bigger than the other, but just an object lesson here.
	We can wrap our heads around a million dollar house, things like that.
	So if I borrow $100 from you and say I will pay you back in a million seconds, you'll get your money back in about 12 days.
	If I say I'll pay you back in a billion seconds, you're going to get your money back in 32 years.
	If I tell you I'll pay you back in a trillion seconds, you're going to get your money back in 32,000 years.
	Can you imagine that?
	That's 32,000 years of seconds is how much a trillion dollars is.
	It's like, you know, it's a lot.
	So anyway, so I think that really was the primary target.
	And there are some things that would indicate, I mean, you know, it doesn't seem like it was a plane for sure.
	We saw stuff on the ground afterward that weren't there during the, you know, early footage of what happened.
	Because I'm focused on electromagnetic fields and waves, you know, there were some reports that, and I think there are some clocks that stopped, electrically powered clocks that stopped just shortly before the missile hit the Pentagon.
	And there were reports that they heard there were like small explosions that went off in that vault right before the The drone hood or whatever it was.
	Anyway, um, you know, it, it would appear to me that somebody did put small EMP devices, uh, explosively driven to make sure that all the hard drives and equipment was, was definitely wiped out.
	So I think that really was the primary thing that happened there.
	Um, what Shanksville, the plane that crashed Pennsylvania, um, They never excavated that and got all the way out.
	I mean, if somebody dies in the landslide or miners, we always dig down and get them out.
	I mean, that's highly unlike the United States to not totally have excavated where that plane went down.
	So I don't think that was real.
	I don't think there was anybody on that plane.
	So, um, Now let's talk about the Twin Towers.
	Judy Wood did a great thing at capturing information.
	She gets some, oh, unhappiness expressed because she doesn't call out a mechanism or how she thinks it was done.
	She, but she reports on what was done.
	I think that's very respectable of her to not propose a hypothesis, actually.
	It's kind of like there's an analogy of a clock.
	You can imagine, you know, you've seen the works of a grandfather clock.
	I see one.
	It seems like it's probably got the same gears and things that maybe we've seen before.
	But you don't know.
	If the clockworks are locked up and you can't see, it might be battery powered, could be nuclear powered.
	You never know.
	You can design things that look like other things.
	So I think it's good of her, even though she collected all this information, to not propose a theory that could be wrong.
	But her book is great and the things in there are great.
	So without further ado, let me tell you what I think happened on 9/11.
	And I'm going to, you know, there's a thing, what is it, outcomes erasure?
	I don't know if I'm saying that right.
	That indicates, you know, if you've got different options to consider, you should always take the simplest one.
	I think in all of this conspiracy theory stuff, uh, that should be just totally disregarded.
	That's a bad idea.
	You know, in the JFK assassination, it's way easier to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald just did it and they had all this stuff against him, even With the weird bullet trajectory thing.
	It's way easier to believe that than what really happened.
	You know, Gulf of Tonkin.
	It's easier to believe that they opened fire on us versus what really happened.
	Sandy Hook.
	It's easier to think that some kind of young guy did this thing instead of what really happened, which is kind of big and ugly.
	So, you know, I've had some people say, you know, hey, if so long as we got evidence that there were nuclear devices involved in the Twin Towers, you need look no further, because that explains it all.
	I don't think that does explain it all.
	So I'm, I'm throwing out Occam's razor on this one.
	So the other thing that I want to put in here from introduction is You know, Tesla came up with things that were totally different than, uh, different way of thinking about electromagnetic fields and waves and electricity and stuff.
	Um, and so in the Tesla, Tesla things that he, you did, they often involved, you know, high voltage, lots of available electrons and some kind of oscillation vibration kind of thing.
	So those are three keys.
	High voltage, enough electrons to use that voltage, and manipulating the frequencies.
	There's a guy who passed away not too long ago that I was associated with, a guy named Tom Bearden, that I would think people would really like to hear about.
	He thought of all of this stuff in a different way, also very much like Tesla.
	He got in trouble a little bit, In afraid for his life because a lot of the things a lot of the technology that we're talking about leads to free energy and anti gravity and other things.
	Some forces don't want us to talk about.
	But I told you I had a degree in electrical engineering.
	With.
	Mostly electromagnetic fields and waves and such like that.
	I will tell you that in college we were pretty much lied to about the math.
	And we were lied to about electricity.
	Basic stuff.
	Maxwell's equations are the things that we base all of our electromagnetic fields and waves and all that kind of stuff on.
	Well, Maxwell's equations were really originally written in quaternion math.
	And quaternion math is kind of hard, kind of different.
	And Maxwell's equations were dumbed down by a guy named Heaviside so we could use it in the way we think of the way we do our math for electricity and stuff.
	Well, quaternion math, it turns out, and I could get in trouble with this, but, uh, you know, the, um, the Star Wars program, we were spending billions of dollars on it.
	And then suddenly it just kind of disappeared.
	Um, it didn't disappear.
	We were still spending trillions of dollars, but, um, one of the things that goes on in the solution they found is quaternion math is a big part of that.
	Quaternion math is a little different.
	The only other place they use it that I know of is in the advanced gaming systems.
	Well, even like.
	You know some of the.
	Auto driving kinds of things, but what's different about quaternion math is like if you start at a scene like you're going to drive a car down the road.
	You can run that car right into a fire hydrant.
	And things will explode and burning and stuff like that.
	You can do the same thing exactly the same and the flames will be different, the explosion will be different.
	You can be at a level where you're trying to get to a door and you know there's a guy to the right because you've been there before that you got to shoot.
	You can shoot them the very same way and the blood will be different.
	It's never, it's not any canned video at all.
	It learns, it develops itself.
	And the way just electricity goes through a flashlight with the voltage and the electrons and the resistance and stuff like that.
	It's a it's a coin.
	Kind of, you know, useful way to make things work, but it's not how it really works.
	And so in this quaternion math, I don't want to belabor it too much, but.
	You know, we use this thing pi in normal fields and waves, a lot, a lot of pi, 2 pi r, that kind of thing.
	And pi is what, some irrational number that keeps going on forever?
	Well, in quaternion math, pi is like 1.
	In quaternion math, there are no imaginary numbers.
	So it's very interesting, the things that we've been told that aren't really true.
	So, here I go.
	Am I belaboring this too much, Jim?
	You're doing fine, Alan.
	Just go ahead and lay it out.
	I mean, I differ on a couple of points, but that's insignificant.
	I want you to just lay out your expertise, especially in relation to how the Twin Towers appear to have been destroyed.
	Okay.
	Well, first of all, I think, I believe that what was created was we kind of made them a big lightning rod.
	And I believe that mini nukes were definitely part of making them into a big lightning rod.
	I think there was small fission devices in the basement, but I don't I'm not sure that they were designed to cause damage necessarily or the damage we saw there.
	When you have a fission reaction, one of the main things you get is a bunch of cesium isotopes.
	And different cesium isotopes decay at different rates, nanoseconds to thousands of years.
	In the intelligence community, if they want to find out if a country set off a nuclear device, they look for cesium-131 because it has a half-life of about 10 days.
	And then you can tell did this reaction happen soon, you got to get to it fast, but you can kind of kind of link something that might have been an earthquake to a to maybe an underground nuclear test by detecting the cesium 131.
	Well, the thing about cesium, which is one of the main products from a fission reaction, is it's one of the most Electronegative substances there are.
	Most electromagnetic elements there are.
	So what that effectively does, if you create that cesium, it acts like a lightning rod.
	It pulls down the energy, the voltage essentially from From the ionosphere in, you know, we've got millions of volts constantly from the ionosphere between the ionosphere and the earth.
	And when the the insulation breaks down, we get lightning kind of thing.
	That's why we get thunderstorms, stuff like that.
	The all the electron volts, you know, interact with the earth because of the voltage difference.
	So that's there all the time.
	So I believe the first step was they set off these small nuclear devices to make those towers into a channel with the ionosphere that is almost, you know, think of it as controlled lightning.
	Not enough to really cause lightning, but the voltage all wanting to come down.
	And then I believe what they did was they used HAARP, I'm not going to go into what HAARP is, to vibrate the ionosphere to create wavefronts, vibrations in that to vibrate the ionosphere to create wavefronts, vibrations in that channel, electromagnetic wavefronts in that channel.
	Okay, so you've got like the controlled lightning voltage thing.
	Now you've got like Tesla was all about, you've got the vibration coming down that channel.
	And then...
	I believe that key part of it was Building 7.
	I think they had another transmitter in Building 7.
	There were some reports that large amounts of coolant and things might have been delivered to that building before 9-11.
	I think they had another transmitter in Building 7, and it was aimed at an angle to the column of energy that was available from the nuclear devices, and they used interferometry.
	If you're familiar with interferometry, and you can look it up, it's how you can use certain frequencies coming at different angles to see things that's smaller than the wavelength of those frequencies or to create frequencies.
	An example kind of in the real world is if you've got two ski boats out on a lake, You see their waves, but when those waves hit, you get all kinds of weird things.
	You can make things in water that look like squares if you just create the wave patterns right in the water.
	So by doing that from two different angles, you didn't have to have all the energy in building the Building 7 transmitter, but you could create the interference patterns that you wanted at different frequencies.
	So if you think of a laser, the early Ruby lasers.
	What do they do?
	They shined light at a certain frequency, certain frequency that would excite the outer level electron.
	Then when that light stops, the electron falls back to a lower energy state and gives off energy in a specific wavelength.
	Okay, so the I believe they manipulated, with HAARP coming down the channel and providing the high voltage, and the manipulation of the frequencies and waves, and they probably scanned through and did things for different purposes.
	From Building 7, they created essentially energy that, and this was what I believe is the key mechanism, and this was mentioned in one of your first things, is molecular Dissociation.
	If you add energy at just the right frequencies, you don't have to have a lot of heat, you can break the molecules apart.
	And you should look up, you can you can Google it.
	It's one of the hottest things in, you know, going going forward, is this thing of molecular dissociation, you add energy through frequencies and things, and you actually break apart the molecules into component, you know, neutrons, protons, electrons, those kinds of things.
	So when you let that go back, when you take the energy away, it goes back to the lowest, easiest state.
	It's kind of like if you think about steel or aluminum, we've had to add energy and processes to purify those things and give those things order.
	And even trees or plants, you know, something takes place that gives that material order.
	When it goes back to its its raw elements, it'll automatically go back to a lower state, like things want to come to lead, things want to rust, things come back.
	So I think that is what happened is they essentially added energy from the ionosphere to the molecules to dissociate them.
	And When it was done, everything turned into dust, turned into a lower energy, unorganized state.
	Another thing to think about with that is there was a pop-up hurricane that blew up kind of an area and went away.
	What would have happened there is hurricanes cause ice crystals in the upper atmosphere.
	Ice crystals in the upper atmosphere create static electricity, which is just really free electrons.
	So that gave them the extra electrons they needed.
	You had the voltage already from the ionosphere, between the ionosphere and the Earth, with the Twin Towers acting like a lightning rod in this controlled thing.
	Now they added through weather We'll be right back after this break.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this break.
	Okay.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes 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 the 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. - Go!
	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.
	Revolution Radio.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths, and because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. OTT every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
	Eastern, and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	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.
	Well, my featured guest today, Alan, is giving us a rather thoroughgoing explanation of how he believes that Twin Towers were is giving us a rather thoroughgoing explanation of how he believes Alan, please do continue.
	Excellent.
	Okay, well, I think I left off talking about the pop-up hurricane that would have created the extra free electrons to do this.
	Another thing that is in Julie Wood's book, you know, Where Did the Towers Go?
	Is towards the back.
	She talks about magnetic sensors that are around the world that detect lightning.
	We have lightning strikes.
	It affects the magnetic fields in the earth.
	Things like that so they can.
	They can see lightning strikes around the world.
	Apparently.
	There were the same kind of thing that looked like lightning on going.
	At the very time and place that the twin towers were brought down.
	So, you know, I think that adds some credence to the idea that this was kind of like controlled lightning with a little, little stuff put on.
	The other thing, you know, I also am very interested in what we call the toasted cars around that area.
	If you look at what happens with the microwave oven, You know, there's some things you don't want to put in a microwave oven because weird stuff happens if you put metal in a microwave oven.
	But the frequencies of a microwave affect water.
	You know, you got to have something wet if it's dry.
	The cup doesn't get hot, but the water does for your coffee.
	But it affects oil even more than, at those frequencies, even more than water.
	So there were things with the toasted cars where engines were blown out.
	But the other thing was the door handles were blown out.
	And I think I know why that happened.
	Why would the door handles blow out?
	Well, I think the engines and transmissions were blown out because some of the frequencies generated by the whole deal were in those resonant frequencies, like a microwave, and the oil and gas and stuff was affected by it.
	But the door handles are interesting because The door handles, if you remember, we used to make things, toys and stuff, all out of white metal.
	Car door handles are made out of special kind of white metal, so that in the wintertime, when you get static electricity shocks, you don't get a shock from your door handle.
	So it's kind of a, you know, a substance that conducts electricity, but not very well, maybe kind of like an insulator kind of thing.
	So I think that the frequencies they used, like putting something you shouldn't in a microwave, interacted with those door handles and blew them out.
	And I don't see any other explanation for why that would have been the case with the cars.
	So that's what I got for you on 9-11.
	That's my theory.
	Yeah, about the Pentagon, I certainly agree that they had to attack the Pentagon in order to have a justification for war.
	I mean, if it had just been an attack on the World Trade Center, for example, then there would not have been a military demand.
	So they had to fabricate the attack on the Pentagon.
	And based upon my research, yes, it was a missile fired by an unmanned aerial vehicle.
	It appears to have been a Global Hawk.
	We even had Jamie McIntyre, who is a best reporter for CNN on the scene, explain to the anchor, Judy Woodruff, I think, that when she Spoke of a plane having hit the Pentagon.
	He replied that you might think that, but from his close up inspection, there was no sign of any plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon.
	He's got that absolutely right.
	They did fly a plane toward the building that then swooped over it.
	I even have a friend with a Trucker body who witnessed it and told him how he watched his plane approach a Pentagon and then fly over it at the same time.
	Explosives were set off in the front of the building.
	But there's so much going on here, Alan.
	I. With regard to all come.
	What's essential to understand that regarding the principle is that you should prefer?
	The simplest or the most economical or the most elegant explanation provided that it can account for all the data.
	So you're right.
	Naively thinking about.
	Say Sandy Hook or.
	or 9/11 or JFK, on its face it's simpler to suppose, yeah, one guy shot Jack from the sixth floor of the Book Depository or 19 Islamic terrorists attacked the world on 9/11 or a kid shot up and killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook.
	But when you start digging deeper, when you discover, for example, Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the book depository when the JFK motorcade came by.
	Autopsy, actually, were patched to conceal a fist-sized blowout at the back of the head.
	That two shots were widely reported the day of the event.
	A small puncture wound to the throat, which Malcolm Perry, EMD, three times described as a wound of entry.
	And then a second shot that entered the right temple and blew half his brains out the back of his head, attributed to Admiral George Berkeley, the President's personal physician, for example.
	Or in relation to 9-11, you have impossible phenomena being presented.
	You've got planes entering massive 500,000-ton steel and concrete buildings intersecting with eight floors in the case of the South Tower, seven with regard to the North, where each floor consists of a steel truss connected at one side to the massive core columns, at the other to the external steel support columns, which were quite formidable in and of themselves.
	In the same number of frames passing its whole length into the building as it passed its whole length in air, then clearly something's wrong from the point of view of physics, unless a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air.
	And, you know, it goes on.
	With Sandy Hook, yeah, we know what we were all told.
	But then it turns out that we have a manual for mass casualty exercise there, that all of it appears to be fabricated or faked, albeit in quite a variety of ways.
	The FBI consolidated crime report for 2012 at the intersection of murder or non-negligent manslaughter for Newtown, which includes Sandy Hook as a big fat zero in it.
	But when you dig further, you find evidence that some of the kids attended their own funeral, that the parents weren't even allowed to see their kids at the time.
	They only identified them on the basis of photographs, which appears to be correct because it's provable some of the kids were simply manufactured out of photographs in one case of his older sibling, his older brother.
	So when you take into account all of the available relevant evidence, and that, of course, can change across time, Then you may have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
	So it's not really throwing out Occam.
	It's that Occam only applies when you reach a point of having two alternative theories that explain all of the data equally well.
	One does so by invoking a more parsimonious explanatory framework.
	It's like, you know, the argument that John Jones avoided becoming pregnant last year because he took his wife's birth control pills and all men who take their wives' birth control pills do not become pregnant.
	When we know that, men don't become pregnant.
	Whether they take birth controls or not, pills or not, regardless of what the Democrats may be telling us, which of course is so insane that it's got to be part of a deliberate psyop to make us believe absurdities, which as I believe Volterra remarked, if they can make us believe absurdities, they can induce us to commit atrocities.
	Alan, I love all your expertise.
	It's fascinating.
	So on the 9-11 thing of nukes might explain it all, I have to admit that I don't have much background on what the radiation and things from that kind of a device would really have, you know, on a building and on that kind of thing.
	It looked to me from the videos of the Twin Towers, that the thing was brewing for a while and stuff, not like instantaneous, you know, which would seem to me to be this molecular dissociation thing.
	But I mean, I have to admit, I'm sure there were nuclear detonations involved, you know, with my theory here too.
	And I'm not really certain if the neutrons and cosmic rays and Gamma rays and everything like that would cause that damage like that or not?
	Yes.
	Well, one thing for sure, we did have this massive molten iron beneath the ground that endured until mid-December.
	That required tremendously high temperatures.
	Frankly, I think that's more plausibly explained on the basis of nuclear devices and do's, but I'm open to do's being used as supplement.
	My impression, Alan, is we're pretty much on the same wavelength there.
	Well, and by the same token, I mean, they've got pictures of kind of melted file cabinets with paper in them that's not even singed.
	Yeah.
	So that would, you know, that would be more like a electromagnetic vibration aspect to it.
	So yeah, it's fascinating.
	You should look, you know, Google molecular dissociation, because it's very, very fitting.
	But of course, nukes would bring about molecular dissociation as much as nukes.
	But I am.
	If you read the literature on what that does, it really talks about resonant frequency manipulation with electromagnetic fields and stuff.
	Yeah.
	You know, not just a one-time burst kind of thing.
	But yeah, it's a good thing to look into.
	Hey, I got some other stuff.
	Run that by me again, Alan.
	I think I missed a key point.
	If you read a little bit on the experimenting and the things that are going on with molecular dissociation, it seems to revolve around electromagnetic energy used in, you know, different frequencies and things like that.
	versus gamma rays or neutrons or something.
	Now, Judy, of course, suggested that Hurricane Aaron had something to do with all of this.
	I was never completely clear on how Judy felt that the hurricane might have contributed, but you seem to me to have a pretty clear grasp.
	There's all this vast number of electrons in the atmosphere, and that if you can create what you're describing as, turn the towers into lightning rods, you could use that mass energy.
	It's already there in the atmosphere.
	You don't have to create it by some independent source.
	It's already there in the atmosphere.
	The voltage is there, but maybe not the electrons.
	The voltage is there all the time.
	But you need the free electrons to do the things like Tesla did and those kind of things.
	Yeah.
	And that's where the hurricane comes in is creating the ice crystals that can create the free electrons.
	Very, very, very interesting, Alan.
	Would you agree with me that the heavy lifting in terms of destroying the towers appears to have been done with nukes, but supplemented by directed energy weaponry?
	No, I think the thing that turned it to dust was energy from the ionosphere.
	I think the ionosphere created most of the energy and the nukes just set the channel up.
	Oh, the nukes were used to set it up.
	Yeah.
	Could you review that point again in, you know, simple as possible language?
	I'll let everyone get this.
	I believe the nukes were used primarily to create cesium.
	And cesium is what made it all into a lightning rod, because it's electromagnet.
	It's a thing called electronegativity.
	It's material that wants to suck up electrons.
	It's like an electron sponge, a nuclear electron sponge is what cesium is.
	You know, I think I remember when we used to do a few of the nuclear tests, I think they got a lot of lightning coming down sometimes when they would do those atmospheric nuclear tests early on.
	You know, I think that fission devices attract, attract electrons, attract lightning.
	So yeah, I think that it was a kind of a chemical molecular deal with that.
	Because how are you going to aim it?
	You got to aim it somewhere.
	So that's, you had to make the, the towers into, you know, targets for the, for the lightning.
	Yes.
	Well, hey, can I launch into something a little different?
	Please.
	Yeah, go right ahead.
	So it's a little different.
	Go right ahead.
	Let me talk for a minute about EMP, electromagnetic pulse.
	We talk about that a lot.
	I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what that is and why it's a threat.
	Just a little background.
	If you imagine a graph with what we call time domain, where you've got a signal of some kind going along in time, and then a different graph that shows frequency, you know, kilohertz, megahertz, gigahertz kind of thing.
	If in the time domain, and you can think of it like sound or music, if you've got a perfect sinusoidal wave in the time domain, that looks like just one little line in the frequency that looks like just one little line in the frequency domain.
	So when I play, you know, a middle C, you know, the only, that's just a perfect sinusoid at that frequency is, It's like right at that frequency and when you turn into tune into You know, 104.5 on your radio dial, your carrier frequency is one certain frequency, okay?
	The thing about impulses, which is EMP, is that it manifests itself across the frequency domain in a whole bunch of frequencies.
	So lightning is an EMP, but it's Just not instantaneous enough to have it's got a lot of lower frequency components, but not that many higher frequency components.
	It's kind of like I said, if you have a sinusoid, that's going to be just one particular frequency.
	Now, if I try to make that sinusoidal wave into what we call a square wave, which is a little square that goes up and then down and then it's square.
	Well, You need higher frequency components to get those little corners made.
	And the more higher frequency that's in the wave, the more you'll accurately get those corners just right.
	Kind of like in calculus, the rectangles get tighter, tighter, smaller, smaller.
	Same kind of thing.
	So the perfect impulse is what we call a Dirac function that has like Infinite magnitude and and no time it just goes blip so impulse things, you know Spark plugs in your car things like that.
	You can create impulses in lots of different ways not just Nuclear weapons Okay, so we have devices as big as a briefcase that would take out all the electronics in a You know, building as big as the Capitol building, maybe something like that, that are explosively driven, doesn't have to be nuclear.
	Okay.
	And technology is a lot like rail guns.
	It's just, you dump a lot of energy and you get a very discontent, very, very impulsive thing causes a CMP.
	So the, the reason you want to do that is because You might not know what your target is susceptible to, like one frequency might screw up a computer monitor, a different frequency might screw up a phone.
	And so if you know what frequency messes something up, you're better off just using your energy in that frequency.
	Okay?
	In Afghanistan, we knew what frequencies the artillery was susceptible to and could point like a jammer that was tuned, and they would blow up prematurely in flight kind of thing.
	Okay.
	So in, in college, you know, electromagnetics in college, they will tell you that it's all about energy spectral density.
	It's how much energy but not the total energy.
	It's how You know, why does your antenna and how broad is the frequency?
	So if you're what turns out microwave ovens in your 2.4 gigahertz Wi-Fi kind of use the same frequency.
	But it's all about energy spectral density to microwave ovens giving you a lot more energy in that frequency.
	The Wi-Fi, you know, spreading it out and stuff like that.
	That's kind of scary though, huh?
	They use the same frequencies.
	So anyway, it's about... So ideally, you'd put your energy to screw something up in a narrow band, but you don't know what it is.
	EMP creates energy across the band, so it can sneak in a crack or a sensor or get to it one way or the other, because it's creating all the frequencies from low to high.
	So EMP doesn't have to be from a satellite in space.
	In fact, there is no EMP in space.
	It turns out if we have a weapon, an EMP weapon, it's essentially the nuclear detonation It uses what we call Bremsstrahlung radiation.
	It's a German word that means breaking radiation.
	It's when electrons move real fast.
	So what happens is a nuclear device with nitrogen around breaks the electrons loose from the atom and then they join real fast.
	And so you get this real fast impulse from the electrons being broke loose from the atoms and coming back, rejoining.
	So That really happens best where you've got a lot of nitrogen, which is at low altitudes.
	As you go up in the atmosphere, you get less nitrogen concentration.
	So an EMP weapon, nuclear driven EMP weapon, actually would work best at ground level.
	But then you lose your field of view.
	You don't see very far.
	So if you go higher, then you can see a long ways.
	Or it can manifest itself in a larger area.
	So there's a trade off.
	But you don't want to be up but space doesn't do it.
	You got to be around nitrogen to make the nuclear EMP really happen.
	So I am thinking there's a good possibility at this thing with the Chinese balloons that were allowed to fly overhead.
	It may have been a been a brinksmanship thing.
	Where the Chinese were saying, we've got an EMP on this.
	We're going to come map this out.
	And, uh, if you, if you try to stop us, you're going to set off the EMP and cause us catastrophic damage.
	Um, you know, and, and on different treaties we've had in the past, the START Treaty, SALT Treaty, those kinds of things, you know, we were allowed to put inspectors and we traded inspectors and let people inspect stuff.
	So it might've be a brinksmanship thing where.
	You know, those balloons were probably at the optimal altitude to create an EMP effect as far as the range and the nitrogen being around there.
	And of course an EMP over America would take out our electrical grid and bring America to a halt.
	I mean, effortlessly.
	Alan, I mean, it seems to me that's one of the simplest way our enemies could take us out.
	An EMP device on a balloon would really screw us up bad.
	Yep.
	Listen, we're hitting the break here.
	We're going to take your calls after, call in to talk with Alan and me, Mitchell, too, about any of these subjects.
	Thanks.
	Thank you.
	platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	FreedomSubs.com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSedge.com, the people's station.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	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. - Well, everyone, everyone, you're welcome to call 540-352-4452.
	Mitchell's staying by to bring you on with Alan and me.
	You're welcome to talk about any of the subjects.
	And, of course, that introduction, that early piece by David Victor Hanson is just fantastic in its breadth and scope, and it's available to you now on my blog at jameshfetzer.org, as well as another by Edward Hendry about a kind of fire.
	This isn't going to go away.
	Believe it or not, they put up a huge curtain.
	I mean, it kind of resembles a border wall.
	To block seeing the evidence, but it's already out there.
	There's always so much evidence out there.
	In fact, Alan, let me invite your consideration of what the hell happened in Maui.
	I mean, I am personally convinced Maui and Paradise were both classic examples of directed energy weapons.
	And with your expertise, perhaps you could elaborate on the difference that would have occurred had it been lasers versus masers versus microwaves.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I've been kind of interested for a couple years now on why we never heard about masers.
	We ought to be hearing more about masers.
	You know, masers, think about It's all about the coherence of the electromagnetic radiation.
	And that's why, like, laser light is not just about the frequency, you know, the color, the red, or the green, or the blue, or what color you make the laser invisible.
	It's about the coherent wavefront that lets it stay in a beam.
	And so, you know, so a laser is really like a laser, at a different frequency, and the beam's going to be bigger and stuff.
	But a lot depends with the frequency using a device like that, as to what it interacts with.
	And so you know, when you see a blue car, that blue car is absorbing all of the light frequencies, except the blue is reflecting.
	If you have, you know, we make some communications covert communications devices that are right in what we call the moisture absorption band.
	Because if we have a communications beam going, we don't want it to go further than we want it to go.
	So somebody can't pick up our communication past it.
	So you actually will Build a device that is absorbed more by the water in the atmosphere.
	So, and those things can change.
	So, you know, I think there's a good chance that these things were masers and tuned to the frequencies that would heat up plants and stuff like that.
	Just like, which would essentially be just like a Microwave oven, but in a beam form.
	And, you know, we have nuclear power devices that are like the size of a suitcase, not that heavy.
	So I think it's totally possible that you can have a space-based, satellite-based maser system that would, you know, penetrate the stuff and you could tune it to the different frequencies you wanted.
	That would be my guess is what this is.
	I think it's different than, you know, DEW.
	There's lots of different kinds of directed energy weapons.
	Yes.
	Besides what we've talked about.
	So this, I think a space-based or airborne maser is a real good suspicion.
	We got a caller from the 575 area code caller.
	Please give us your first name and your state and join the conversation.
	Greg from New Mexico.
	I just heard that last little bit about space-based.
	I've heard a number of people speak to the implausibility of any sort of space-based weapon making it through the atmosphere, but the point I wanted to mention, and something that I've wanted to say many times, because I've heard you talking about thermite More times than not, you say thermite rather than nano-thermite.
	Excuse me.
	And then I heard just this morning, you said that it's one-thirteenth the power of TNT or something like that.
	That is ridiculous.
	The main thing is, you do not know what the properties of nano-thermite are.
	There are a number of classified weapons that the United States military has made, nano-thermite weapons.
	It's all highly secret.
	There's a good deal of variability as far as the properties of these weapons, and you have no idea about the properties of these weapons.
	When you say that nanothermite couldn't have done this, couldn't have done that, you are absolutely wrong.
	I have been of the opinion that... Go ahead.
	I have been of the opinion that nanothermite, because I've been on top of this since day Nanothermite pretty much accounted, as far as I'm concerned, for what we saw happen, except for the cars outside that were, I don't know what the word for it is, not burned, but that was some kind of microwave.
	So I'm open to the idea.
	And then there's the bowl, I think they call it, what do they call it, in the basement, the big bowl.
	I've seen photos of that, and that I can believe maybe there was a mini-nuke.
	I think it's beyond any of us who don't have any inside knowledge to really put the pieces together, because I think that there's a number of pieces.
	But the idea that nanothermite is the way you describe it, that is absolutely wrong.
	Have you read the three articles that I published in 2011 with T. Mark Hightower as a chemical engineer?
	No.
	Well, maybe you ought to, because I think it would inform you that it is not I who am mistaken about this point, and if I've sometimes said... Well, maybe you got it from someone else.
	When it was nanothermite, that's okay.
	Yeah, I'm talking about nanothermite.
	But there's no comparison.
	There's no comparison between thermite and nanothermite.
	No comparison at all.
	They're so totally different.
	Don't get your pants in a bunch.
	I meant nanothermite, not just thermite.
	We know thermite is used to disable artillery weapons, to fuse railroad cars together.
	It gets up around 4,000 degrees.
	That's ordinary thermite.
	That's just ordinary.
	Listen to me.
	This guy, Mark Hightower, and I did a rather thorough search of the scientific literature.
	And yeah, you can always appeal to unspecified, unknown sources.
	It's like those who say, we actually did go to the moon, but we went to the moon using a secret technology.
	Well, how the hell are we supposed to be able to- Well, can I interject?
	The fact is that it was impossible to go to the moon.
	We didn't have the propulsion power, the computing power, or the ability to withstand the Van Allen radiation belt.
	But the fact is, and I'll invite Alan to address this, you ought to take a look.
	I mean, here's a nice... I think the articles... I don't think you're listening to me.
	Is 9-11 truth based upon a false theory is one of the three articles we published.
	Is 9-11 truth based upon a false theory?
	Go ahead!
	I think your caller is right, Jim.
	Go ahead, Alan.
	I think there's a lot of stuff that we just don't know.
	Lots and lots of stuff, you know?
	You know, in the stuff I work in, they would always tell us I'd get these very high-level clearances and sign your life away if you ever told and all those kind of things.
	Yeah.
	And I was always told the really secret stuff is called company confidential.
	Yeah.
	Not even in the government.
	So, you know, I I think, you know, that there's a chance that maybe multiple mechanisms or backup mechanisms were used on 9-11.
	And I don't know, like I said, I don't know enough about the effects of mini-nukes, and I don't know that much about what might be done with nanothermite.
	So I'd be inclined to, you know, withhold judgment at this point.
	And let's hear more.
	575, stick around.
	Paul, come on in and join the conversation.
	Yeah.
	Fascinating show.
	I really enjoyed it for the most part.
	Every now and then you do really good shows with interesting guests here.
	It just kind of made me think about, I mean, this is what I exactly I was going to say is, OK, how do how do we know what we know and how do we know what we don't know?
	I mean, it just reminds me of the combination of like Tesla, Flash Gordon and the Outer Limits sometimes.
	I just, like, I really want to know.
	I think we all do.
	I mean, I really would just love to know what the heck they're doing.
	We bump into people throughout our lives, you know, as we, you know, go about our daily travels.
	And I still remember, you know, some people just make an impression upon you and, you know, there's a lot of people are full of crap and other people, you know, are probably telling the truth.
	And I remember this guy, I think it was probably in the late 70s or early 80s, and I met this And he was telling me, and I have no reason to doubt him, because I think he was working for some defense contractor, I forget which one.
	And he said that back in the early 70s, they were disintegrating objects the size of glass, glass asteroids with, you know, these devices, these like, you know, laser directed energy weapons, you know, this is supposedly, according to him, they were able to, you know, disassociate, disintegrate, whatever small objects back in the 70s.
	And I'll remind people, if you don't know the work of T. Townsend Brown, a British physicist, he was levitating, he was levitating around, tethered around the pole, sandwiched metal alloys using electric current.
	Back then, the science was known as electrogravitics.
	And all the way up to the early to mid 50s, it was kind of mainstream.
	I believe General Electric and General Dynamics were Uh, involved in the research with electrogravitics and then all of a sudden it just all went dark and all disappeared.
	So who knows what the heck they have, but it's like I said, interesting discussion, especially early on to talk about Maxwell's equations and a different sort of math.
	Uh, you know, just also quickly I'll be done after this set.
	So it reminds me of my conversations with a friend of mine who has a degree in physics.
	He's got a master's degree in physics.
	We've talked many times.
	And he told me he's convinced now, based upon his own research, what he's been interested in over the years, that a lot of what he was taught is not true.
	A lot of what he learned is just not so.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Paul, that's very, very good.
	Listen, my input on that, you know, I got to tell you, the thing that bothers me the most in this world is how history has been changed.
	You know, we're taught this stuff and we, It just bothers me so much that we really don't, how do you know?
	How do you even know what history was, you know?
	Yeah, and that's the perfect point, Alan, is because, you know, we know that history is, well, as Napoleon said, is a set of lies agreed upon.
	But so if history can be lied about, why wouldn't they lie to us about science?
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	I wanted to invite the 575 caller to send me some links to what you got about nanothermite that you think Mark Hightower and I should consider, and I'll be glad to reach out to Mark and we'll take a look at whatever you got.
	It just comes from, you know, following over the years, and I can tell you that the problem with what you said about the moon landing versus what I'm saying is There have been multiple reports about people who have said that nanothermic weapons have been developed.
	They're highly classified.
	There is an astounding variety in terms of the different kinds of properties they have.
	I don't have any links or references to this, but I have read this multiple times over the years.
	You know, it's very hush-hush.
	You're not going to get them to say anything more than that.
	But that much I have heard and believe.
	And so when you said something about how many thousands of pounds of TNT or something, you know, or like 13%, that has nothing to do with these nanothermite advanced weapons.
	These things are beyond your current comprehension in terms of their capabilities.
	I am quite sure of that.
	And I would point out the fact that the molten steel dripping from the tower was most likely because a thermitic charge, a nanothermite charge went off prematurely, out of sequence or something.
	You can't explain that with nukes.
	I don't believe that was a do either.
	I think that was nanothermite.
	Well, look, I'm delighted to hear you have this sincere belief.
	And if I have differing sincere beliefs, let's see if we can arbitrate based on some evidence.
	You're telling me you've heard this, you've heard that.
	That's not evidence, that's not proof.
	I understand, and I don't have a reference to give you, but can I say something here?
	here, I can tell you definitively that what you said about nanothermite being a weak explosive, being one thirteenth, that is so absolutely wrong.
	That is easily confirmable.
	That is just flat out bunk.
	Well, I think you're mistaken about this, but I'm saying Mark Hightower and I published three articles in 2011.
	You can get a summary overview if you go to my blog, jameshfetzer.org, and look at, on C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9-11 truth in a time warp.
	Now, let me tell you that we published those in 2011.
	There's never been a refutation coming from architects and engineers, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, the whole bunch.
	They have never disputed our claims about nanothermite, which were based on a rather thorough search of the scientific literature.
	So on that basis, I think it's prima facie, to me, evident that your case is weak.
	Your case is weak.
	Common sense would tell you that my case is strong.
	You need to look, I'm telling you, I'm open-minded.
	If I got something wrong, if Mark Hightower and I need to reconsider, but we've never had a refutation coming from the nanothermic crowd, which would have the keenest motive to defend and debunk us.
	They have never done it.
	You've never even read our articles.
	So I'd say, unless you can put up something here to substantiate your view, which I'm willing to take into account and share with Mark Hightower, You got nothing.
	You got impressions.
	You got a sincere belief.
	That is not knowledge.
	We did the research.
	Turns out nanothermite only has a 13th explosive force at TNT.
	It's a feeble explosive.
	My God, it was Niels Harrod.
	There's a professor of chemistry emeritus from the University of Copenhagen who gave that estimate of how much nanothermite it would take to take down a twin tower of the, what, 29,000 metric tons.
	So these are the guys who are the foremost proponents of nanothermite, which you are not.
	I mean, I'm glad that you believe it.
	I'm asking you to share with me some evidence and let me take it into account.
	Paul, Paul, your thoughts.
	Yeah, I had to unmute.
	Yeah, that's all interesting.
	I haven't done this research.
	I've heard you talk about the research that you've done.
	So I again, I've not looked at any data regarding, you know, thermite or nanothermite.
	So I'm just yeah, I don't I don't have a site to pick in that fight.
	But I think we can all I think we can all conclude based upon what we all already believe that they've got multiple They have an array, they have an arsenal of various toys.
	That's what I like to call it.
	And they play around with it.
	If you've seen the work of some of these people online exposing these fires and, you know, the various things.
	I mean, there's a guy saying they're using some sort of plasma weapon to start fires in the ground.
	That they got trees burning from the inside out.
	I mean, that has to be microwave.
	There's just, again, it's a little bit frightening to think of the fact that we don't know, but somebody does.
	And yeah, I'll leave it at that.
	Well, let me go back to Alan.
	Alan, you've been just wonderful and covered such a breadth.
	Give us your further thoughts.
	I mean, we all agree the military has technology it's not sharing with the public.
	The problem is to sort things out based upon the evidence available, the resources available to us.
	And I respect those who Even vigorously believe it was done with nanothermite.
	I can only explain to the best of my knowledge based on the research I've done with a chemical engineer where we published three articles that have stood unrebutted.
	It doesn't appear that nanothermite could possibly have been responsible for the demolition of the Twin Towers, now that it was used in cleanup, or even thermite in cleanup.
	There's no doubt about that.
	I agree that completely.
	Your caller did have some evidence, Jim.
	Your caller does have some evidence, which was, he knows a guy who told him, and he was credible, and said, and I can't tell you more.
	And to me, that's credible information.
	No, I believe that's true.
	It's not even verifiable.
	I mean, that's ridiculous, Alan.
	I mean, you just, that's, that's just wrong.
	Sometimes trusted sources make a difference.
	I think I would, I would be surprised if Alan was not being facetious.
	That's like official say, you know, you read those old newspaper headlines.
	I'm not being facetious.
	Okay.
	I wanted to weigh in on what you just said, Jim, about these articles remain unrebutted.
	OK, so in speaking with this friend of mine that I mentioned before, he's got the degree in physics and a couple other people here and there over the course of time.
	So these articles that get published in scientific journals and that everybody talks about peer review there.
	Oh, it's a peer review.
	Well, guess what?
	These peers that they're referring to don't really review.
	They're not going to duplicate the experiment, and in many cases they're not really going to look into it that much.
	So the idea that an article is rebutted or unreported, it doesn't really mean a lot I'm not saying that the work that you did, I'm not in any way disparaging it.
	Oh my gosh, I've got a train going by here.
	I don't know if you can hear that.
	But anyway, yeah, like I said, the idea that people are going to take the time and do the contrary research, whatever, to indeed rebut it, it doesn't really mean anything.
	That's all I can say.
	Paul, I think you missed the context.
	This is exchanges with Kevin Ryan, Steve Jones, the parties who are promoting the nanothermite.
	If they could refute it, they would refute it.
	They haven't refuted it.
	That is the point.
	It's not that it went into scientific journals.
	These are publications that T. Mark Itower and I made, three of them in 2011, that to the best of my knowledge have not been rebutted by those in the position who have the greatest stake and have the research ability to rebut it if they could do it.
	I mean, that's the deal.
	No, but again, I just want you to understand, I'm not taking issue with what you've said and the claims you're making.
	I don't know, but what I am saying is what you just said right now is a presumption.
	In other words, if they could rebut it, they would.
	That's a presumption.
	Just so you know.
	Well, yeah, we're engaged in debate and they're not offering even an argument.
	But of course, technically, you're correct.
	Alan, go ahead, add a few words.
	We're about to conclude our conversation, but I'm very, very pleased with everything you had to say today.
	Please.
	I just want to say I was not being facetious.
	Sometimes I, you know, if there's a credible source and he can't tell you more than they told you, I think that's, it'd make a difference to me.
	That's like what Jim and I have mocked before on the show about the I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy.
	It's like all these victim fake shootings where somebody always claims, oh, I know somebody that got shot or whatever.
	It's just always turned out to be BS.
	But I don't dismiss it just because the people who aren't in the know haven't.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, it's a heuristic.
	It's suggestive.
	It invites further research.
	But we don't even know who the source is supposed to be.
	I mean, how can we even verify that the report is accurate?
	Maybe there was a misunderstanding in the process, not intentional, but a misunderstanding.
	But maybe that's the point, is maybe not to be so firm in the conviction that it couldn't have been nanothermite, because there may be things we haven't discovered or don't know.
	Well, look, all scientific reasoning is tentative and fallible.
	And you get more evidence, you may have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected.
	What I'm telling you is, based upon the research I've done with a chemical engineer, it was fairly thorough going.
	The best supported hypothesis is nanothermite can't possibly have done it, and there's lots of substantiation from proponents of nanothermite, such as Niels Harrett, suggesting it would have required this Absolutely staggering quantity of nanothermite to have destroyed a Twin Tower.
	That's confirmation of our conclusion.
	It's not a refutation.
	That's a point I'm making.
	Go right ahead.
	Well, I don't have anything else to add.
	I was going to say, I sprinkled a little nanothermite on my frosted mini-wheats this morning.
	OK, and 575, listen, if you can come up with some source and get them to me, I will share them with Mark Hightower.
	We'll go back and review the bidding, and if we got something wrong, we'll be glad to correct it.
	Mitchell, thank you for letting me know about that fascinating article by Victor David Hanson.
	That was really sensational.
	It is available on my blog now at jameshfetzer.org.
	Let me encourage everyone to have a great weekend, spend as much time as you can with your friends, your loved ones, and people you care about.
	The West is so eager to get into a nuclear exchange with Russia, we cannot discount it could happen almost any time, sad to say.
	So, have a great weekend.
	I'm glad you were here at Revolution Radio, and a special thanks to Alan, to our caller from 575, and to you, Paul, for the comments and questions.
	You've certainly contributed to An interesting debate, and we can all go back and take another look at 9-11 and how it was done with this additional information available.
	Thanks to Alan.
	Welcome, welcome all.

▲