Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 23, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

02:27:26

The Raw Deal (11 September 2023) with Rick Shaddock

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody help, not just anybody help.
	You know I need someone help.
	When I was younger, so much younger than today, I never needed anybody's help in any way.
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal on this 22nd observance.
	I use the word anniversary for things we like, that we want to remember.
	This is an observance of a travesty.
	I have the great pleasure of teaching Rick Shattuck, who himself created a 9-11 organization that sponsors annual lectures, for example, debating what did and did not happen.
	Today he and I are going to have a kind of a debate about whether it did or did not happen in New York City and whether or not real planes were involved.
	Rick's going to argue that it was done by remote control using real planes.
	That's an opinion many have shared.
	I believe that was the original plan.
	But when they discovered that it was physically impossible to get the planes into the building, they had to invent an ingenious alternative conception.
	Now, this past year, Rick featured me and Michael Shermer to debate 9-11, but Michael Shermer, who proclaims himself to be the great skeptic, is not a great skeptic when it comes to 9-11.
	He buys the government's whole shebang.
	I mean, that's absurd, frankly.
	And Michael Shermer declined to debate.
	So Rick ingeniously found a presentation Michael Shermer had made and then we would play segments and I would interject and it came out actually pretty well.
	Rick, I just want to welcome you to the show and tell us a little bit about your organization and your annual series of lectures.
	Yes, Dr. Shermer did not show up for the debate, despite many phone calls.
	So you won handily.
	We've also had Richard Gage as a debate contestant.
	The host is Dr. Kevin Barrett for all the debates since 2014.
	Some other participants we've had are Dr. Francois Roby, Heinz Palmer, Joseph Olson, In 2020, Dr. Denise Rancourt of the University of Ottawa defended the official story against Dr. Josh Mitteldorf of Penn State.
	So, these are right at 911debate.org, and that's the Association for 9-11 Truth Awareness.
	Aneta.org on K Street in Washington, D.C., and we've been doing legislative outreach on Capitol Hill and posting Very good.
	theories and presenting the scientific research that's published in peer-reviewed journals about 9/11 that you can find at 911experiments.org.
	Very good.
	What I thought I'd do, Rick, is I'd give kind of a five-minute overview then you, and then we turn to this piece you have where you lay out your argument.
	If that works for you, let me begin with a screen share on my part.
	Of course, officially, we had four different planes that were allegedly used on 9-11.
	Flight 11, two out of Boston, one out of New York, and then one out of Dulles, where Flight 175 and Flight 11 are supposed to where Flight 175 and Flight 11 are supposed to have hit the North and the South Tower 11.
	11, the North Tower.
	175, the South.
	Flight 93 is alleged to have crashed in Shanksville.
	And Flight 77 to have hit the Pentagon.
	Now I have argued on multiple grounds that all four of these crash sites, 9-11 crash sites, were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways.
	Part of the proof is Edward Henry discovered the Bureau of Transportation Statistics For 9-11, where the Bureau of Transportation Statistics keep records of every takeoff, every landing, very detailed reports, every commercial flight in the United States, but it showed no American Airlines Flight 77 for 9-11.
	Moreover, it also showed no American Airlines Flight 11.
	11, remember, supposed to be the North Tower, 77, the Pentagon.
	I actually obtained Federal Aviation Administration records showing that the physical aircraft using for those two flights were not formally deregistered or taken out of service until 28 September 2005.
	That's pretty damn peculiar.
	Not only that, but, I mean, these are, let me correct, I discovered that the flights for the other two, for 93 and 175, which pilots for 9-11 Truth had tracked, and discovered flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, after it had officially crashed in Shanksville, and 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it had officially hit the South Tower,
	We're not even formally deregistered or taken out of service until 28 September 2005, raising the question...
	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?
	I have a 9-11 special you can find on my blog at Bitchute Channel Jim Fetzer.
	I did an interview with Jeremy on Germ Warfare.
	Both of these, by the way, are linked on my Twitter account at Jim Fetzer.
	We have Rick's presentation, which we're going to present here.
	But Rick, go ahead, give us a kind of a summary overview of your take.
	Well, I appreciate those points you're bringing out about the Bureau of Transportation Records, but they are coming from a government agency, and we should be skeptical of anything that they would put out, if possible.
	I call them possible wild goose droppings to send people on a wild goose chase.
	So deliberately not deregistering an airplane is possible to cause confusion.
	and that's something we should consider okay so i'll go ahead and share my you can you can share this is the 10th time we've talked on your show the real deal and we have talked about critical thinking open-mindedness and transcendental meditation We've talked about tips on how to meet and talk with Donald Trump, and about my questioning President Trump at a press conference about 9-11.
	We've talked about Bitcoin, about the JFK assassination, and the moon landing on the date that the Artemis rocket took off.
	So I'd like to talk about some of the experiments that you can do to validate or invalidate the official story of 9-11.
	We have a website that's on the anita.org website, which is Collected Articles on 9-11, Scientific Research Questioning the Official Story.
	Now, there are journals such as yours, Dr. Fetzer, you've created the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
	No, that was Stephen Jones, Stephen Jones read.
	The Collected Articles on 9-11 lists studies that were published in, we could say, independent journals.
	Journals that could not possibly be accused of being just a 9-11 truther run journal.
	So we have studies from Europhysics News, the Bentham Open Physics Journal, the Open Physics Engineering Journal, Journal of Protective Structures, So we listed these, which you can find, at our aneta.org website or caone.org.
	Collected articles on 9-11.
	Now Richard Gage and I presented this volume to Dr. Noam Chomsky at MIT.
	And that's a thick book.
	We included a study by Professor Leroy Halsey of the University of Alaska.
	The Geophysics News Journal, a paper from Open Physics Journal by Dr. Stephen Jones and Frank Liggy.
	They published also in the Open Civil Engineering Journal.
	Kevin Ryan published in the Environmentalist Journal.
	Dr. Zludensky Published in the International Journal of Protective Structures.
	That's an independent journal.
	Probably editors of these journals believe the official story.
	So also the International Journal of Structural Engineering.
	Dr. Crockett Gravy of Caltech is published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
	And so on.
	We have quite a list going here.
	Plus some other journals that are not so much related to engineering, but economics, about detecting informed trading activities in the open markets on 9-11.
	There were suspicious buys and sells of airline stocks prior to 9-11.
	So here again, the CAONE.org Plus, we also list, of course, the Journal of 9-11 Studies and 911scholars.org.
	Dr. James Windham created the site Professors and Scientists for 911truth.org.
	He has a PhD in physics from Cambridge University in England.
	Then we list books about 9-11 and some other researchers, such as Steven Dyack, Mark Basile, and a debate I had with Chris Moore, who supports the official story.
	And, farther down, Dr. Alexander Doudny of Canada did experiments about calling from aircraft.
	And, you know, the list goes on.
	There's plenty of research about 9-11.
	Also, simple research experiments that you can do yourself.
	And I've listed some of these videos, such as I was mentioning the telephone calls.
	I created a playlist of YouTube videos about trying to make a call from airplanes.
	And almost 50 flights that I've taken from the last 10 years or so.
	And I haven't been able to get through from cruising altitude.
	Everyone's not going to be able to see it because this is straight radio, but the video version will show it, and it'll be pretty clear.
	The text is pretty explicit.
	Go ahead, Rick.
	Give us a summary, capsule summary, of your argument about the use of remote-controlled planes.
	Remote control explains it all.
	I don't contest the existence of that technology.
	In fact, Doug Salk, I'm at a company that Specialized in remote control takeover.
	There's no question about that.
	I also agree that was the original plan to use remotely controlled planes to attack the Twin Towers.
	What I deny is that they actually did it because they discovered it was physically impossible to get the planes into the building before they exploded, which they had to do to have their pseudo justification for the destruction of the Twin Towers.
	So let's take a look.
	Let's take a look at what you have here, Rick, because you have laid it out very clearly.
	Great.
	I respect your credentials, and I'm glad we're in agreement on that.
	Oh, of course.
	100%.
	Here we go, Rick.
	Remote control.
	The key to 9-11.
	Remote control is something we're familiar with.
	We may use remote control software to log in to a remote computer.
	Or a remote for your television set to turn it on or change the channel or change the volume.
	We also may use remote control for opening our garage door or closing it.
	Remote control can also be used in aircraft.
	The airplanes come from at least 12 states, and this is the 11th year they have chosen to come to Raymond.
	It's the time for old friends to get together and put on a fascinating show for anybody who wants to come.
	These airplanes fly around 200 miles per hour, and go down as low as 10 feet above the runway as they do flybys.
	The airplanes cost as much as $20,000 a piece, 45-year-old Addison Clark of Fort Polk, Louisiana, is retiring as an Army helicopter pilot, but loves his model F-16.
	The first remote-controlled aircraft was in 1937,
	Ross Hull and Clinton DeSoto flew it at an air show.
	Walter Good was also an early pioneer, and the competition drew the attention of Henry Ford.
	Think how computers have advanced since 1937.
	A handheld device today has the power of that huge computer.
	December 1st, 1984.
	A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research.
	Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
	Models have become more and more sophisticated with the advancement of electronics and global positioning systems.
	Also, real planes have been adapted to be flown under remote control.
	On February 19, 2003, Boeing publicly put a patent on its hijack-proof plane system.
	Only 1.4 years after 9-11, the development would have been well underway by 2001, probably classified.
	After release of patent number 7142971, it was very well publicized in Aeronautics Publications.
	Also called the Anti-Terrorism Auto-Land System, or ATALS, a hijacked plane would be taken back over by remote control, then flown to the nearest airfield with a SWAT team ready.
	Pilots for 9-11 Truth ask why wasn't this technology used to take back control on 9-11?
	Or was this same technology used on 9-11 to take over the planes from the official pilots then fly them into buildings?
	On Boeing.com, it says, a fully integrated flight management computer system, FMCS, provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200, from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.
	One of America's premier fighter jets, the F-16, is now being flown by remote control.
	There has never been a fighting Falcon like this one, and Boeing engineers in St.
	Louis figured out how to make it fly without a pilot.
	A pilot runs through pre-flight checks on an F-16, then climbs out.
	Once he's gone, that's it.
	It's got to work.
	And it does.
	A few nerves there, but the team did a great job of preparing it, launching it, and the airplane flew great.
	So yeah, it was a lot of nerves, but once it got up in the air, it was pretty exciting.
	Chief Engineer Paul Sejas headed up a team of 30 engineers at Boeing in St.
	Louis to answer an Air Force request for a new drone for training.
	Three years ago, they pulled an old F-16 fighter jet out of mothballs and started working.
	Some said it couldn't be done, that it would be too difficult to land without a pilot, and because the plane was built by General Dynamics.
	And then a lot of people had doubts that, hey, can Boeing really do this type of work since it wasn't our airplane?
	Do we know enough about it to make it work?
	And so, that's where the really big doubts came from, but I think we figured it out.
	The St.
	Louis team proved them wrong.
	That's right.
	We're learning new details about technology which could prevent another plane from suffering the same mysterious fate that Flight 370 suffered from our Brian Todd is here.
	His team is uncovering some documentation on this new cutting-edge program.
	Brian, what are you learning?
	Well, we found documents for a patent that Boeing applied for 10 years ago.
	It's for a system that could enable a plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in an emergency.
	The system hasn't been deployed.
	One of our experts says if it had, this Malaysia Airlines incident may well have turned out very differently.
	A lost signal, a vanished plane, and on the ground, a feeling of complete helplessness.
	But an idea has circulated to put autopilot on passenger planes on remote control in stressful situations.
	In 2004, Boeing applied for a patent for a system referred to as uninterruptible autopilot.
	The ground controller could now take control away from the pilots so that they wouldn't have control over the throttles, over the yoke, over the rudder pedals, and now this would be handled by the ground.
	So everything now that the pilots would try to do would be inconsequential.
	With this idea, pilots could flick a switch when under stress.
	Sensors in the cockpit could go off.
	Or sensors on the cockpit door could activate the ground autopilot if a certain amount of force was used against the cockpit door.
	Then ground operators could take control of the plane using radio or satellite signals and steer it to a predetermined airport.
	They'd be flying it almost like a drone.
	Has Boeing advanced this idea from 10 years ago?
	Is the company still testing it out or has it scrapped the idea entirely?
	We tried multiple times to get information from Boeing on this project.
	The company would not speak to us about it.
	So basically the technology would convert an airliner into a remotely piloted vehicle like a...
	Like a drone?
	Absolutely it would.
	It would be flown like a drone by remote control from the ground.
	And they say they could even land this plane and possibly activate like an emergency brake system on the runway.
	It's incredible technology.
	If it can be tested and deployed properly, we don't know anything about it because Boeing's not talking to us about it.
	All right, Brian.
	Good report.
	Thanks very much.
	The possibility of remote control hijackings of commercial passenger jets.
	The latest theory is the flight could have fallen victim to the world's first cyber-hijack.
	In an interview with the UK's Sunday Express, Dr Sally Leversley, a former Home Office Scientific Advisor, said she believed malicious codes triggered by a mobile phone or USB stick could have been able to override the aircraft's security system.
	This could then change the plane's speed, altitude, and direction by sending radio signals to its flight management system.
	In April last year, Hugo Tesso, a security consultant, described how aircraft hacking was possible during a lecture at a computer hacking conference.
	The first such cyber hijackings most likely took place over 12 years ago, on September 11, 2001, using technology that was tested, proven, and available long before that infamous date.
	Although Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, like the Global Hawk, Predator, and Reaper drones used in the US's illegal extrajudicial assassination program are thought of as cutting-edge military hardware, UAVs of various sorts have been used since August 22, 1849, when Austria launched 200 pilotless, bomb-filled balloons on the city of Venice.
	Development of UAVs continued with radio-controlled drones and pilotless torpedoes developed in World War I, the creation of the U.S.
	Air Force's pilotless aircraft branch in 1946, the deployment of military UAVs in the Vietnam War, Israel's development of the first drone with real-time surveillance capabilities in the Yom Kippur War, and U.S.
	use of the technology in Grenada before the birth of the modern era with the extensive deployment of pioneer drones in the First Gulf War.
	When it comes to the remote control of civilian aircraft, President Bush stated in late September 2001 that he would devote federal funds to developing new technologies for combating the threat of hijacking, including remote control technology.
	And we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe.
	For example, including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.
	But even at that time, remote control technology had been successfully demonstrated for commercial jetliners for nearly two decades.
	Thank you.
	This is actual footage of a joint NASA-FAA experiment conducted in 1984 at Edwards Air Force Base, in which a Boeing 720 was remote controlled through multiple takeoffs and landings before being crashed in a controlled impact demonstration.
	In August of 2001, this technology was further demonstrated by Raytheon, which successfully took off and landed a Boeing 727 six times at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico without a pilot on board.
	Raytheon also developed a sensor suite for the Air Force's Global Hawk drones, and Raytheon Network Centric Systems has recently won multiple contracts to help develop advanced communication systems for the E-4B, the U.S.
	government's so-called Doomsday Plane that was spotted above the White House shortly before the strike on the Pentagon, and which has since been confirmed was one of four functioning Doomsday Planes operating in the skies on that day.
	It appeared overhead just before 10 a.m.
	A four-engine jet banking slowly in the nation's most off-limits airspace.
	On the White House grounds and the rooftop, a nervous scramble.
	About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead.
	Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House.
	That is restricted airspace.
	No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.
	And still today, no one will offer an official explanation of what we saw.
	Two government sources familiar with the incident tell CNN it was a military aircraft.
	They say the details are classified.
	This comparison of the CNN video and an official Air Force photo suggests the mystery plane is among the military's most sensitive aircraft, an Air Force E-4B.
	Note the flag on the tail, the stripe around the fuselage, and the telltale bubble just behind the 747 cockpit area.
	Curiously, on 9-11 itself, Raytheon employees with ties to the company's electronic warfare division, including a man described as the company's dean of electronic warfare and multiple senior engineers for electronic systems, were among the listed passengers on each of the three planes that hit their targets that day.
	Raytheon also had an office in WTC2 on the 91st floor, and despite the fact that there were only four survivors from the Twin Towers who were above the impact zone at the time of the plane hits, no Raytheon employees died in the office that day.
	Another curious connection presents itself in Dov Zakheim, the Comptroller of the Bush Pentagon and, until taking over his Pentagon role in 2001, CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, which provides a so-called flight termination system for the U.S.
	military that the company boasts provides a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.
	As Comptroller of the Pentagon, Zachheim was responsible for the trillions of dollars that could not be accounted for in the Pentagon's books at the time of 9-11, and which prompted Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to declare a war on bureaucracy on September 10th, 2001.
	Pentagon!
	The day before 9-1-1, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war, not on foreign terrorists.
	The adversary is closer to home.
	It's the Pentagon bureaucracy.
	He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
	In fact, it could be said that it's a matter of life and death.
	Rumsfeld promised change, but the next day, the world changed.
	And in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
	My O3 budget calls for more than 48 billion dollars in new defense spending.
	More money for the Pentagon when its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25% of what it already spends.
	According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.
	Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Honjour, a flight school dropout who could not handle a Cessna 172, but somehow managed to steer a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn at 500 miles per hour to come exactly level with the ground.
	Neither experienced pilots nor aviation officials could believe that such a move could be pulled off with such precision at such high speeds by any but the most experienced pilot.
	Watching the flight on her radar screen, Dulles International Airport air traffic controller later remarked, The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.
	By what we are expected to believe is a massive coincidence, the flight ended up hitting the Pentagon in the Budget Analyst Office, where the DoD staffers overseen by Zachheim were working on the question of the missing trillions.
	As 9-11 researcher Aidan Monaghan told the Corbett Report in 2011, the remote control hypothesis also makes sense of various anomalies in the flight path of United 175 that hit WTC2.
	Well, there are many video clips of United Airlines Flight 175 striking World Trade Center Building 2 on September 11.
	And there was one in particular I noticed when looking around at different clips that captures most of the last 13 seconds of the flight of United 175 as it approached.
	World Trade Center 2 and in fact it does capture virtually all of the last eight seconds and what I noticed during this clip was as the plane approached and the angle of the camera such that you could actually see the angle of the the bank angle of the aircraft with respect to its location
	With respect to the building as it was approaching it was just a very ideal almost type of shot and what one can notice is that the plane begins its banked 20 degree turn about a mile and a half from the building and without correction would have been able to strike the building from that distance which is in my opinion a rather remarkable feat for an untrained pilot.
	What it does require Is the precise coordination of at least two factors the selection of a correct bank angle from the given location from where you are making this turn and also traveling at a rate of 799 feet per second the initiation of this turn at the precisely correct time because the turn that we observe had it began had it started rather a second sooner even or later than observed means the plane misses the building by 799 feet
	Necessarily.
	And in my view, possibly suggested the role of flight control computers or other avionics and autopilot systems as opposed to the unproven allegation of hijacker pilots in control of these airplanes.
	As incredible as such a narrative is to the general public, that incredibility stems largely from the media's steadfast refusal to report on the proven technologies to accomplish such a cyber-hijacking that have been available for well over a decade.
	Whether or not Flight 370 was the victim of such an attack, or something different altogether, remains to be seen.
	But the many pieces of the 9-11 puzzle pointing to the use of remote-controlled technologies to pilot the flights on that fateful day, from Raytheon's test flights of remote-controlled passenger jets, Drones are remote-controlled aircraft.
	with a company responsible for remote control flight termination systems, to the precision of United 175's bank angle and turn start time, to the presence of the E-4B doomsday planes in the skies that morning, provide a compelling counter-narrative to the tabloid press's claim that Flight 370 may be the first example of cyber hijacking.
	Drones are remote-controlled aircraft.
	A drone in Afghanistan can be controlled via satellite from an airbase in the United States.
	From the outside, a plane that has been taken over by remote control looks exactly like one that has been taken over by 19 hijackers.
	So this is a possibility that should be considered by the 9-11 Commission, which was supposed to consider all plausible possibilities.
	So, in this video, we'll consider that possibility.
	A mysterious white plane was seen over Washington and New York and has been identified as an E-4B or so-called doomsday plane which could have had a command center for controlling the jets.
	This is one of the few photos we have of an alleged hijacker going on the planes on 9-11.
	Muhammad Atta is here in Portland, going to Boston to get on flight 11.
	The remote control hypothesis proposes that the Muslim men were told to go to a meeting in Los Angeles.
	This would make their DNA findable in the crash debris, so they could be blamed.
	Of the four flights that could have been taken over by remote control on 9-11, let's focus on flight 175, which took off from Boston and hit World Trade Center Tower No.
	The South Building.
	Between flights, planes are brought in for repairs, maintenance, and upgrades.
	None of the workers were interviewed by the Bush 9-11 Commission.
	One upgrade could be to install Boeing's hijack-proof plane technology.
	It would be done behind closed doors.
	But who would argue with having a hijack-proof plane?
	It is possible that the workers could have installed a remote control takeover system that could not be overridden by the pilots with lockout of navigation and communications.
	so they could not call for help.
	The workers would not have thought that the same technology to take over a plane from hijackers could also take over a plane from official pilots and steer them into buildings.
	The workers would naturally assume that the technology would be used for good and be proud to help make a plane hijack-proof.
	Any plane that was hijacked could be hijacked back from ground control and steered to the nearest airfield with a SWAT team ready to arrest the hijackers.
	The workers would not be able to arrest the hijackers.
	Pilots typically come from one plane and may get on another plane even several times a day.
	Though they would not have time to check for any tampering, nor would they have any reason to suspect any tampering by the ground crew and the company that they've been working with for years.
	Little did the pilots, crew, and passengers realize this was the last flight they would ever take.
	The pilot was the last flight.
	Make sure your carry-on baggage, tray tables, headrests, footrests, and video monitors are stowed and secure, and your seat backs are in the upright position.
	Everything seemed normal, just like any of hundreds of flights the pilot and co-pilot had taken before.
	Everything seemed normal to the pilots, crew and passengers, including crew and passengers, including the accused Saudi men, sitting down for a nice trip to California.
	The pilot was a very small part of the pilot.
	The pilot was a very small part of the pilot pilot.
	The pilot pilot was a very small part of the pilot pilot.
	Everything's fine.
	Everything's A-OK.
	All right.
	All right. All right. All right.
	All right.
	I'm sorry.
	Possibly there was an alert that remote access is detected.
	That the autopilot has been taken over by remote control.
	From high altitudes, passengers would have been unable to use their cell phones.
	The FBI testified in the Massawi trial that the Barbara Olson call, the only one mentioning hijackers with box cutters, had a zero duration.
	So it didn't happen.
	In 1999, the Washington Post reported on voice morphing software at the Los Alamos National Lab.
	By 2001, voice morphing software was available on the Internet.
	Mom, this is Bryce Miller.
	I just want to tell you that I love you.
	I'm on a flight from New York to San Francisco.
	There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb.
	Who are these guys?
	You believe me, don't you, Mom?
	Don't use your last name when talking to their mothers, and don't ask them if they believe you!
	Come on, act naturally.
	The pilots struggle to try to get control of the aircraft, but while under remote control, the plane seems to have but while under remote control, the plane seems to have a mind of its own.
	The pilots struggle to try to get control of the aircraft, The pilot reads in the manual for emergency techniques for disabling the automatic pilot.
	Communication is also cut off by remote control, so the pilots cannot radio for help.
	The pilot reads in the manual for the pilot to assist the pilot.
	It is possible that the Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve, or CAPOV, could have been opened by remote control.
	At high altitudes, the air would rush out of the cabin, causing the pilots and crew to become focused on just getting air.
	And while unconscious, they definitely could not figure out how to restore control of the jet.
	Then the plane was...
	British researcher Richard Hall compared the flight path of all known videos from different angles and found them to match.
	Hundreds of people saw Flight 175 hit Tower 2.
	British researcher Richard Hall compared the flight path of all known videos from different angles and found them to match.
	This left 26 video clips I could use to compare with the 3D model.
	I put the clips in order so that each angle viewed progresses clockwise around the towers.
	In the following sequence, the official radar path is shown in red and the military path in purple.
	Available right now.
	Here's the plate.
	Here's the tape.
	You see the plane come in from what looks like the...
	C, um, the plane.
	Yeah, we see it right now.
	We see it coming right now.
	Coming in and impacting it.
	There's an antenna on it.
	And the restaurant is in that tower.
	The other one is the one with the observation deck.
	At this point, the Associated Press with a story that says there is no report of any casualties without too many conclusions looking at the extent of this damage and knowing how well populated that building is and that's all that others
	another explosion down the left side on the second international
	tourist place lots of people There's another plane coming down.
	Rosie!
	Go!
	Some people claim there were no planes, but it would have been nearly impossible to fake videos of planes from so many but it would have been nearly impossible to fake videos of planes from so many different angles, from different people, so quickly, and have them Boeing 767 part numbers in the plane debris match United Flight 175.
	There are obviously fake photos released to put truthers on a wild goose chase to discredit us in the news and cause arguments to divide the truth movement.
	There are four possibilities.
	One is real photos and fake planes, yet also fake photos with real planes.
	In this clip, a plane lands too heavily, illustrating just how light and fragile a plane's structure is.
	If we slow down two of the alleged impact videos, what is seen here is not consistent with physical impact.
	The plane's wings would not slice through box-section steel columns, which is what seems to occur.
	The wings would buckle or snap, and debris would be seen falling to the ground.
	Some have described these impact dynamics as cartoon physics.
	Experiments crashing aluminum military planes into concrete and steel show the plane disintegrates upon impact.
	This could be what the fake videos are covering up.
	The official story needed flames inside the towers to cause the collapse.
	But this could be done by planted explosives.
	With both planes and fake photos, the remote control takeover hypothesis stands.
	Fake videos cover up fractured planes, not that there were no planes at all.
	Logically, fake photos in real planes are not mutually exclusive.
	There are many clever leaked reports of the plane surviving, landing in Cleveland, or still in service.
	Rumors easy to start but hard to verify.
	Just wild goose droppings designed to cause confusion and delay an official investigation.
	Many 9-11 theories create time-consuming complications, such as what happened to the original planes and the people.
	Anything to get us to not consider remote control takeover.
	Over six months before 9-11, the Lone Gunman pilot episode featured remote control takeover of a jet flying into the World Trade Center.
	Just get me on that plane and I'll get you autopilot access.
	How are you gonna do that?
	Airline telemetry systems use processors similar to those found in CB radios.
	I'm in.
	We got ourselves a convoy.
	That's your progress.
	I've hacked into the flight control system output.
	With a little bit of help.
	It's what the brains of the plane is telling the little black box.
	Force heading, attitude hold, yaw axis stabilization.
	What the heck's that?
	Is that what it looks like?
	I think it is what it looks like.
	What does what look like?
	Modem protocols.
	Remote access.
	Somebody on the ground is flying your plane.
	Hold you, sir.
	Keep your course.
	I need to know our flight plan.
	I'm mapping the data now.
	Fires.
	Your flight's gonna make an unscheduled stop in exactly 22 minutes.
	of Liberty in Washington.
	What will that happen?
	World Trade Center.
	I'm going to crash the plane into the World Trade Center.
	I'll tell the flight crew.
	Landly, can you override the flight control system?
	I'm working on it.
	What is this?
	My name is Bert Byers.
	I work for the government.
	I believe this plane has been commandeered.
	Sir, our passengers are not allowed in the cockpit.
	I need you to return to your seat now.
	You don't have control of this plane, and I don't know if we can get it back.
	Turn off your autopilot.
	There may be a chance that we can override it.
	He's right.
	Damn it!
	Frozen again!
	They've encrypted the manual override commands.
	Well, decrypt them.
	I don't have enough power in my CPU to pay.
	Langley, what's happening?
	I'll try decrypting in background mode.
	How long will that take?
	It might count per sec.
	I estimate seven to ten days.
	Oh.
	Needless to say, our asses are fried.
	All right, try cutting electrical power.
	I've thought of that.
	I've thought of everything.
	Ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain speaking.
	We're experiencing some technical difficulties up here.
	At this time, we'd like you all to return to your seats.
	And kiss your asses goodbye.
	Anyway, we're getting close.
	I know.
	I know.
	New York Center, this is a WAC National Flight 265 Heavy.
	We are declaring an emergency.
	We have 110 souls on board, 16,000 pounds of fuel, and no dangerous goods or cargo to report.
	Come on, Bro Hickey.
	Oh, I need you. I need you.
	Oh, no.
	We've got manual override.
	We can't get to the FBI.
	We'll go public.
	With your testimony, we can break this conspiracy wide open.
	Still, remote control takeover of the jets was never considered by the 9-11 Commission, much less investigated.
	It is also possible the air was not released from the cabin and the pilots and passengers survived until impact.
	The plane, under remote control, turns from its course to head back towards New York City.
	The plane, under remote control, turns from its course to head back towards New York City. turns from its course to head back towards New York
	Possibly a message from an authority was sent to the pilots by radio telling them that, due to an emergency hijacking threat, their plane and others were being taken over by remote control using Boeing's hijack-proof plane technology, classified at that time.
	so the pilots would become less resistant as their plane was flown back to New York.
	The pilots would have no reason to suspect that the coordinates for the destination of the remote control takeover would take their plane directly into World Trade Center Tower 2.
	The pilot would have no chance to see the plane directly into the plane.
	United Flight 175 could be remote controlled by pilots in an E-4B plane following at a distance.
	The pilot then would make an announcement to the passengers that an emergency came up and that they had been instructed to return to New York City to land.
	The pilot then would make an announcement to the passengers that were sent to the airport.
	The pilots may have been skeptical or uncomfortable with the idea of the plane landing by remote control, or may have seen that the plane was headed directly towards downtown Manhattan, New York, instead of the runway line, and tried to gain control of the aircraft.
	The pilots may have been in the air, and the pilots and the pilots may have been in the air.
	The pilots may have been in the air, and the pilots and the pilots may have been in the air.
	The pilots may have been in the air.
	Remote control takeover is technology known to exist in 2001.
	It is the simplest explanation of all the witness testimony, flight path, DNA, and debris evidence, even better than the official story.
	If this is not how the perpetrators did it, it is how they could have done it with the least room for error.
	Take over the planes by remote control, cut off communication, and fly them into buildings where explosives have been planted.
	Until we get a real 9-11 investigation, we won't know exactly how it was done.
	But we don't need missiles, holograms, space beams, plane swapping, or even Muslim hijackers.
	Remote controlled takeover is an explanation for how 9-11 was done and explains all the evidence well enough to warrant a new investigation.
	Remote control is used by the military, controlled demolition experts, and by Hollywood to detonate explosives from a distance.
	Wireless remote detonators could have been planted in the World Trade Center towers by Ace Elevator Company and should be investigated.
	9-11 remote control.
	Control of the jets on 9-11.
	Control of the Middle East and its oil.
	And through the Patriot Act and erosion of our constitutional liberties.
	control of you and America by the few in power.
	The End
	There's no argument about the existence of this technology that it could have been done that way.
	That everything you've been reporting here is true.
	The problem is it wasn't physically possible to get the planes inside the building.
	They had to fake it.
	So I'm interested in what you have here to show the planes actually hit buildings one and two.
	Many people saw the planes hit the building.
	They were shredded, so only soft parts and fuel got installed, so they still could have used remote control technology.
	It was developed by Boeing, costing millions of dollars to publicly patent it.
	Seems reasonable that if they had that very expensive technology, they would have used it for something.
	Yeah, it was reasonable until they discovered they couldn't physically get real planes into the real buildings, Rick.
	I mean, I'm just dumbfounded.
	We all agree that technology existed.
	We agree Dov Zuckheim had a company that specialized.
	We agree it could have been done that way, but it wasn't.
	It wasn't done that way because it wasn't even physically possible.
	That's my point.
	Okay.
	Well, we would agree that it is.
	Very difficult, if not impossible, for those planes to get into the building.
	No, no, it's categorically impossible.
	If you look at the design, if you look at the resistance, they would have crumpled the external to the building like a beer can thrown against a brick wall, Rick.
	Right, right.
	Well, we agree on that.
	Yeah, we agree on that.
	And what I'm saying is that that does not preclude the possibility of those planes that would have crashed outside the buildings could have been by remote control.
	And indeed, there was quite a lot of debris outside the building, which supports that.
	Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick!
	There was no debris beneath the facades of either building.
	There were no bodies, seats, luggage, tail, wings, no.
	There was some planted debris around, I agree, that appears to have been planted.
	There was even an engine at Church and Murray, but that was planted!
	What do you see they had to plant an engine, Rick?
	You gotta understand, this whole thing is a charade.
	I mean, there's just no room for doubt about it.
	Alright, well why couldn't they have planted that in addition?
	They didn't quite know exactly what was going to happen to the plane and the debris and to kind of cover themselves.
	It would make sense for them to then plant debris like the one at the corner of Murray.
	You understand that those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
	You're agreeing that the engine planted at Church and Murray, which was just sitting on the sidewalk under a steel scaffolding and a canopy, which were undamaged, which appears to have been delivered by five guys wearing FBI vests.
	You agree that was planted?
	Yep, that appears to be planted.
	I agree.
	So when the world's blowing up, why would they plant an engine if they'd have real planes strike the building?
	I think you and I agree that many plane parts, including these engines, were manufactured in a secret workshop.
	Because this had never been done before, crashing planes into buildings, you know, like the World Trade Center, they wanted to be sure that some part was done.
	And that could be like a backup plan.
	Now, it would be particularly embarrassing if they found the real engine.
	And the one that was planted, but there was so much control over the evidence and everything that they may well have found that and say, oops, this is embarrassing.
	We found the fake planted one and the real one.
	OK, well, let's just go with the fake planted one because nobody knows about the real one.
	So they have when they have such control over the evidence and now it's portrayed in the media.
	That is very possible.
	Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200 with two engines, one on each wing, with a diameter of 94 inches, or about 8 feet, weighing 12,000 pounds, or 6 tons.
	The width of the windows in the restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center were about 2 feet, to give people a nice view.
	But most of the windows of the World Trade Center towers were just 18 inches, or 1.5 feet, not wide enough for the eight-foot engines to pass through.
	We see the narrow width in this photo of workers, supposedly students, but possibly workers planting boxes of explosives.
	A kitchen shredder can easily split a cucumber, but the steel columns could not split the engines made of titanium and steel.
	So the six ton engines Dropped to the ground near the base of the World Trade Center Tower.
	Upon impact, lighter things such as aluminum and fuel continued horizontally, while heavier things such as the engines went down.
	Indeed, we see a considerable amount of Flight 175 falling to the ground outside World Trade Center Tower 2.
	In a sad photo of Etna Synton at World Trade Center 1, we see straight cuts of steel beams indicating they were weakened in advance to facilitate the planes entering the buildings.
	There are photos from many different angles of planes hitting the World Trade Center towers, which would be impossible to fake all of these.
	As a result, many of the no-plane theories have been debunked from many forums.
	It kind of embarrasses the 9-11 truth movement on mainstream media.
	Sadly, there are many bright truthers who propose no-plain-theories, such as John Lear and Richard D. Hall.
	But let's take a look at the different possibilities, eight of them I show here, between the combination of planes being real, or not, Or in the photos being faked or real.
	So let's think of the first combination.
	Real planes and real photos.
	That's the official conspiracy theory.
	Then there could be a drone.
	But a real photo of a drone.
	And that would be, you know, we see a pod underneath in the lower right.
	Beneath that plane.
	Supposedly entering the World Trade Center.
	Tower 2.
	Or the plane could be a hologram, and then real pictures of the hologram.
	Now, it doesn't make sense for no planes, but there's real photos and no planes.
	Actually, there are seven possibilities.
	Okay, let's take the next row.
	If the photos were faked.
	Okay, real planes could also be accompanied by fake photos.
	Now, why would they do that?
	To sow confusion, to divide the 9-11 truth movement.
	Or there's something about the real planes that needs to be covered up with fake photos.
	And that's my contention in this debate.
	That the real planes taken over by remote control could not completely get through the wall.
	In particular the heavy steel and titanium engines dropped down instead of going through.
	Or the planes could be a drone and fake the drone, the photos, to make them look more real.
	Next, if the plane could be a hologram, but with fake photos, again, to make the hologram look more realistic.
	Or, no planes at all, but fake photos to make a plane appear when there actually was no plane.
	So, with these possibilities we cannot logically There's no clue at 100% that there were no planes.
	We have to investigate these 8 different possibilities.
	That's another example of checking out all possibilities.
	Let's examine if Dr. Fretzer is real.
	If Dr. Fretzer is real and the photos are real, that's the reality.
	Option 1.
	2.
	If Dr. Fretzer is modified in some way.
	Taken over by MKUltra Mind Control, but the photos are real.
	Or three, if Fetzer is a drone, another man in disguise, but the photos are real.
	Or if Dr. Fetzer is a hologram, but we see real photos of that virtual image.
	Again, if there's no Dr. Fetzer, there would not be real photos.
	Next row, Dr. Fetzer is real but the photos are faked to confuse and divide the public.
	If Dr. Fetzer is modified and the photos are faked to further divide and confuse the public.
	Or if Dr. Fetzer is a drone and the photos are faked to make the drone look more real.
	Or if Dr. Fetzer is a hologram and the photos are faked that would make the hologram more look More realistic.
	Or, if there's no Dr. Fetzer, and with fake photos, it could make Dr. Fetzer appear.
	So logically, using a Venn diagram, fake photos and real planes are not mutually exclusive.
	There could be fake photos and real planes, and faking the photos and other evidence, such as the engine on Murray Street, For other reasons.
	For example, the real planes behaved in a way that hurts the official story.
	Such as the engines falling downwards instead of going through the World Trade Center Tower.
	So fake photos and evidence had to be released.
	Well, we do agree that the engine on Church and Murray Street was faked and it followed a very odd hockey stick shaped curve downwards as well as going north and then towards the east.
	It also landed considerably farther outside the debris zone that FEMA defined.
	You had a similar debate years ago with Dick Eastman about planes versus snowplanes.
	Now Dick says that cameras recorded the starboard engine break out of the north wall of the south tower and fall to the ground.
	Honest, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just stupefied.
	Rick, you're saying, yeah, the planes would have crumbled external to the building.
	Then how did they get the explosions inside?
	Well, I have another paper that I wrote for Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth about the mysterious Ace Elevator Company, which was in the shafts from after the 1993 bombing up until 9-11-2001.
	This tiny unknown company with no prior customers somehow got the contract away from Otis Elevator Company that was doing a good job.
	Ace Elevator, even the name sounds fake, had seven years to work in the elevator shafts and plant all kinds of explosives.
	And above the ceiling panels there was a company, LVI Systems, that was removing the illegal asbestos.
	So I say there was a lot of opportunity for them to plant explosives to make it seem like the plane had entered the building and was responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
	However, as we know, the planes could not get all the way into the building, so they needed some explosives inside to go off as a distraction.
	Ace Elevator went bankrupt and disappeared.
	My Ace Elevator company that was not even mentioned by the 9-11 Commission.
	Ace Elevator.
	Ace Elevator.
	And does that mean you think the buildings were destroyed by conventional explosives planted during the Ace Elevator renovation?
	Yeah, I don't know what particular type of explosives, but Ace had plenty of planned, and possibly even many nukes, in the World Trade Center.
	So Ace Elevator explosives.
	You know the Avalon Fairbanks video, and of course we got the other.
	In fact, there are about 27, 28 videos that actually are precise enough to plot where the plane was in relation to the building in terms of the videos.
	But you know, Rick, that plane enters its whole length into the building in the same number of frames.
	It passes whole length through air.
	Which makes sense physically only if a massive 500,000 ton building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an airplane in flight than air.
	Does that make any sense to you?
	Oh, I agree that it looks very fake.
	They call it the nose out you're talking about, right?
	Well, I'm not getting to the nose out yet.
	I'm talking about the entry of the plane into the building.
	It's complete length.
	Distance equals rate times time.
	There was no diminution in velocity.
	In other words, there were no collision of facts, Rick.
	No collision of facts.
	Well, yeah.
	Well, I'm not contending that the plane actually entered the building and collapsed columns and everything.
	I agree that there was a lot of external debris.
	Now, we disagree on how much external debris There was.
	I see photos of quite a lot, including tail fins, wings, feet, and so on.
	So, you know, if we if we just scout those pictures or think they were planted, which would be quite difficult to do.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listener supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Hey, Rick, Rick, Rick.
	Now, Edward Hedden is a very smart guy.
	Captured those Euro-transportation statistic records showing that Flight 11 North Tower and Flight 77 Pentagon were not even scheduled that day.
	Now, you're suggesting because those are government documents, they're not trustworthy, but they contradict The government's position, that means they are trustworthy.
	Not only that, but they try to fabricate fake pages to make up for their omission.
	I mean, this is just a blunder, a mistake they made.
	They forgot about it.
	And they got very incomplete pages that are clearly contrived and fabricated after the fact.
	So, I'm not 100% clear.
	Will you stand on that?
	Plus, you cite it, you cite it.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I agree with you that often they have fabricated data.
	So I would say let's be skeptical of anything that comes from the government, suspected perpetrators, because there is a value to putting out confusing information to prolong the time that it takes to get a real investigation and to cause dissension within the 9-11 truth movement to get us arguing about, hmm, were these flight records accurate?
	Were they not?
	Was the plane over Cleveland?
	I know there was a report that there was, but this is just a report, and it would be very valuable for them to cause that confusion, especially among conspiracy theorists.
	We've been doing this type of thing for a long time.
	The government's good at causing confusion in the public, especially among the skeptical 10% and messing with us.
	They didn't want confusion, Rick.
	They wanted people to believe that 19 Islamic hijackers commandeered four commercial carriers and undertaken these... Which isn't true!
	I mean, it's ridiculous!
	They were not promoting contradictory reports!
	There were contradictory reports because they mucked up!
	And listen, you mentioned pilot.
	Pilots tracked Flight 93.
	They tracked it!
	Over Champaign-Urbana after it officially crashed in Changsha.
	They tracked Flight 175 over Pittsburgh and Harrisburg in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after it had officially crashed on 9-11.
	I tracked down the FAA registration showing those planes were still in the air for four years after 9-11.
	How could you dispute evidence of this strength?
	Well, I would like to see your interview with the pilots, but you agree the government's lying about 9-11 in general, so I remain skeptical about any specifics the government is reporting, like deliberately keeping Flight 93 in use for years after 9-11.
	That would cause a lot of confusion, which is their purpose.
	They know about 90% of the people are going to believe whatever's on CNN and NBC, and then forget about it.
	It's the 10% that they're trying to put confusing information out about the skeptics who are going to look beneath the mainstream news.
	And for that, what better than to put out, Oh, the plane is over Cleveland.
	Or Harrisburg.
	Yeah, that'll keep those truthers busy and arguing for years.
	Yeah, the plane is still in use.
	They leak these fake reports out.
	It costs them nothing to do that.
	Wild goose droppings to lead us on a wild goose chase.
	Rick, don't you understand?
	You're talking about the government putting out reports that contradict the government's account.
	They're not going to do that!
	Why not?
	I mean, that's just uncostly stupid.
	They're not going to undermine their own account.
	And you know, we have the report about Cleveland.
	We have the report about Cleveland.
	You got the mayor out there saying Flight 93 landed at Cleveland.
	I'm not talking about that.
	I'm talking about pilots tracking Flight 93 after it allegedly crashed in Shanksville and was over Champaign-Urbana-Illinois.
	Pilots for 9-11 Truth established that.
	It is a fact.
	Pilots for 9-11 Truth tracked Flight 175.
	They discovered it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	I don't think there's any way around that.
	That means neither of those planes crashed, and it's further confirmed by my discovery of FAA registration records, showing they weren't even deregistered or taken out of service until four years later, 28 September 2005.
	How do you argue with that?
	Well, how can they forget to take 9-11 planes out of service unless their intention is to confuse skeptics?
	Because they mucked up, buddy!
	I mean, they just screwed up!
	They hadn't done this before.
	There were oversights they made about the evidence, and that was what has enabled us to sort this out.
	But I'm 100% baffled, Rick.
	Do you think those planes physically entered the building or not?
	Well, we agree that the planes, aluminum planes, could not get past these steel beams.
	But some parts and fuel could get through the windows.
	I contend that the majority of the plane crashed outside the building and dropped down.
	And there are a lot of photos of that.
	Plane parts are pretty hard to fake in broad daylight.
	But mostly we are in agreement on that.
	Okay, okay, well that's, that's, I'm glad, I'm glad to hear that, as we're in agreement that there were, yes, there were these remote control systems.
	Were you implying that a, that a plane actually hit the Pentagon too?
	Is that, is that your contention, that a plane hit the Pentagon that was remotely controlled?
	Okay, well that leads me to another video about how a Fracture plane exploded just prior to hitting the wall.
	No, if you throw a brick at someone, it hurts.
	But if you throw gravel, it doesn't hurt so much.
	So if explosives were in the plane, just as it's approaching the Pentagon, if the plane explodes, Well, approaching the wall, it hits like a gravel instead of a brick.
	My DC condo is close to the Pentagon, so I've given this a lot of thought and made a website about the various theories regarding the Pentagon.
	First, of course, there's the official story.
	And then there's my hypothesis about remote control takeover.
	Now here's a picture about the plane approaching the Pentagon.
	And if there are explosives planted in the cargo bay, then if they go off just prior to hitting the wall, This is the Pentagon Pre-Impact Plane Explosion Hypothesis.
	That would explain how it appears there was no big plane fuselage there.
	Just fragmented bits that you can pick up with your hand.
	If we take that one or two photos of the Pentagon that the Pentagon gave us, we see that there's possibly a tail fin there.
	But what they want to cover up by not giving us the photos of the plane hitting the Pentagon is that it was fracturing on its way into the building.
	Now that would be too fast for people to see.
	Even a lot of military people who are around in the parking lot on their way to work.
	Pretty observant people.
	You were a captain in the U.S.
	Marines, so you know.
	Some pretty sharp people, even Princeton graduates, who work for the military and are not easily confused.
	Now, notice how the flaming cloud continues north over the top of the Pentagon.
	Now, why isn't the flame coming out of the hole?
	The flame just started outside the wall in the pre-impact plane explosion hypothesis.
	You know, it explains how this famous part got here, so far away from the impact hole.
	Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick, that part!
	It was planted there!
	You know, the Pentagon lawn was clear and green for like 45 minutes after the hit.
	Jamie McIntyre talked about it.
	He said from his close-up inspection there was no sign of any plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
	That piece came from a Boeing 757 that crashed near Cali, Colombia in 1995.
	It was salvaged by an Israeli company and they planted it on the Pentagon lawn.
	It's got a piece of vine entwined in it that is not indigenous to Arlington, Virginia, but grows in the jungles where the plane crashed.
	Do you see that?
	Well, I need to see proof on that.
	I find it unlikely they would forget to brush off the plane part.
	And Jamie McIntyre said, the pieces are small enough to pick up with your hand, which supports my pre-impact plane explosion hypothesis.
	And I see a lot of debris there, with all due respect.
	It wasn't there for 45 minutes, Rick.
	That only showed up later.
	I believe it was dropped from a C-130 that was circling the building.
	It was not there!
	On 9-11, I went to my roof to see the smoke, then rode my bike over to the Pentagon, and I saw debris around.
	You know, as far as almost to Route 395.
	So there wasn't any question in anybody's mind who was there, if there were plane parts.
	Now when you zoom out, yes, there are photos that make it look pristine, like a golf course.
	But when you're actually there, you see the details.
	You can try this experiment.
	Take a picture of your lawn from a distance.
	It looks great.
	Now go closer.
	You'll see quite a lot of leaves, sticks, acorns, etc.
	And you get lot, lot, lot, lot, lot...
	It was a lot of debris.
	It wasn't there initially.
	Rick, it wasn't there initially.
	Here are four of the five frames that they initially released.
	I had Jack White do an analysis of, you know, figuring, sizing 757 to the tail of this plane seen just above the gateway with a white bloom, which pilots and aeronautical engineers have explained cannot be Yeah, so this is what they're putting out, you know, again, to cause a lot of confusion.
	757 would be twice as large.
	Tom Fitton has just got this from the Pentagon.
	Look at this, Rick.
	You may have not seen it.
	It turns out they had many, many more frames.
	And now you'll see the missile being fired.
	Yeah, so this is what they're putting out, you know, again, to cause a lot of confusion.
	Satisfy some people, satisfy the 90%, but cause confusion in the 10% skeptics.
	But it's not a plane hitting the building!
	It's a missile fired into the building!
	Well, that's where we disagree.
	With the remote control takeover technology, they could have used the actual Flight 77 to go into the Pentagon and explode it just prior to hitting the wall.
	And this is a good view that you're showing right now.
	I'm saying that in the region that we can see on the screen, as it's crossing by, it's exploding before impacting the wall, which causes it to be not a real big hole.
	There are a lot of objections.
	Well, there's no big hole at the Pentagon.
	Well, yeah, that's right.
	You throw a brick at something, you're going to get a hole.
	If you throw gravel, you're going to get a lot of little holes.
	Well, here's the entry point.
	It's about 10 feet high and 17 feet wide.
	There's a chain-link fence, a couple of automobiles, two enormous spools of metal.
	But what we do not have is a massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner.
	No body seats, luggage tank, whale.
	Here you have, 45 minutes later, you had the collapse.
	Let me add one more.
	This is from an excavation of the area where the collapse occurred, and there are signs of a big fire.
	I wonder if those fireballs aren't fake.
	Here's an illustration, but here's a real photograph.
	Rick, where is the debris?
	There are the lime green firetrucks putting out the very modest fires that remain.
	Where is the debris, Rick?
	FBI was photographed picking up debris.
	Oh God, Rick.
	It was taken at the time the Lime Green fire truck showed up to put out the fire.
	They haven't even had the collapse of the wall yet.
	Well, this photo does support your point with a green lawn, but I don't have 100% faith it was not altered.
	Well, I have a huge amount.
	BBC ran.
	Look at here.
	Here's another.
	You see it's a clear green lawn.
	Unblemished.
	Here's another.
	Clear green lawn.
	This is even after the wall collapses, Rick.
	Please back up to the other photos that you had.
	There was one that was showing the car burning.
	There was a lot of debris there.
	Well, there was some debris, but none of it was from airplanes.
	It wasn't any airplane debris, Rick.
	Yeah, this photo.
	Below the white car door.
	That could be plane debris.
	I'm sorry, what are you talking about?
	The car on flames.
	There were two cars, two cars in flames and two huge rolls of cable were in flame.
	And it was 45 minutes later that you had the collapse of that segment.
	And you know, Jamie McIntyre, here's a piece I was talking about a fuselage you were signing.
	This is after stuff was dumped.
	I have more faith in that photo.
	Look at all the debris.
	You have faith in that photo when you're looking at a staged prop.
	That piece of fuselage, Rick, was not exposed to high flame.
	It wasn't from a violent collision, and it's got the vine there.
	Look at the vine.
	That was tracked back to a crash near Cali, Colombia in 1995, where an Israeli company did the Took care of it, Rick.
	As you well know, Marines get up very early, around five o'clock.
	They're going to the Pentagon.
	Oh, a lot of people arrive around six.
	When would they have time to drop all these parts without anybody noticing?
	Well, I think it was dropped from the C-130.
	It was circling the building.
	Well, I have faith in the observance of military people, and as they walk in from the parking lot, they look up and see, hey, that's pretty unusual.
	There's a C-130 dropping thousands of plane parts on the Pentagon lawn.
	Tell you what, let's open the lines here to callers 540-352-4452, callers.
	We might have questions for Rick Paddock and me.
	We have very different interpretations of what happened here.
	I had no idea.
	I had no idea our views were so divergent, Rick.
	I really had no idea.
	But we're still friends.
	Mitchell, let me know.
	Let me see if we got any callers here.
	Mitchell, you go ahead.
	I had a question.
	You know, I had a question that You know, as we argue about the, you know, the finer details of what really happened on 9-11, do you think that the overall strategy that was behind 9-11 that caused the military-industrial complex and legitimizing the surveillance state
	Do you think that that operation was successful even though we are trying to discuss and determine exactly what happened on that day?
	Well, here we are 22 years later, so the operation was largely working, sadly.
	But we are still fighting, debating, and speaking out to hopefully bring about a new investigation of 9-11.
	I hope that when President Trump is back in the White House that he will do that.
	I have a domain name reserved for him called trumpcommission.org.
	That's available for him when he feels comfortable starting that.
	But he's up against the deep state.
	And I believe that he does know that there were very suspicious things about 9-11.
	And I'm hopeful that when he gets into Washington, President Trump will clean house At that time, we'll be able to have a real 9-11 investigation.
	And, on 9-11, he was saying that it seemed like bombs would have been needed to bring down those buildings.
	If you know anything about structure, it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside, the steel.
	The reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had the steel on the outside.
	See, the steel on the outside of the building.
	That's why when I first looked, and you had big, heavy I-beams.
	When I first looked at it, I couldn't believe it because there was a hole in the steel.
	And this is steel that was, you remember the width of the windows of the World Trade Center, folks?
	I think, you know, if you remember up there, they were quite narrow.
	And in between was this heavy steel.
	I said, how could a plane, even a plane, even a 767 or a 747, or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through the steel?
	I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously, because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall.
	After a Trump rally in Oskaloosa, Iowa in 2015, I had the good luck and pleasure of asking Donald Trump a couple questions at a press conference about 9-11.
	And this was mentioned in a New York Times article, an Examiner article, called, 9-11 Truth or Stumps Trump?
	What did you ask him, Rick?
	We'll play it right after this break.
	Okay, okay.
	Go ahead, Rick.
	Mitchell killed the break.
	You go ahead now.
	And there was a press conference, and I wore a tie, as you can see, and I was better dressed than many of the reporters from the New York Times and NBC, who were just wearing jeans.
	And so the lady at the door asked me for my press credentials, and I said that I'm, oh, that's a nice blue dress you have on, and I'm with Truth Makes Peace, the news blog.
	So she said, okay, and she let me in.
	So I was able to ask Donald Trump about the 28 page chapter that George Bush classified and the WTC building collapse.
	So I'll bring in YouTube which is queued up.
	Would you like to answer a few questions?
	Years ago, you correctly identified George Bush's line to get us into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	And there was a House and Senate resolution to release the 28 pages that George Bush classified about who funded 9-11.
	Now, we can't have an attack without funding.
	Would you support the release of those 28 pages to the public?
	I'd have to see it.
	I'd have to see it.
	It's 28pages.org.
	I was opposed to Iraq.
	I'm a very militaristic person.
	I will tell you that.
	I would have a military that's so strong, nobody would mess with us.
	But we should have never gotten into Iraq.
	We've created a mess.
	And Iran now is taking over Iraq after spending billions, trillions, $2 trillion, after spending all of that, thousands of lives most importantly, and all of the wounded warriors who I love all over.
	And now what's going to happen?
	Iran is taking over Iraq.
	It's stupid leadership.
	Stupid leadership.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So for that question, he had not at that point heard about the 28 pages.
	And then he began speaking about how he was one of the few who was opposing the invasion of Iraq from the get-go.
	And then later on he gave me another opportunity to ask a question, and this time it was about the World Trade Center collapse.
	As a builder of many skyscrapers, you know they're built to be strong.
	And many people, according to a poll at YouGov, 60% of Americans have some question about how those towers came down.
	World Trade Center.
	Yeah, and how the World Trade Center settlement was not even hit by a plane, and companies that were not investigated, like Ace Elevator Company.
	They're in the shafts from 1994 to 9-11.
	They were never even mentioned, much less investigated by Bush's administration.
	Well, would you support an independent investigation of the way the towers came down?
	Americans are calling for an independent investigation of people who could have...
	Yes, I did.
	Alright, so at that point at least, I hope that I got him thinking about 9-11 and informing him on a couple topics, such as the Ace Elevator Company and the polls that show that 60% of the people have questions about 9-11.
	Okay, so that got written up in the New York Times blog and the Washington Post.
	The examiner said, 9-11 truther stumps Trump during campaign event.
	And it was repeated through some other magazines such as Mother Jones and my local newspaper writing about my encounter with Donald Trump.
	It's clear that by now Donald Trump does know that there are many suspicious things about 9-11.
	We're going to win the election.
	We're going to beat Hillary.
	Hillary has done a horrible job.
	She's not worthy of being our president.
	And we're going to make this country win a game.
	Thank you.
	At the Newton, Iowa rally, as he was, after he spoke, he always goes down to the people in the front row and goes along he always goes down to the people in the front row and goes along and Signs.
	Or brochures.
	And so I gave him a 9-11 brochure from Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
	So he looked at that, and as he was signing... Mr. Trump, please review this brochure about over 2,000 architects and engineers who questioned how the World Trade Center towers came down when they were built strong to withstand a plane.
	We want a new investigation, including Building 7, which was not even hit by a plane.
	Then at another rally in Davenport, I made a paper that said Larry Roger and Lisa Silverstein were not in World Trade Center on 9-11.
	The World Trade Center had asbestos and had to come down anyway.
	Glassner helped Larry win the bid to get the World Trade Center.
	Even though Vernado company bid more to become the managers of the World Trade Center, Larry still won the bid and he got 4.2 billion Dollars from insurance only six weeks later.
	So as he was coming down and signing these things, he gave it back and I think with a knowing smile and a little bit of a salute, like right on.
	Yeah, I know that Larry Silverstein is, there's something suspicious about that.
	Larry Silverstein's got 4.2 billion on a building with a special.
	Larry Silverstein.
	Got to check him out.
	Larry Silverstein.
	Take a step, Steve.
	Take a step, Steve.
	You want to tell me, Doc?
	Oh, that was great.
	Certainly all the real estate developers in New York City must have wondered how Larry was so lucky on 9-11.
	Donald Trump Jr. at a pizza ranch in more detail about 9-11.
	At a pizza ranch?
	I love it.
	Donald Trump is very difficult to get in touch with by now.
	Hundreds and hundreds of people are trying to talk to him and Donald Trump Jr.
	and his son his other son Eric Trump also were touring and in Mount Pleasant Donald Trump Jr.
	was meeting at the Pizza Ranch, and I had a chance to talk to him about 30 minutes.
	There were not that many people there.
	Donald, I went to see your father last night, and I showed this to him in the line.
	Donald Trump Jr.
	Donald Trump Jr. said, I do TM too.
	So I talked with his wife, Vanessa, about TM.
	She knows about TM and she practices it too.
	And how the Maharishi School students are doing very well on their SATs and their winning science fairs and spelling bees.
	So she really liked that.
	And women, I think, are less wanting to talk about 9-11 because, you know, it's kind of a negative subject.
	People, 3,000 people died.
	So when she left for more pizza, I talked with Donald Trump Jr.
	about 9-11 and about Sandy Hook since he's an average hunter and Second Amendment proponent Tell me about the Sandy Hook conversation.
	Yeah, that was shorter because I was first talking about 9/11 and I was able to get in that Sandy Hook is very suspicious and you want to look into that because it seems to be a hoax designed to curtail our second that was shorter because I was first talking about 9/11 and I was able to get in that Sandy Hook is very suspicious, and you want to look into that because it seems to be a hoax designed to curtail our Second Amendment.
	And I said, wait, what do you mean by that?
	He said, well, an investigator, Wolfgang Helbig, and a professor of logical reasoning and critical thinking, Dr. James Fetzer, find there's evidence that the school was closed In 2008, which is four years before the event.
	At that time, a lady wanted to have a selfie with him, and another lady wanted him to kiss her baby, and someone else wanted him to help with a sick relative, so a lot of people were trying to talk to Donald Trump Jr.
	Were you able to mention Nobody Died at Sandy Hook?
	Yeah.
	Sorry, I didn't mention the book.
	But we should send him one, and that would be a good follow-up.
	We have a caller from 9-1-7.
	Give us your name, your state, and join the conversation.
	9-1-7.
	Well, good afternoon.
	Jim, this is Reese from New York.
	Hey, Reese.
	Glad to be on with you and your guest.
	I, by the way, was having a great deal of difficulty hearing him.
	The audio was so bad, it sounded like somebody with their head in a garbage can in another room.
	In another room.
	That's how bad it was.
	Okay.
	Really, really bad.
	I knew we had a problem, Uris.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, being that I didn't hear him that clearly, am I understanding correctly that he's Okay, I say that because the technology existed to take over planes by remote control, there was every incentive to use that technology on 9-11 for a perfect crime.
	You have the actual planes and the actual passengers in the plane but taken over by remote control in such a way that the pilots could not stop it.
	Now when aluminum hits steel, the steel is going to win.
	And at the Pentagon, when we have an aluminum plane and a brick wall, the brick wall is going to win.
	So as it approached the World Trade Center towers, The heavy pieces of debris, such as the engines, largely fell downwards.
	He, and I agree of course, that technology existed for remote control.
	I believe the original plan was to fly real planes into the buildings until they discovered they couldn't actually get into the building.
	He agrees that they couldn't get into the building, but as I understand it, still believe they use technology and real planes, which of course I deny.
	I mean, they had to fake it, and they did it using holograms.
	I mean, you had the impossible speed, you had the impossible entry.
	There appears to have been a radar path, but it was for a plane 1,200 feet to the side that appears to have been projecting the hologram.
	Rick, how much does that distort your view?
	Well, the planes largely did fall down after hitting the steel wall.
	The engines couldn't go through, yet fuel and soft debris could go through the windows, especially with the assistance of explosives in the cargo bay.
	At the Pentagon, they didn't want to do too much damage outside of the West Wing, of the Pentagon where they were doing renovations.
	So they could have explosives in there to simulate the plane going in.
	This picture shows the westward path of the plane part from the explosion outside the Pentagon.
	And I think that's what they did at the World Trade Center towers too.
	So the pre-planted explosives inside the building provided the appearance of the plane going fully into the buildings.
	Well, planes, aluminum planes, cannot go through steel, and aluminum planes can't go through brick walls at the Pentagon, maybe a little bit.
	So they needed explosives to produce that effect.
	I've given you a number to call in to the studio if you could, Rick, to get better audio.
	Rhys, you want to add something more?
	We've also got Paul standing by.
	Rhys?
	I would like to say this.
	First of all, I think I am eminently qualified being a structural engineer and, you know, designing both high-rise buildings and suspension and cable stay bridges.
	I don't see why it is even important to waste time on the topics such as whether they were actual planes or holograms, because that is an ancillary point.
	There's much greater points that need to be discussed, such as the conspiracy that was at work The pre-wiring of the buildings using the cutting charges, the nanothermite, the fact that the Pentagon was hit clearly by a cruise missile.
	The video link that was provided today on Twitter makes it very clear, by the way.
	That was the best I have ever seen, that it was a missile with very small wings on it.
	So, why don't we move on to more important topics rather than the minutiae of whether it was a hologram or actual plane, since no one can provide decisive proof either way.
	Well, we have decisive proof because it wasn't physically possible.
	We have the nose out phenomenon.
	It had to be a hologram.
	Nothing else fits.
	Let me turn to Paul.
	Paul, join the conversation.
	So the thing that I would add, but I don't really think it's an Ancillary point.
	OK, the fact of the matter is, is there were no planes.
	Right.
	That was, in my opinion, the no planes theory or the no planes controversy was kind of over around 2008 or so.
	Right, Jim?
	2007 or I think it was pretty much decided by all those.
	I recommend if you've never seen it recently, you could probably still find Boeing, Boeing gone.
	I have the DVD set.
	It's three DVDs, literally nearly five hours.
	But all you really need is like 20 minutes of Boeing, Boeing gone, where they just focus on deceleration.
	And the fact of the matter is they were only TV or movie planes because there was no deceleration.
	I'm not even sure about the whole hologram thing, because I think that in many ways was shown by another film I watched.
	I forget the title of it.
	Where they made the contention that these planes were inserted into the television footage right after the fact.
	No, no, no.
	There are three different theories, Paul.
	One is it was done by CGI.
	The other, video composited.
	That's of H. Baker.
	But both of those theories require it be impossible to see the planes before the broadcast footage because they didn't exist until they were inserted into the broadcast footage.
	Well, we have hundreds of witnesses who saw what they took to be a real plane approaching the building.
	That's the catch.
	Why it has to be a hologram.
	And then you got the nose out phenomenon.
	You actually got the nose of the plane poking out.
	That's when they went to the fade to black.
	You may recall that.
	No, I recall... Go ahead.
	Yeah, well, I do agree that the nose out is very fake.
	I think it's something that could have been planted also by Ace Elevator in preparation for 9-11.
	You think the nose out is fake?
	Now, if we could get a Venn diagram of logic.
	Okay, fake photos and planes.
	They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
	You can have fake photos and real planes.
	Now, you say, why would they do that?
	For confusion and for, you know, covering all possibilities in advance of the planes hitting the buildings.
	They're not going to have a second chance.
	They have to fall back.
	So, yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	That photo right here I'm showing, that is fake.
	That is absolutely true.
	Paul Watts says squeeze in a word edgewise, Rick.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Sometimes stuff gets said and it's like, whoa, wait a minute, and then you keep going.
	So I'm not going to disagree with that premise.
	In other words, I do think that things are deliberately put in some of these events to sow confusion.
	I'll agree with that.
	But you said something about Ace Elevator.
	Yeah, this is a paper I alluded to earlier about Ace Elevator Company.
	This little-known company somehow got the biggest contract for elevators in history, the World Trade Center, away from Otis Elevator Company that invented the elevators, and they were doing a good job.
	So this mysterious little company comes in and gets the contract away from Otis Elevator.
	They had plenty of time Well, and then the company went bankrupt after 9-11.
	You know, it was just a fake shell company, possibly, you know, agents who were explosive experts.
	They had seven years to plant explosives.
	They could have been anything from, you know, standard to nanothermite to mini-nukes.
	You know, that's a different debate.
	So some kind of explosion, explosives they could do.
	And, you know, and people can't observe them.
	And in my condo, I have an elevator.
	I made a video about that.
	I went to the manager's office and said, I'm an owner here.
	I would like to see inside the elevator shaft.
	They said, absolutely not.
	So that was a perfect cover and a perfect place to plant the explosives since they were next to the core columns that provided most of the structural stability of the World Trade Center.
	Also, above the ceiling panels is another place.
	There was another company that Okay.
	You're going all over the place here.
	I just didn't know.
	In the same sentence, you used Ace Elevator and the Nose In Nose Out Theory.
	I mean, it was in the same sentence, and I didn't know what the heck you're talking about.
	While they're planting explosives, and the other LVI systems is taking out the asbestos from above the ceiling panels, and plus you have Securicom, which is running cover.
	They were in charge of the security.
	They could have put some kind of device that would There's zero chance that anybody made some sort of explosive device to make it look like a nose of a plane came out the side of the building.
	That floor was probably vacant anyway.
	There were a lot of vacant floors.
	I'm not saying that it literally looked like this guy.
	There is zero chance.
	There's zero chance that anybody made some sort of explosive device to make it look like a nose of a plane came out of the side of the building.
	That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
	I remember.
	Well, the name nose out is a misnomer.
	It's actually dark clouds of burning liquid jet fuel.
	Floors.
	I'm not saying that it literally looks like this guy.
	There is zero chance.
	There's zero chance that anybody made some sort of explosive device to make it look like a nose of a plane came outside the building.
	That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
	I remember clearly, I got into it.
	I'll take a piece of metal and some explosive device to push that out.
	Ace Elevator and the nose-in-nose-out phenomenon are completely unrelated.
	Other than that, that was very interesting, all the rest of it though.
	There were workers who could do various things such as that.
	I agree.
	Why would you ever do something like that?
	Something that's such an obvious fake.
	They're trying to make it look real.
	You wouldn't add something that would look that fake.
	off the hologram passing up.
	Brian, go ahead.
	Join the conversation.
	Brian.
	I agree.
	Why would you ever do something like that, something that's such an obvious fake?
	They're trying to make it look real.
	You wouldn't add something that would look that fake.
	You wouldn't spend the time that was a mistake.
	One thing I want to bring up on 9-11, I saw the most jaw-dropping thing on it.
	I go to a website called Before It's News, and they had a little piece that said, 9-11 and Steven Spielberg movies.
	And it started out with his first movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, And when the ship puts its light on the pickup, they pan down to the radio, and it's set at 9-11, okay?
	And there's this all through these movies, but the most mind-blowing one was Back to the Future.
	There's a scene in that movie where it's in the future, and Michael J. Fox's mother goes to his place with her husband, and he's like levitating upside down, which is bizarre.
	You know, why is he levitating upside down?
	And she goes to his TV screen, which is just like a window shade supposedly in the future, and she says, oh, you know, this is always a problem, and she pulls the window shade down.
	Well, then the person doing this said, watch this.
	When she's doing that, her husband's foot is upside down in the scene, so he flips it right side up, And what you're looking at is the twin towers on the supposed TV screen fall into their own footprint, just like at 9-11.
	I mean, it just blew my mind to see that.
	So, it goes way back, and then of course, there's also in that movie where the DeLorean, when he finally gets it going, and he's laying rubber down this city street, and you see the two lines where the tires were, they're glowing, and they've got steam coming off, and it looks like 11, and then one of the stores next to it
	Has it says auto parts, but around it is a big neon red nine.
	So it's reading 911.
	I mean, it just went on and on.
	What's amazing to me is we're in these movies way back in the 70s, 80s, whatever.
	And you've got all of this 911 stuff feeding the egregore way back then.
	So anyway, that's what I wanted to talk about.
	Very good.
	Can you see my screen?
	I put up some of those.
	I can see him, Rick, of course, but no one else can until they see the video version.
	Now, in my video, I play a scene from the X-Files, the Lone Gunman.
	Of course, that's an allusion to the Lone Gunman in, supposedly, The JFK assassination, right?
	So they did a very interesting video on X-Files.
	Have you all seen this?
	The Lone Gunman?
	Where they portray the exact scenario that I'm talking about.
	Where it would be taken over by remote control.
	And this was in March 4th, 2001.
	You know, right before.
	So I suggest that the viewers look up Lone Gunman and the Well, just to continue what I started to say earlier about it, it's more than just an ancillary point.
	In my opinion, it's key or fundamental, similar to, you know, no children died at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, either nobody died or somebody did.
	I mean, it's one or the other.
	I think it sort of speaks to, you know, what it is we're looking at.
	The fraud in the theater and the psychological operation that this was in so many ways.
	So I don't buy for a minute that there were any planes involved at all, based upon the fact that they were all fake.
	It's kind of like, if we really went to the moon, why did they have to fake all the photos and the television footage, right?
	Because the television footage and the photos were clearly fake.
	So therefore, you can't have it both ways.
	My opinion in general, you can't really have it both ways, although I do conceive the possibility that certain things were in there.
	One other thing I'll add real quick is I saw a video one time that made the point that almost every... Also, in a phone conversation with Sophia, she said the same thing.
	She said, based upon what she had looked into, and this is many, many years ago, she said that, yes, as far as she knew, every single one of these people that claimed they saw planes was a Jew.
	So that that causes me to have suspicion right off the bat.
	Oh, very intriguing.
	Very intriguing.
	Brian, did you want to add more?
	Have we still got Rhys?
	I want.
	Yeah, I want to add more.
	I've got a friend of mine.
	My own brother, of course, was a pilot.
	And I said this, you know, before he was an IP.
	in Arizona and two weeks before 9-11 he got a call from some pilot friends who were Israeli that he instructed and they said whatever you do in two weeks stay out of New York and my best friend went to the casino one night and there was someone who was at the Pentagon that was playing cards with some poker at the table and he said he worked for the Pentagon and the people at the table said
	Oh my God, that must have been horrible being there on 9-11 getting hit by that airplane.
	And he said, we weren't hit by an airplane.
	That was a cruise missile.
	So those are firsthand accounts.
	I always take those, you know, it's before the spin.
	So those two things are before anyone got their hands on it and could spin it.
	So that's what I had to say.
	Yeah, good.
	Paul.
	Well, yeah, so and the other thing I will add to that, but yeah, Reese is indeed exactly correct, just like you are, Jim, about the bigger picture of who and how and why 9-11.
	In other words, some of the logistical or technical details are interesting, but of course, you know, the bigger picture, you know, just like COVID-19, you know, we can argue all day about, you know, viruses and the variants and all the other nonsense, but what's the The bigger picture behind the involvement, and of course, I think, Jim, you've covered that very well in your research.
	Rick just showed an image of General Stubblebine, who was formerly the head of all signals intelligence for the U.S.
	military, including photographic.
	I interviewed Stubblebine and showed him all the evidence I had that no plane had crashed at Changsha.
	That no plane hit the Pentagon, though a missile was fired into it, and that in New York, in both WTC1 and WTC2, they had faked the planes using holograms.
	General Stubblebine not only agreed with me about all four cases, but added additional reasons why I was correct.
	Well, I agree with General Stubblebine that the hole would be too small, And that's because of this.
	You see, here's a photo of the plane.
	We're supposed to assume, it's an assumption, I think an erroneous assumption, that the plane was intact as it was hitting the wall.
	But if it's being exploded, these are lines that I drew there to show the explosions from various points in the plane, to make it hit like gravel instead of a brick.
	And I have a video on that where I take a, you know, I bought one of these planes and throw it at a piece of glass and of course it breaks the glass.
	But if I take gravel of the same weight and size, I took another one of these and I just crumpled it up, broke it into pieces and threw it at the glass.
	The glass does not break.
	So that's why, you know, Sublime was saying that the hole was not big enough, because it didn't hit intact.
	Rick, Rick, Rick, that's a theory of ours.
	I don't buy it even remotely.
	We got Rhys back.
	Rhys, give us a few thoughts of yours before we have to conclude.
	Okay, first of all, you can hear me clearly?
	Yes.
	You can hear me, okay.
	Well, let me just give you a few points.
	Number one, here's a couple of bullet points.
	I'm not going to go on.
	Because you don't have the time.
	Are you aware that the fire marshal, World Trade Center number one, actually saw the columns being wrapped with the nanothermite and he stopped the guy and asked him for ID.
	This was about 10 days to two weeks prior to 9-11.
	He was dismissed.
	He was called down to a supervisor's office and sent home, leave with pay.
	After the 9-11 attacks occurred, he was visited by, quote unquote, someone in a black car That came to his home and told him that he had better remain quiet and not do any interviews regarding what he had seen because he was reminded of where his grandchildren attend school.
	That's one point.
	The fire marshal of World Trade Center number one.
	OK, now I want to hear something else, Jim, that should I think would perk your ears up.
	We talk about the dancing Israelis, right?
	How about this one?
	Mike Harari.
	Does that name ring a bell, Jim?
	Michael Harari.
	Sure.
	Of course, you know where he is.
	World Economic.
	He was the mini-me next to Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum on 9-11.
	Listen to this.
	According to a friend of his in Bangkok that had met with him, Dimitri.
	Oh, I forget his last name.
	I'll think of it in a few minutes.
	It's been a while.
	He was he had breakfast with Harari.
	And at 6 a.m.
	he was at breakfast with him and he said, Harari said to him that he's one of the few people that he felt comfortable openly telling him this.
	It was the greatest day of my life.
	That's what Harari said to this guy.
	On the morning, remember this was 12 hours different.
	He was in Bangkok at the time.
	The greatest day of his life.
	Okay.
	We have a former Italian President Consiglia, Francesco Consiglia, said all the intelligence services of America and Europe know well that this attack has been planned and carried out by the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under acquisition the Arab nations and to induce Western nations to take part in wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Former President from Italy, I could go on.
	I could go on.
	You could go on, but not today, because we're out of time.
	I want to thank Rick for coming on, Rick.
	It was very provocative, stimulating.
	When we will get to see the video, they'll no doubt make more sense.
	I apologize for the audio problems.
	I accept responsibility.
	We didn't get it connected right.
	We'll do better next time.
	Meanwhile, thanks everyone.
	Pay attention to 9-11.
	If you go to my Twitter account at Jim Fetzer, you'll see both an overview of all the collaborative research on 9-11 with a 9-11 special, and also where I did an interview with Jeremy about germ warfare.
	Both of those are linked to my Twitter account at Jim Fetzer.
	You can also find them on my Bitchu channel, and I'll be publishing later today on my blog.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Thanks, Mitchell.
	Thanks for calling.
	Thanks.
	Some final thoughts.
	Remember that 9-11 was a mass murder and each victim has been investigated and found dead.
	Two pilots, four flight attendants, four passengers, five hijackers, and 134 Pentagon staff for a total of 189 people.
	Any theory is bogus that does not explain these victims and their DNA at the Pentagon crash.
	Such as flyover, missiles, global hawks, holograms, etc.
	What happened to them?
	These are actual people whose families grieve and they cannot be faked.
	Burnt remains of 55 people in Flight 77, still in their seats, were discovered in the wreckage.
	With DNA, this cannot be faked.
	A plane did hit the Pentagon.
	And it was Flight 77.
	The remote control takeover hypothesis explains this perfectly.
	The remote control takeover hypothesis.
	Here we are at the Pentagon 9-11 Memorial.
	This is where the fights take place in the Pentagon.
	See that wall over there?
	That's the corner that's most protected, actually, of the vehicle.
	The accounting wing was hit with all the financial records necessary to explain the over budget and unbudgeted expenses and the missing 2.3 trillion in transactions that Donald Rumsfeld talked about.
	According to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.
	2.3 trillion with a T!
	This area is now a memorial and chapel.
	After our meeting, I went to see it.
	And as you might expect, it is all about the official story of Bin Laden from Afghanistan orchestrating flight hijacking on the other side of the world.
	In the Hall of Heroes, which was visited by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, you can sign the guest book.
	The real heroes are the ones who work to bring out the truth about who killed the accountants and other personnel at the Pentagon.
	We are at the Pentagon Memorial. - 9/11, this is where flights of the 5 came across from this and it hit the bar.
	And there are theories about how there's such a smaller than expected People assume maybe there was no plane at all.
	But if there was a plane that didn't hit with as much force, because it exploded into bits, that's also an explanation.
	So remember there are people here who know planes.
	Military people.
	They can recognize planes.
	And they also can recognize missiles.
	So, it's very unlikely they tried that.
	The idea was to have a plane to hit the Pentagon to motivate the American public, show it's an active war, and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
	So, what could have happened is the plane came out and With explosives in the cargo bay exploding just before hitting the Pentagon, that's another explanation that needs to be investigated.
	Then it would not hit with as much force.
	It would be like hitting with gravel, not like a brick hitting the wall of the Pentagon, which had also been reinforced just for, apparently, for this event.
	The plane came over north of Sitco and then slammed into the Pentagon, right about there.
	At the Pentagon Memorial, the 9-11 Memorial.
	There's a lot of gravel around to give us a clue.
	This is what hit the Pentagon.
	A fragmented plane.
	How does a plane get fragmented?
	By explosives inside.
	So the plane comes in.
	And right out here, instead of hitting with the full force of an airplane, it's hit with gravel.
	So, the Pentagon was hit with a gravel-like airplane.
	Exploded with some kind of ordnance.
	And of course the military knows a lot about how to explode things.
	Now some people, even very smart, have said that there was no debris.
	But as you can see, there was a lot, especially inside, and scattered across the lawn.
	But how did this get here?
	So far from the hole, and laterally.
	Parts would go straight out the hole.
	They would go in the southern direction.
	They wouldn't follow a curved path around towards the west.
	This means that the part was ejected laterally by the plane exploding outside the wall.
	This is why the Pentagon has only released about five frames from the camera showing the plane impact.
	Notice the flame gets quickly to the roof.
	Why?
	Because the explosion happened just prior to impact and the flame had momentum going from south to north.
	What is missing is the plane explosion just prior to impacting the wall.
	I worked as a contractor at the Pentagon, which has anti-aircraft defenses.
	Why weren't they used?
	Welcome to 9-11 Experiments.
	Experiments you can do yourself to prove or disprove the official conspiracy theory of 9-11.
	One of the major questions about 9-11 was the small hole in the Pentagon, which has confused people.
	David Lynch also spoke on that.
	And those things for me that bother me is the hole in the Pentagon being too small for a plane, the lawn isn't messed up, and the government's not showing the plane hitting when many cameras photographed it.
	And many PhDs, even in physics and logical reasoning, concluded wrongly that there was no plane at the Pentagon.
	So why would they conclude that?
	So, it's not that there was no plane at all, but the planes were made smaller somehow.
	And how could they do that?
	Explosives.
	Explosives was a major aspect of 9-11.
	Hundreds of people saw the planes and the whole idea of the false flag attack was that planes would hit the building extensively with the hijackers on board so they don't release bullets.
	Why?
	Not because there were no planes, but there were fractured planes exploding just prior to hitting the wall of the Pentagon.
	So that it hits like gravel rather than a brick.
	There's been a lot of disinformation put out such as the planes being seen in Cleveland.
	These are just wild goose droppings that lead people on a wild goose chase.
	They see a clue, and it's causing just confusion.
	The perpetrators wanted to confuse the public, potential truth activists, and if they carry it on for 10 years, people start to lose interest.
	So, how can a plane be fractured just before it hits the wall?
	We'll do an experiment to demonstrate the difference between a plane hitting the pentagon wall and a cobalt amount of metal.
	So, I got a model.
	It's 1 to 500 scale.
	We'll compare dropping that on a piece of glass, symbolizing the Pentagon Wall, and equivalent drop of metal, fractured as if from an explosion.
	The explosives could have been hidden in the cargo bay, perhaps the wings, and this would explain the Scattering of the debris all over the lawn.
	So much that it looked like there was no debris from a distance.
	But we didn't see the large parts of a plane.
	Why?
	Because they were exploded just in time before hitting the wall of the Pentagon.
	Why would they want to minimize the damage?
	Well, it's their building.
	They don't want to do too much damage to the Pentagon.
	Especially on the side where Drums fell.
	Joint Chiefs of Staff were on the opposite side.
	The side that was hit at the Pentagon was the part that was under construction and had a very solid wall.
	So it was prepared somewhat for the hitting of a plane and it would be even more protected if that plane was fractured just prior to hitting the Pentagon wall.
	So people saw a plane and they saw a big explosion.
	They assumed that the explosion was the plane hitting the wall, which there was some, but it was an explosion just prior to hitting the wall, by this hypothesis, so that the plane hit with less force, because it would be distributed, not into one point, but distributed to many points.
	So we'll do a demonstration of this.
	Let's compare the weights of this model of a Boeing 757, the same height that hit the Pentagon, and an equivalent weight of metal, various screws and nuts.
	Okay?
	We'll put the plane, and that's 1.2 ounces.
	Okay?
	1.2 ounces.
	Okay, we'll take these various pieces of metal, and that's 1.7 ounces.
	So, we could take away a few.
	Tell you what, why don't we leave this amount?
	So even more weight is going to be hitting the wall, but it's going to be distributed.
	Okay, so we'll take this glass, And we'll support it with these little tape cartridges.
	Symbolize the pentagon ball.
	We're going to compare what happens when we drop this metal plane onto the glass.
	Compare it with the equivalent mass of nuts, bolts, and broken up metal.
	Now, in my calculations, the speed that this model will attain would be comparable to the speed that the plane was hitting the Pentagon.
	Now, they say it was about 500 miles an hour, but how do we know unless we see videos of the plane approaching the Pentagon?
	Some said that the plane went quite slow, but we'll give it a very good speed.
	First, we're going to drop From a distance of 8 feet.
	To the glass.
	Right there.
	Okay.
	Now here's The plane hitting when it has exploded.
	It's approaching the pentagon wall and it explodes.
	So we'll give it... Okay, the glass did not break.
	So the glass is not there. - Shoot it down with a bit more force.
	It didn't break.
	We see that the bits of metal hit, but in a distributed way.
	It was never concentrated at one spot.
	Okay, now let's try it plain.
	Hitting intact.
	Rope.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	Broke.
	This time, the plane Broke the glass.
	Going about the same speed as the distributed pieces of metal.
	Like the wing came off of the plane.
	So this shows that a plane intact, yes, would make a hole, but if it was shattered somehow, or exploded into little bits, it would not hit the wall with the same force.
	Enough to break it.
	So this is a hypothesis that should be considered.
	Okay, let's take a closer look at the items.
	Here's the plane that came apart.
	And the glass that was broken.
	When the plane hit with the nose of an intact plane.
	But not when the plane was dispersed into little parts.
	That explains the small hole at the Pentagon.
	It was a fractured plane.
	Not that there were no planes at all.
	That's what they are hiding.
	That's why they don't want to show any videos or photographs of the plane hitting the Pentagon because it's about to become fractured into Many thousands of little hits that scattered across the lawn.
	Even out to the highway.
	The force of the explosion.
	Explosives could have been hit in the cargo bay of the plane, along the wings, on the bottom, in order to produce the effect.
	But when the plane hit the wall with an intact nose cone, All the force is directed to one point on the wall.
	But, when there are different pieces, they're scattered.
	One hits here, one hits there, one hits there.
	It's distributed around the wall, not producing a large hole.
	That explains why many people say there's a smaller than expected hole.
	Also, the damage is dispersed very widely over the surface of the wall and onto the grass, even onto the highway.
	Well, as scientists, we want to practice good lab techniques and cleaning up.
	The lady of the house might be upset to find this material all over the kitchen.
	If you do this at home, remember there may be little pieces of glass.
	You want to be very careful to get every piece.
	Especially if there are children around, you want to get every little piece of glass.
	After that, it's a good idea to mop.
	Get any tiny little pieces of glass.
	Make sure you don't leave any little bits of glass.
	especially in the kitchen. - The goal is a new 9/11 investigation and prosecution of the real offenders.
	We'll not know for sure how 9-11 was done until the public demands a new investigation.
	So, which theory will the public accept most quickly that explains all the evidence?
	Consider the no planes, holograms, and directed energy weapons hypotheses.
	First, you have to convince the public there were no planes.
	You have to convince the public that all witnesses were duped or in on it.
	Explain what happened to the original planes.
	You have to explain what happened to the passengers, especially to relatives who know they died.
	Explain how DNA evidence could be faked or mishandled by authorities.
	Explain over 26 videos of planes crashing into World Trade Center 2, which have the same path.
	Explain the thousands of pieces of crash debris from the plane found around the World Trade Center.
	Explain how these pieces could be planted without anyone noticing.
	You have to find a witness who saw the South World Trade Center suddenly explode without a plane.
	You have to prove that holograms can look solid enough in air to fool people from all directions.
	Prove that holograms can be projected from another plane.
	Explain why no one saw a second plane projecting the hologram.
	Explain how radar signals of the plane paths could be faked.
	Explain how traffic controllers had to be in on it.
	For directed energy weapons, explain and prove that they exist.
	Prove that DEWs can be projected without anyone noticing.
	Prove that directed energy weapons have the power to bring down the World Trade Center.
	Explain the sounds of explosions heard by witnesses, including first responders.
	Explain the squibs coming out from the World Trade Center.
	Explain the four-ton beams thrown 500 feet into the American Express building.
	Explain the nano-thermetic material found in the World Trade Center dust by scientists.
	Now with the remote control takeover hypothesis, I have to explain simple 1-2-3.
	Take over the jets by Boeing's patented remote control takeover system.
	Technology known to exist to shut off pilot communications So they can't call for help, then fly them in the World Trade Center towers.
	Remote control explosives can be planted by Ace Elevator Company.
	They have seven years from 1994 to 2001, 9-11.
	3.
	Release some altered videos as bait and wild goose droppings to divide the skeptics and confuse the public until they stop caring about it.

▲