Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 2, 2024 - Jim Fetzer

01:42:53

Jim Fetzer, PhD Explains Why He Believes Holograms Were Used on 9/11

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The focus on my channel, Jim, is I try to focus on historical context to bring that to how we are where we are now.
	And honestly, I've gotten to the point where I don't even hardly pay attention to things that are going on right now because it's just, there's so much history and things to go to talk about.
	That's what I tend to focus on, just to be sharp on that.
	But I do pay attention, but not nearly as closely as a lot of other people, if that makes any sense.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	Well, I thought today since we're talking about 9-11, I'd do it in segments and invite your commentary on each segment.
	Okay, perfect.
	And I don't mean to cut you off, I apologize.
	I am not a believer in the hologram theory, so I'm interested to see the really in-depth presentation on why.
	Even though I'm not a subscriber to that notion, that doesn't necessarily mean that I am Opposed to it, I just haven't seen compelling enough evidence to sway me to that.
	I tend to believe that the planes were swapped at Stewart Air National Guard Base and that drones were then picked up and that the drones were remotely piloted in.
	You know something, I'll end with this because I want to get to your presentation, but something that I discovered yesterday for the first time was that flight 11 hit the tower at the 93rd floor and flights 175 hit the South Tower at the 77th floor.
	Now, what were the other two flight numbers?
	97 and 93.
	And 77.
	I thought that was a very interesting coincidence.
	And '93.
	And '77.
	I thought that was a very interesting coincidence.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	The floor numbers.
	First-minded the numbers of the other flights.
	Yeah.
	Flight 11 hit at the 93rd floor and flight 175 hit at the 77th floor.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's a very interesting coincidence.
	Yeah.
	It's just they're poking us in the eye, Ron.
	I mean, you're right.
	I can't, I can't argue that.
	Listen, listen, my, my evidence will suggest, I think actually prove, Two of the planes weren't even in the air that day, 11 North Tower and 77 Pentagon.
	They weren't even in the air.
	And the other two, 93 Shanksville and 175, were still in the air after they'd officially crashed.
	In fact, they weren't even taken out of service until 28 September 2005, four years later.
	So I'll go through all that, Ron, and I'm open.
	I'm absolutely open to argument, but what I do is Bring together the best experts to sort out these things.
	Of course, in the case of 9-11, I actually founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in December 2005 and brought together hundreds of experts from around the world.
	And then when Alex Jones had his American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in 2006, he invited me to give the T-Note lecture.
	And Wyndon Ciesband did a panel discussion the following day.
	The four panelists were all members of Scholars.
	Alex moderated, so.
	And then I was flown to Athens that December for a rather sensational event.
	The leading muckraker had been responsible for bringing down Greek governments.
	Had me on for a three-hour show where they had 12 panelists.
	And going in, they said, well, you know, usually only a couple speak.
	I said, not tonight.
	And I was right.
	All 12 spoke.
	He liked it so much, he extended it an extra half hour broadcast worldwide by satellite.
	Which may have been the high watermark for the 9-11 movement because, meanwhile, Steve Jones and these other guys were sabotaging the organization because I'd wandered off the reservation.
	They were promoting nanothermite as responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers.
	They weren't talking about the exposure of nanothermite?
	They were, Steve Jones and the others.
	I mean, for example, in the lobby of the hotel in Los Angeles that Saturday, I asked Steve if he still... I made him my co-chair, Ron.
	I made him my co-chair when I founded Scholars.
	I asked him if he still believed nanothermite could explain it all.
	You know, the destruction of the buildings are actually blowing apart in every direction from the top down.
	And all the rest, and he assured me, oh, yes, it could.
	But I mean, I knew it wasn't so.
	And what happened was, by November, I was open minded and had Judy Wood on to talk about her dew hypothesis.
	And on the 11th of November, and I began pioneering interaction between computers and radio, because it was a radio show, but we'd go to her website and look at the – she's got a wonderful collection of videos, clips, photographs.
	I did that 15 times, Ron, but the fact is, after the first, I think they were upset that I was clearly not buying into nanothermite.
	And undertook a sabotage operation.
	They conducted a phony vote.
	This is while I was in Athens, Greece.
	Conducted a phony ballot of membership, pretending it was real and decided to move on and create a new organization called 9-11 Truth and Justice.
	But this was Kevin Ryan and Steve Jones and a couple of others who I mean, look, the nanothermite thing, as I'm going to explain, is utterly indefensible.
	It's only got one-thirteenth the explosive power of dynamite.
	Niels Herent, who is an associate professor of chemistry emeritus from the University of Copenhagen and a leader proponent, said, when asked how much nanothermite would it take to destroy a twin tower, 29,000 metric tons!
	Wow.
	29,000 metric tons, Ron!
	That's preposterous!
	But it's because it's such a feeble explosive.
	It had to be done by something much more efficient.
	Oh, I'll explain.
	But I mean, I've spent a lot of time... There are three main hypotheses about the destruction.
	One being nanothermite, another directed energy duty, and then the mini-nuke hypothesis Which I've come to endorse, so I'll be talking about it.
	These are very sophisticated, very small weapons with minimal radiation, but basically, in a nutshell, the Twin Towers were a tube within a tube design.
	Yes, that's right.
	And the mini-nuke was in the sub-basement beneath the inner tube, and it destroyed the inner tube from the bottom up, and then we saw the explosive effects.
	of the outer tube being destroyed from the top down.
	Oh, I'll explain all that.
	Okay.
	Well, I do, I will say that I do agree that we did see a mini nuke.
	I think there was a mini nuke used at Ground Zero in New York.
	But all other stuff, I am, you know, me as a quote-unquote conspiracy theorist, you know, 9-11 was my wake-up moment back in about 2004 as a result of Daybone Kleist's Nan-Man-One in Plain Sight documentary.
	And, you know, Um, but but that said, you know, I'm that's 20 years ago now.
	So I'm I'm 20 years into being red pilled.
	I have learned never to really 100% embrace one thing.
	You know, if it's a hill that I'm going to plant my flag on and die on, if that's a 10 that I believe 100%, or if it's a 1 where I don't believe anything, and I'll plant my flag on that and say, no, that's absolutely not the case, I very rarely will get to a 1 or a 10.
	I may get to a 9 or a 2, but I'm very rarely going to get to those extremes where I'm going to plant my flag and say, this is the way that it happened and I'm going to die on that hill.
	Well, we're in harmony.
	I mean, I'm a retired professor of philosophy.
	I offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, Ron.
	So, your point is impeccable.
	I'm an expert in epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science.
	So, from the point of view of epistemology, no empirical knowledge is certain.
	That means everything we know or think we know about the world around us and historical events Cannot be known with certainty.
	So, your position is impeccable from the point of view of epistemology.
	Oh, well, I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	That gives me comfort to know that, hey, I'm kind of on the right track, or at least I believe I'm on the right track.
	Well, you seem to me to be a very reasonable guy and very open-minded, and I just like what we're doing, so I'll explain all this as we go along.
	Well, what do you say we get started?
	You got it, Ron.
	Let's do it.
	I'm waiting on you.
	I think you have your.
	And by the way, yeah.
	We're going to do the share a screen.
	Yeah, go down to the present and then present the screen.
	And then the middle tab, it should be screens or windows, I think.
	And then just choose the I think you have the PowerPoint presentation.
	You got it.
	You got it, Ron.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	And I'm going to add it to the stage.
	And I think what I may do here is I may do this right here for now.
	And let me actually do this.
	Let me take this off.
	So if we need to, I can move the screen again.
	But I think this is going to be the best screen to present.
	So I'm ready when you are.
	Well, you got it.
	You got it wrong.
	I'm very pleased you invited me.
	I'm addressing what happened on 9-11, who is responsible and why.
	Now, it's interesting.
	Architects and engineers and Judy Wood and her 9-11 group will not address who is responsible and why.
	Which means that their discussions are out of context.
	Without a historical narrative, the public has great difficulty appreciating why these technical questions about planes or no planes, nanothermite, dews, nukes matter.
	I am myself a former Marine Corps officer.
	I publish widely on the Theoretical Foundation of Scientific Knowledge, Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, and Evolution and Mentality.
	Beginning in 1992, I began serious research on JFK, where I brought together the best experts to ever study the case.
	And because I have done so much work as a professional philosopher of editing books and the like, I have two dozen.
	Standard academic works.
	It was an obvious thing to do, to bring together groups of experts.
	But ironically, in the area of conspiracy research, where I now have over a dozen books, it had not been done before.
	Now, what's most important about understanding the application of scientific reasoning to sorting these things out, which is my approach, It is too.
	Oh, there we are.
	Very good.
	Now I see you, Ron.
	Okay, good.
	Now you see me.
	Very nice.
	Puzzlement.
	See, the four stages of scientific reasoning.
	Something is puzzling, doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
	Maybe in the case of 9-11, you wonder, how could these 19 Islamic terrorists have destroyed the World Trade Center?
	You know, does that make a whole lot of sense?
	It was a very sophisticated operation.
	Speculation.
	Consider the full range of alternatives.
	That's really absolutely crucial.
	And may I say, regarding number one and number two, Alex Jones is actually pretty good.
	In this case, we know because there were 19 who are supposed to have been led by Osama bin Laden, and all it takes to have a conspiracy is two or more individuals collaborating to bring about an illegal end.
	It was, of course, a conspiracy.
	And that's why W. at one point said, don't believe outrageous conspiracy theories.
	In other words, he's saying the government's official conspiracy theory is not outrageous.
	But if you actually look at the evidence, there's no possible way the official narrative can accommodate the evidence.
	Now, here's a crucial aspect.
	Adaptation.
	Which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence with special concern for story not authentic from fabricated?
	We discovered in JFK research, Ron, for example.
	And we can go back for a comparison.
	Lee Oswald loaned demanded gunmen as official government claims or a larger scale conspiracy with multiple gunmen.
	It's very important in reasoning things through to think about the alternatives.
	Now, it turns out with Lee, he was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository when the JFK motorcade passed by.
	The Warren Commission didn't tell us.
	They actually spent a lot of time concealing it.
	Early students like Harold Weisberg, who had multiple series called Whitewash, in his second volume, 1967 Photographic Whitewash, talked about in the last few pages the trouble the Warren Commission established having concealing the fact that Lee had been captured in a famous photograph.
	Standing in the doorway of the Book Depository when a motorcade passed by.
	Yeah.
	I believe that.
	You know, if I may, I'd like to interject something that I think fits into what you're talking about here.
	And it's two very short paragraphs from the intro of Ruled by Secrecy by Jim Mars.
	And what he says here is, according to conspiracy researchers Jonathan Bacon and John Whelan, the American public's attitudes are shaped by a sanitized Disney view of both history and current events.
	The Disney version could just as easily be called the New York Times, TV News, or college textbook versions.
	The main resistance to conspiracy theories does not come from people on the street, but from media, academia, and government, those who control and manage the national and global economy of information.
	And Anthony Sutton says that basically any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside the pattern established by the American Historical Association and their major foundations and grant-making power Has been attacked or rejected, not on the basis of evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the arguments to the so-called Eastern liberal establishments and its historical official line.
	And I think kind of what you're talking about is exactly what Bush was talking about.
	He's following the historical line of the elites that really is in that upper eastern, that northeastern part of the country.
	Well, those are very nice points.
	I mean, let me just observe when it comes to, you know, throwing out the fabric, Abram, the authentic evidence, the FBI and the Secret Service.
	The day of the shooting, 22 November 1963, concluded there'd been three and only three shots fired from above and behind.
	The jack had been hit in the back.
	Not five and a half inches below the collar, just to the right of the spinal column that Conley had been hit in the back.
	And then Jack had been hit in the back of the head.
	Now, that was all true.
	But what they excluded is that earlier in the day, in fact, the whole day, two shots were being widely reported based on medical evidence.
	You may recall Malcolm Kilduff, when he announced JFK was dead, he pointed to his right temple and said it was a simple matter of a bullet Right through the head.
	Well, a bullet to the right temple wasn't fired from above and behind.
	Couldn't have been.
	There's another shot, a small queen puncture wound to the throat, widely broadcast.
	Dr. Malcolm Perry, MD, reported he had this wound to the throat.
	It was an entry wound.
	He described it three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference.
	So, the fact of the matter is, Ron, that whole afternoon and day Americans glued to their television were getting very extensive reports about two shots, both of which had been fired from in front.
	You know, like a year later, when the Warren Commission comes up with a report of three and only three shots fired from above and behind, I think subconsciously a lot of people knew something was wrong.
	In fact, that very day on NBC, Frank McGee, who is nobody's fool, says, when the reports of the conclusion of the Secret Service and the FBI come dribbling in, this is incongruous.
	How can the man have been shot from in front, from behind?
	Well, we can't.
	No, we can't.
	But the government just steamrollers the opposition.
	And of course, in short order, they'd introduce this notion of a conspiracy theorist so they could try to tarnish anyone and make them a suspect.
	If they couldn't explain every aspect of the assassination, they're supposed to be a theorist.
	And so they were speculating when, in fact, Look, I mean, on radio and television, a shot to the right temple is attributed to Admiral George Berkeley, JFK's personal physician.
	You could hardly have a more authoritative source.
	And to the throat, Dr. Malcolm Perry, and he had performed a simple tracheostomy incision right through the wound.
	And if you put, go ahead.
	Yeah.
	Have you ever seen images of Paul Tippett and JFK side by side?
	Yeah, you mean J.D.
	Tibbitt.
	Listen, listen.
	I like Robert Morningstar, who has talked about Tibbitt having been used for a body double.
	They did have a body double back in Bethesda.
	I talked with Dennis David, who was the NCO who logged everyone into and out of the morgue, and he explained they had a casket there.
	for a major otherwise unspecified.
	And he was directed not to log it in, which was contrary to protocol.
	And I believe that we see the major in some of the autopsy voter.
	Another occasion, by the way, Ron, we could do JFK. - Okay, I'm open to that. - Yeah.
	I obtained the autopsy reports on Tippett, which were done by Earl Rose in Dallas, who was an extremely good medical examiner.
	And the relationship between him and JFK is remote.
	It's really not as, yeah.
	I mean, you might think, and And Robert does have an image that's half JFK, half Tim, it makes it look like they're very much alike, but I guarantee you, you know, if you looked at the autopsy report, you can see it's clearly not.
	The same person they did use for some autopsy photographs that was a body double and is not JFK.
	And we've done superpositions to prove that it's, in fact, not the same guy.
	But if you've got the whole military, you know, to choose between, you can find somebody out there who looks a whole lot like somebody else.
	And in this case, they want somebody who looked a whole lot like JFK.
	They actually found one, but it was not J.D.
	Tivitt.
	There's a lot of story going on there for another time.
	The point I'm making is, if you've got shots to the front as well as shots from behind, then the official narrative of a lone gunman cannot be correct.
	And if you've got Lee Oswald captured in a famous photograph in the doorway of the Book Depository, then the idea that he was even one of the shooters, much less the lone demented gunman, is unsustainable.
	And in fact, I had a very interesting conversation with James Files, who, you know, has made written books claiming to have fired the shot to the right temple.
	And I took him to my favorite restaurant here in Madison.
	I reside just 10 miles south in a village known as Oregon, Oregon, Wisconsin.
	And he was telling me, you know, what we were talking about.
	We hit it off.
	I like the guy tremendously.
	He's ailing now.
	I don't know that he's going to survive very much longer.
	But we had a wonderful conversation and his wife was there and appointed me twice.
	And it applies to 9-11 as much as the JFK.
	Once a government takes out a position, it's locked in and will never change.
	In other words, the government is not An objective, scientific, even a rational entity looking for truth.
	The government defines a position it finds appropriate to the government's purposes, which I'm sorry to say are often far removed from the best interests of the American people.
	And then it'll never change.
	So that even after the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded based upon a recording of a bike by a motorcycle patrolman left on, we even hear, or there appear to be recordings of eight or ten different shots.
	That there had been a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll.
	They did some acoustical tests, but they only tested for two locations.
	I mean, they made sure you wouldn't find one.
	In fact, there were many more locations.
	But Files, I think, was cast in the role of being that second gunman on the Grassy Knoll.
	The problem is he can't account for a key feature of the situation that set up his shot to wit It was a limousine stop.
	The driver brought the limousine to a halt to set up the shot.
	And Files never acknowledges that.
	Well, if he'd been there, he would have been talking about it from the beginning.
	It was removed from the whole movies deliberately, Ron.
	And, you know, going back and forth like this works because then we get a sense of how, with regard to these truly profound events in our history, like JFK, like 9-11, The government is utterly unreliable.
	In fact, you can almost guarantee that the government is going to give you a story.
	That's right.
	And as Files was emphasizing, they're locked in and they're not going to change no matter what evidence.
	I mean, that goes back to the main, you know, for the Spanish-American War, you know, I mean, you can go back to I can find so many instances in history where the government has given us a story to pacify us and to allow them to do what they want to do.
	World War I, World War II, the Great Depression, I mean, you name it.
	It's just, I mean, there's so many instances where the government, you know, Absolutely right, Ron.
	So, just to illustrate this third principle then, if we have authentic medical evidence, and we do, the jack was hit in the throat They was hit in the right temple, they was hit in the back of the head, then it was hit in the back.
	It was one more shot, it turns out, from the side, side of the head.
	David W. Manick, MD, PhD, the leading expert on the medical evidence, had just published a new book about it.
	Wrote an article in UNZ.com, how JFK was taken out in Dallas, reporting the results of his new book.
	Well, Given the official narrative, Lee Oswald was the lone gunman firing three shots, what's the probability of the evidence he was hit five or six times from in front of me?
	Zero!
	See?
	So, well, if there were multiple gunmen, then what's Probability of shots from above and behind, obviously higher.
	You know, this even gets into your area of not having to assign a specific quantity, but just having a comparative.
	Obviously, just comparatively, the multiple assassin hypothesis, given what we know about the wounds to JFK alone, just take that as your sole evidence.
	Shows that the official government hypothesis is preposterous.
	Can't possibly be true.
	Correct.
	Now, we have to sort out, I mean, they did all kinds of, made all kinds of moves to obfuscate the evidence, Ron, including altering the x-rays to conceal a blowout to the back of the head.
	They substituted another brain for the brain of JFK.
	As I say, then they altered the whole movies.
	I mean, it's a fascinating story.
	But it leads some people to think maybe the whole thing was fantastic, meaning a concocted story, because they look at the fabricated elements and are unable to discern the reality, which is why I bring together experts in different fields.
	I had a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics.
	I had Dave Mantic, the PhD in physics, MD, board-certified radiation oncology treatment of cancer using X-ray therapy.
	So he's an expert on the interpretation of x-rays.
	I had Charles Crenshaw.
	He was Parkland in Trauma Room No.
	1.
	He was the last physician to observe the body.
	He closed JFK's eyes when he helped wrap him in a sheet and put him in the bronze ceremony.
	I mean, I'm talking about world-class experts for this purpose, okay?
	There were others.
	And we come back to JFK.
	I'll elaborate.
	The point is, We know about the medical evidence.
	We know how many times Jack was hit.
	And it falsifies some hypotheses and is consistent with others.
	Now, when the evidence tends to settle down, and I've been doing this JFK stuff since 1992, and if my math serves me, that's like three decades.
	You're about 10, 12 years ahead of me.
	So I published my first book, Assassination Signed 1998, bringing together these groups of experts to report.
	And then a second in 2020, The Murder in Dealey Plaza.
	And then in 2003, after I held a conference On the Duluth campus, the University of Minnesota, The Great Zubruder Film Hoax.
	So those three books just shattered the cover up.
	And once you do that, it's obvious who is responsible.
	I won't dwell, but let's just say it's not difficult to sort out once you have separated the authentic from the fabricated evidence.
	Now, when the evidence tends to settle down and point in the same direction, You're entitled to accept as true the best supported hypothesis, but in the tentative, infallible fashion of science.
	This is really what we were talking about before, Ron.
	Tentative, in the sense that if you get new evidence or new alternative hypotheses, you may have to revise your conclusions.
	You may have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
	And even then, and we have had new developments, but they don't alter the basics of what I'm already sketching here, and also fallible.
	That means even the best supported theory in science might ultimately turn out to be false.
	This is part of the Fallibility of scientific knowledge, why we can never be certain of anything we're claiming to know about events in the world.
	The only area where we have this complete certainty, Ron, is in pure mathematics and logic.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Two plus two equals four.
	That's indisputable.
	A thousand percent.
	You know, given the principles of elementary mathematics, cannot be false.
	And it's also independent of space and time.
	It doesn't have any content about events in the world, and that is the bifurcation.
	You can have knowledge that's certain, but it has no empirical content.
	Any knowledge you have that has empirical content cannot be certain.
	You know, I'd like to say that just to kind of piggyback on what you're doing there and going back to what I said at the very beginning when I said, you know, very, very, very few times am I going to plant my flag on the absolutely not, which is the one or the absolutely yes, which is the 10.
	And I find, in my opinion, that, you know, after Q started dropping in 2018, or early, late 2017, early 2018, I saw, I began to see a geometric increase in people who were, you know, becoming red-pilled.
	But I find that even then, and now with a lot of people waking up to the realities of stuff, people are in their, kind of their infancy of understanding of, you know, call it conspiracy theory or whatnot.
	And I think people are too easily swayed.
	They refuse or they're too easily accepting of ideas and postulations that are put out there as that is absolute fact and they're going to die on that hill.
	And I feel what that does is within our community, what it does is that it doesn't generate
	uh healthy dialogue back and forth where you pose a question challenging it and then the other person has to defend that argument and then they pose a question and the other person has to defend that argument you know where you have you kind of have the yin and the yang uh uh pulling or you know pulling against each other and pushing against each other in order to come to the to to something that is actually you know what i hadn't thought about that way but you might be right you might be on to something
	When people get that dogmatic, they just get, this is the way it is and if you don't believe it, you're stupid.
	I find that what that does is that creates more division within our community than it does healthy dialogue.
	Well, I believe it was Mark Twain who observed, it's easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled.
	Right.
	Most people just don't want to admit they've been wrong.
	I mean, it's actually very important to be able to admit you're wrong, especially if it's a matter of any degree of seriousness.
	You're right, and it's got to do with social pressure.
	Noam Chomsky talked about the use of propaganda to manufacture consensus.
	So we're all in agreement, but it's an artificial construct because it's not actually rooted in logic and evidence.
	It's actually rooted in What we've been told, you know, here's a fallacious appeals to authority.
	TV anchors aren't experts in anything except perhaps how to make a certain appearance on television.
	I mean, and yet they're reporting on those.
	Don Henley had it perfect.
	Don Henley wrote those lyrics perfectly.
	Bubble headed bleach bond.
	He's got the bubble headed bleach bond, you know?
	Yeah.
	So, so that's what we're up against.
	You know, when Sigmund Freud's Nephew was instrumental in writing the book about propaganda, and television turns out to be the most powerful instrument for its dissemination we've ever known.
	And for what you guys, for you guys, if you don't understand what I just said, go look up the song Don Henley, Dirty Laundry, and listen to those lyrics.
	And you'll be like, if you've never heard that song, go listen to it.
	And you'll understand what I mean when I said the bubble had a beach bomb.
	Anyway, continue, Jim.
	Yeah.
	Well, just as in the case of Jack being taken out in Dallas, they wanted a Patsy.
	And what we have in relation to, uh, how, how do we flip the slide?
	Oh, uh, it's on your end.
	You have total control.
	Do I now?
	Because I just sought to do it and I couldn't do it.
	Yeah, I don't know if you click the middle of the screen, does it go next?
	Oh, let me see.
	Is there, on the bottom, is there, if you highlight an arrow going left or right, is there, if you go towards the bottom of your screen, is there like invisible arrows?
	I don't see one, Don.
	This is very interesting.
	Because the origin of this is on your screen, so you need to be able to see it.
	Yeah.
	Well, let me go back and see what I can do here with that screen share thing again.
	Here we go.
	There we go.
	What just so happens on 9-11, they got a They got a call.
	So, when you move your mouse, you see the very bottom left-hand corner, or you see where the forward arrow is?
	In your bottom left-hand corner.
	Yeah, bottom left.
	There you go.
	So that goes to forward and aft.
	Okay, that's gonna work.
	Now, I don't see you at the moment.
	Is there a way of getting to you?
	It'll probably come back here.
	In fact, let me do this, and then I'll do this.
	Well, just as a nailed leaf for JFK, There was a claim of a call from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine that they were responsible for 9-11, and they just happened to have footage there.
	You're seeing a frame from it.
	Palestinians rejoicing.
	I knew immediately this was archival footage from some distant event in the past.
	And indeed, it turned out that's exactly right.
	That the Palestinians were just as slack-jawed and astonished by what happened as anyone else.
	They gave us a cover story.
	A cover story of 19 Islamic terrorists having been responsible.
	How did they know the 19 so fast?
	Well, they claim there just happened to be a convenient list of the 19 in Mohammed Adda here on the upper right luggage when he went from Boston, you know, Logan down to New York.
	It was ridiculous from the beginning.
	17 of the 19 turned out to be from Saudi Arabia.
	I mean, it was very, very odd.
	Not only that, but it turns out there was no evidence that any of the 9-11 hijackers actually boarded any of the planes.
	To believe the official story, you have to swallow an awful lot.
	You have to believe laws of physics can be suspended for a day, that planes can disappear after crashing, that Muslims accused of being suicide hijackers can still be alive after the deed is done.
	Several, including Muhammad Ali's father, said that Muhammad had called him and told him, you know, he hadn't done it, but he was scared for his life, as he ought to have been.
	Meanwhile, it turns out the passports for the hijacker were issued by the CIA.
	How about that?
	Issued by the CIA.
	If I remember correctly, if I remember correctly, wasn't, um, uh, who's the guy, um, the guy from the CIA, head of the CIA under Obama, um, drawn a blank.
	My brain fart.
	John Brennan.
	Brennan.
	I think Brennan had, had a large part to play in that, uh, in Saudi Arabia, if I'm not mistaken.
	That would not surprise me at all.
	Plus, of course, the piece name was his stars, Osama Bin Laden.
	He was supposed to be the head of the gang.
	They even made a film about him, Zero Dark Thirty, about a alleged raid on a compound in Pakistan.
	But he didn't die on 2 May 2011 during that raid.
	He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001.
	He was buried there in an unmarked grave, Ron.
	Local obituaries reported his death at the time.
	Fox and CNN.
	Both Fox and CNN on 26 December reported his death.
	He was buried in an unmarked grave, and according to Muslim tradition, he did not die in Pakistan.
	My dear friend and colleague Nick Cohen, professor of history from the UK, had published about it, Osama Bin Laden, 1957-2001.
	You can find it on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
	David Ray Griffin has a book about it.
	Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive.
	Scholars for 9-11 Truth has written about it.
	That's, of course, my organization.
	Here's a part of Nick's showing a lot of the photographs of the fake Bin Laden.
	In Orwell's novel, 1984, there's a figure called Emmanuel Goldstein.
	I am so glad that you brought that up.
	I can't tell you how it tickled it that I am that you brought that up.
	Oh, I'm just tickled to hear that!
	Yeah, because so many people don't recognize that Emanuel Goldstein was the terrorist that in 1984 everybody had to hate.
	That was who you hated.
	You loved Big Brother, but you hated the terrorist.
	And, you know, Eurasia was always at war with Europa or whatever, you know.
	It's like, you know, the history books were constantly being rewritten.
	Well, we are literally living in 1984 right now, and Emanuel Goldstein...
	Emmanuel Goldstein was Osama Bin Laden, and now it's some new... I don't even know who it is right now, but I think it's probably Putin.
	Probably Putin.
	Ron, you're completely right.
	There's just no doubt about it.
	And let me return, if I can, to the slides.
	Yeah.
	- Take the slides, yeah.
	And here, can you see it? - I see the picture.
	Oh, there we go.
	There we go.
	That's what I want.
	That's what I want.
	Wow, I had what I wanted and then I lost it.
	Here we go.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Okay.
	He actually was an officer in the CIA.
	He was actually an officer in the CIA, Ron.
	Yeah, his codename was Colonel Tim Osman.
	Yeah, Tim Osman.
	Get this, he had a visit from a Well, I guarantee you, if anybody could do it, it would be the CIA.
	Yeah, if anybody could do it, it would be the CIA.
	It's tough to get dialysis machines in and have those caves in Afghanistan.
	Well, I can't believe if anybody could do it, it would be the CIA.
	Yeah, if anybody could do it, it would be the CIA.
	You're right.
	So we even had that you may remember the the.
	I think what you're doing, if I may, I think what you're doing is you're clicking your your your left click with your right thumb.
	on the screen and it's causing it to go to the next slide.
	I think you're right.
	Well, here, remember, the Taliban, the U.S.
	demanded, this was Bush Jr., Was demanding turning over Osama and the Taliban said we'll be glad to do that if you have any evidence that he was involved and we had no evidence.
	We had no evidence because he wasn't involved so.
	He wasn't involved in that.
	He wasn't involved in the bombings at Dar Salaam, nor Nairobi.
	I don't believe that he was involved in the coal.
	I mean, those are all false flags in order to build the persona.
	Of him.
	You know, I like to talk about the movie Gladiator, and I don't want to go off topic too much here, but in the movie Gladiator, when Russell Crowe's character gets revealed to the Emperor in the Coliseum, he has to let him live because the crowd loves him now, right?
	So he can't kill him because that'll make the Emperor look like he's a bad guy.
	And then shortly thereafter, it shows him sitting around with his friends and eating, And they're like, oh, I'm he's he's hesitant to eat this porridge or whatever because he feels like it might be poisoned.
	And the black guy, the black guy in the movie says to him, you have a great name and they have to kill your name before they kill you.
	And that is very true with a lot of these suspects in in our geopolitical realm.
	They have names that they have to go by.
	The Emanuel Goldstein reference, right?
	So, their name is more important.
	That's, you know, that's why, you know, I love James Corbett thing about 9-11 in five minutes when he talks about it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It just zips through, it's brilliant, it's brilliant, it's brilliant!
	It really is.
	I'm not going to replicate that here.
	And the point I'm trying to make is that the names that we have come to associate with evil or good, whatever they be, those names are much more significant than the actual human beings behind them.
	It's the names that people recognize.
	Very good.
	Very good.
	Meanwhile, yep, you're right.
	I'm having it.
	Go to number 11.
	That's the one you want right there.
	Yeah.
	Can you see it okay?
	Leave it there, and then you can just scroll down.
	If you move over to the left-hand side, you'll be able to scroll on the slides, because you're showing slide 12 right now, or slide 11.
	Well, you've got to look at the historical context.
	The Soviet Union was on the verge of dissolution in 1990-91. - Yep. - And the neocons wanted to find a way to get the United States to assist Israel to expand to the greater Israel of Zionist dreams.
	That's correct.
	Which entailed taking a big chunk of Egypt, most of Saudi Arabia, all of Jordan, all of Lebanon, parts of Iraq.
	But they need to have a justification.
	So, virtually contingent on the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the neocons, Again, promoting the idea of a new American century, that there was now a unique opportunity for the United States as a sole remaining superpower to create an empire that would endure for the next 100 years.
	It was complete baloney.
	Yeah, it had no basis in fact, but it was politically expedient.
	And you even had Bibi Netanyahu conduct a conference—this is in 1987, 88—and published this book, Terrorism, How the West Can Win, before the notion of terrorism was on anyone's mind, but it would rapidly be developed and eventually we'd get ISIS and the whole bit.
	Here you have Richard Burr and Paul Wolowitz, who are very prominent in the neoconservative community.
	Remember now, I mean, it's not just that these guys are Jewish, it's that they're Zionists, it's that they believe in Jewish supremacy, they believe the Jews are entitled to rule the world, and they want to exploit the United States to achieve that end.
	Which continues to this very day, Ron, you know?
	I agree.
	You're not, you're not, you're, listen, you're, you're, I don't know if you know who you're talking to.
	Guys, just FYI, this is really the first in-depth conversation that Jim and I have ever had, so he doesn't really know much about me, but he'll find out.
	That's fine.
	So we had the advance of the idea of this project for a new American Sanctuary.
	Robert Kagan was one of the authors of that, wasn't he?
	That's right, Robert Kagan, who was married to Victoria Newland.
	Who, by the way, has just been talking about Trump never becoming president because something unexpected was going to happen.
	I mean, that's one of multiple reasons why I've been forced to conclude there was a real plot to assassinate him in Butler.
	But then Trump got wind of it and flipped the script.
	So it turned out to be a live hero rather than a dead Donald.
	But they sought to create the idea They realized they needed it.
	That the process of transformation—this is that lower left paragraph, Ron—even if it brings revolutionary change, it's likely to be long when absent some catalyzing, catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor.
	Yeah.
	That's on 9-11.
	We had everyone suddenly talking about a New Pearl Harbor.
	I mean, that's what David Ray Griffin uses as the title of his book about it, which was absolutely sensational.
	And I showed the first half of the Mossimo documentary last night, and I'm going to show the second half of it today with that five-hour documentary by Mossimo.
	And the title of that documentary is September 11th in New Pearl Harbor.
	So it's very well done, very thorough.
	Excellent.
	And eventually, we got the report.
	Wesley Clark acknowledged at the Commonwealth Club in California in 2007 that the plan devised by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was to take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years.
	We're talking about Libya, Iraq.
	They eventually wanted to take Syria, confront Iran.
	It went pretty well initially until in Syria, The intervention of Russian and Iranian troops at the request of the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, put an end to it.
	But it was not for lack of trying, and many believe what's going on now, including the genocide in Palestine, is intended to bring about the fulfillment of their 9-11 agenda.
	Now, if you just happened to be watching television that day, here's what you might have seen.
	No second, Clive.
	It was a bomb.
	Bombing another building, not second plane.
	It was a bomb.
	Who said it was second plane?
	We're told it was second plane.
	We saw it on television.
	Alright, thanks a lot.
	What did he say?
	How much of the plane actually impacted the building.
	You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
	The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand.
	There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around.
	which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
	Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon, you see that the floors have all collapsed.
	That didn't happen immediately.
	It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
	Jeff, it's a United Airlines plane.
	It's believed to be at that site outside Pittsburgh, isn't it?
	That's exactly right, John, with 45 people total on board.
	And one of the more profound things today, the imprint of terrorism seared not only on Wall Street but also on Main Street.
	Here you have an area 80 miles to the south of Pittsburgh and this plane which went down at about 10 o'clock this morning.
	We have rescue vehicles that came in earlier in the day and they have turned up nothing.
	No one believed to be alive from this crash.
	Some of the media just getting back to the scene which is about A quarter of a mile up on a hill back behind me.
	And so some of the first pictures just starting to come in within the last hour.
	I want to get quickly to Chris Konicki.
	He's a photographer with the Pittsburgh Affiliate of Fox Affiliate.
	He was back there just a couple of minutes ago.
	And Chris, I've seen the pictures.
	It looks like there's nothing there except for a hole in the ground.
	Basically, that's right.
	The only thing you could see from where we were was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees.
	We could see some people walking around in the area.
	From where we could see, there wasn't much left.
	Any large pieces of debris at all?
	No, there was nothing.
	Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
	Smoke?
	Fire?
	Nothing.
	It was absolutely quiet.
	It was actually very quiet.
	Nothing going on down there.
	No smoke, no fire.
	Just a couple of people walking around.
	They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around looking at the pieces.
	How big would you say that hole was?
	From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20 to 15 feet.
	How long?
	Probably about 10 feet long or 10 feet wide.
	What could you see on the ground, if anything, other than dirt and ash?
	You couldn't see anything.
	You could just see dirt, ash, and people walking around, broken trees.
	...says that City Hall in Oakland will remain open.
	It will be business as usual.
	He is urging people to remain calm.
	With given what is going on, remain calm.
	Oakland City Hall will remain open, but in San Francisco City Hall has been closed.
	We're also just getting word here now that a second United Airlines jet flight 175 from Boston to Los Angeles is now missing.
	Again, if you're just joining us, there have been four separate plane crashes.
	Three of those planes were en route to California.
	Two were heading to LAX.
	The third was heading to San Francisco International Airport.
	That was specifically the one heading to SFO United, flight number 93.
	From Newark to SFO, it apparently crashed in Pennsylvania fairly close to the border of Maryland and not too far from Camp David.
	Why is that significant?
	Because one of the groups possibly claiming responsibility for all these terrorist attacks is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and it was this week In 1978, the Camp David Accords were reached.
	Is there a connection?
	At this point, we don't know, but it is important to be aware of that situation.
	In Washington, D.C., many congressional leaders have been transferred to a secret location.
	Some senators have described this as a second Pearl Harbor.
	And President Bush was in Florida this morning, but he made a brief announcement when the first attacks were clear on the World Trade Center, and he was heading back to Washington, D.C.
	At this point, we don't know exactly where he is.
	They are trying, they're not really broadcasting that information, but we are told that the president is safe right now.
	We're waiting for a press conference to start in San Francisco from the Office of Emergency Services to discuss what the situation, what the city's reaction to all of this is going to be.
	But again, right now in San Francisco.
	And of course, later, there would be a report by Dan Brant, that are watching Building 7 come down at 5:20 in the afternoon, that this looks just like the casinos and results we've seen taken down in Las Vegas.
	And he had it exactly right, Ron.
	That's exactly right.
	Looks like one of those buildings that you would see being deliberately imploded from within, or something along those lines.
	That's right.
	A classic control demolition, and indeed it was.
	Now, it's very interesting that the security at the airports involved was provided by ICTS, which is, surprise, surprise, an Israeli firm.
	No!
	Yeah, I know, isn't that something?
	I'm shocked!
	Are you an anti-Semite?
	According to the latest definition, I surely am.
	Now look, they had that whole, what, 10 by 20?
	The plane had a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stood 44 feet above the ground.
	I mean, there's no possible way a plane had actually crashed here.
	I mean, it's just absurd how they deceive us, Ron.
	I mean, compare this with real plane crashes.
	In fact, the And that smoke, by the way, here, I think was added.
	I don't believe that was actually authentic.
	I think this is a photoshopped image.
	But look at the massive debris.
	Missouri, Amsterdam, Russia.
	There's no doubt a plane had crashed.
	And yet the first reporters on the scene, like Steve Kanicki here said, As well as did the other.
	The eerie aspect of the crash site was there was no indication any plane had crashed there.
	And there was no indication any plane had crashed there because no plane had crashed there.
	Get this.
	Here's one of the fantasy scenarios.
	Claim that, you know, the Passenger to try to retake the plane and it flipped upside down and crashed into an abandoned mineshaft, Ron.
	An abandoned mineshaft.
	That's as you see portrayed here.
	Well, we know what to do with miners trapped in abandoned mineshafts.
	We break out the bright lights and they have equipment and dig 24-7 and hope by some miracle one of them may have survived.
	But that was not done here.
	Even though, in terms of Flight 93, there were supposed to be 45 persons aboard.
	It was a 757, and that's what we had, allegedly, at both the Pentagon and Shanksville.
	And all four of these flights were only partially full.
	This one only had 45 aboard when it could handle 289.
	You wonder how a business could make a profit at that operation now.
	Here you have a photograph taken by a neighbor, allegedly.
	But it turns out, Ron, the smoke here is over a pond.
	It's not actually over the right geographical area.
	And it looks a whole lot more something from a demolition than it does from a plane crash where you get all this heavy black smoke.
	Right.
	So, you know, just more proof of the extent to which we're being deceived.
	I mean, here's a real plane crash, a real plane crash.
	Meanwhile, pilots for 9-11 Truth did brilliant work here.
	They tracked air-ground communication and they discovered that Flight 11.
	Well, this is 77 at flight 11.
	I'm talking about, they're saying, claims about 1177 and so forth might be wrong, but it's not wrong for 93.
	They go on to explain that flight 93 was actually over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, Ron, after it had officially crashed in Shanksville.
	All over Over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
	I mean, how bad is that?
	Yeah, that's very interesting.
	Champaign-Urbana.
	And you'll find eventually I obtained FAA registration records for the flights used for 175 and 93, and they weren't even formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which means they were still in the air four years later.
	Well, what about the Pentagon?
	As you know, the Pentagon released exactly five frames.
	I mean, there must be 80 different cameras surveying the Pentagon, yet all they could do is five frames.
	They have the wrong data.
	Go ahead, Ron.
	I think you're being conservative because not only did you have the Pentagon, I mean, it's the most surveilled building on the planet.
	And then you also have all of the cameras from all the buildings across the street, the gas station.
	I mean, just the traffic.
	I mean, there's cameras everywhere in Washington, D.C.
	Nothing in Washington, D.C.
	is not surveilled.
	And not only that, but then you also have satellites that are monitoring this in real time all the time.
	So it's like, if this is the best evidence that could be produced, I have serious questions.
	Yeah, well, it gets worse.
	But notice here, this first frame is conveniently labeled plane.
	And if you look right here by this gate mechanism, there is something with a white plume that does look like it could be the silhouette of a plane.
	So I asked a colleague, Jack White, if he could produce an image of a Boeing 757 proportional to the tail of what we see here.
	And notice it's more than twice as large.
	In other words, that's not a Boeing 757.
	In fact, A brilliant friend who was a top Navy troubleshooter before he resigned and went to work for Raytheon has identified what it was was an unmanned aerial vehicle, a Global Hawk, that actually fired a missile into the building.
	And while I don't have it here, we do have footage of the firing of the missile into the building.
	Now, this is supposed to be the hit point, but notice It's about, oh, I don't know, 10 feet high, 15, 17 feet wide.
	There's some chain link fence, a couple of automobiles, two enormous spools, a cable, unbroken windows.
	What's missing, Ron?
	There's no evidence from a 100-ton airliner, no massive pile of aluminum debris, no bodies, no seats, no luggage, no tail, no wings, not even the engine were recovered, Ron.
	How bad is this?
	Nor a black box of flight data.
	Nor a black box, yes.
	And here you can see before and after the collapse of that section, which, as Jamie McIntyre was reporting, only took place 45 minutes later.
	Now what's striking about this close-up when they were excavating a part of the building that collapsed is I don't see here any signs of an intense fire.
	You go way back in those frames, you saw that fireball.
	I've been forced to conclude the fireball we see here was actually a fabrication.
	It was added in.
	Because if you look at the area where that was taking place, look here on this floor, you got a wooden, what appears to be a support for an Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, it's not even... The pages are not even singed.
	The pages are not even sent.
	You got it exactly right.
	Exactly.
	Well, here's what it would have looked like.
	They claimed this plane came in.
	It was barely skimming the ground at over 400 miles an hour.
	Well, Ron, it's not even aerodynamically possible.
	No, it's not.
	Yeah, I had aeronautical engineers and pilots explain to me that that plane, a Boeing 757 at that speed, over 400 miles an hour, can get closer than 60 or even 80 feet to the ground, where 80 feet is higher than the Pentagon at 71 feet is tall.
	Literally what happens there is that you don't have enough, you can't, number one, you can't go fast enough to cause the lift on the wing, and in all actuality with the gear down, and at that speed, really what you're creating is you're creating a vacuum to suck the plane down to the ground.
	That's right, and the engines here would have torn up the Pentagon lawn, but look here!
	Isn't it the civilian lime green firetrucks that just happened to be in the vicinity?
	I don't think the Pentagon anticipated They were there putting out very modest fires, but look at the lawn!
	Look at the lawn!
	Look at the lawn, it's immaculate.
	And in fact, when the BBC did a thing, they came here and they interviewed me for eight hours, Ron, for a special they were doing on 9-11.
	They interviewed me for eight hours.
	I laid out virtually everything we have here, with the exception of how the Twin Towers were actually destroyed.
	And they used seven and a half minutes.
	They combined it with, let's see, three minutes of Dylan Avery, who'd made the film Loose Change, and four and a half minutes of Alex Jones.
	So you had the snot-nosed kid, the messianic you know, preacher and the demented, the wacky professor.
	And they just took what they thought was the least plausible of everything I explained, because, you know, we're talking about violations of the laws of physics, of aerodynamics, I mean, stuff that can't possibly happen.
	They wound up showing it, as I say, the three of us combined 15 minutes, and then they use the rest of the 45 of the hour to talk about why anyone would believe these crazy things.
	So they were working the psychobabble line already.
	But look at their own footage.
	That's a clear Pentagon lawn.
	Here's another clear Pentagon lawn.
	And this is even after those floors have collapsed.
	Now, A retired attorney from Columbus, Ohio, James Hansen, noticed there was something odd about this piece of debris.
	Can I make a guess as to what it is?
	The inside of the paint is green?
	The inside of the paint is green.
	Well, actually, there are three major points.
	This is a piece of fuselage from a 757, but it hasn't been the result of a violent crash and a fire.
	There's no signs here being exposed to any intents.
	It ought to be all crumpled up.
	And notice here, there's a piece of vine, not indigenous to the Arlington, Virginia area, Ron.
	Interesting.
	In a fuselage.
	Well, this is a very safe plane.
	There are very few crashes at 757.
	So James was able to track it back to a crash near Cali, Colombia in 1995, where the pilots lost track and they crashed into a side of a mountain while passing through a jungle where these vines are indigenous.
	And would you believe, the salvage was done by, guess what, an Israeli crew.
	No!
	How dare you!
	How dare you insinuate the Israelis had anything to do with that?
	Now here is what they thought was the most implausible, or the least plausible, I said.
	Putting all that debris out on the lawn would have been a task.
	You don't want to have a bunch of enlisted or officers coming out with pieces of debris.
	So I thought it had been dropped from a C-130 that was circling the Pentagon.
	So they went to the The pilot of a C-130 said it was absurd.
	He didn't say it was false.
	He said it was absurd.
	I still believe that's how it was done.
	But in any case, that particular piece of fuselage is utterly damning.
	I mean, they thought it was their best proof, but it was utterly damning.
	Now, the plane, the official recounting of the trajectory, is it came in barely skimming the ground and hit a series of lampposts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, in route to colliding with a building.
	Well, a plane traveling over 400 miles an hour hitting a series of stationary lampposts made of steel is going to have the same effect as if the plane were stationary and were hit by steel lampposts traveling over 400 miles an hour.
	They would have ripped open the wings, which are loaded with a fuel.
	The fuel would have mixed with air, exploded, And become, you know, a cartwheel across the lawn, which goes back to that fact that we have that clean Pentagon lawn.
	I mean, in other words, this is not a physically possible explanation for what happened.
	I agree.
	Because you do not have the effects that would variably follow had this been the cause.
	Now, this is really fascinating.
	A couple of guys who call themselves what the 9-11 investigative team, as I recall, discovered that there were witnesses at a CITGO station.
	There's a CITGO station here.
	I have that video.
	Do you?
	Very good.
	Very good.
	Here you got the official trajectory according to the government, the green line.
	But they said these witnesses at Citgo saw a plane they took to be a Boeing 757 approach the Pentagon, shown by all these yellow lines converging at the Pentagon.
	And then they saw a fireball and they assumed that it had hit the building.
	Well, a friend of mine from JFK Research, by the name of Roy Schaefer, Had a buddy who's a trucker, Dave Ball, was in front of the Pentagon when it happened.
	And Roy told me how Dave said the plane flew toward the building and then swerved over it.
	And what Roy was puzzled was that Dave still insists, even though he saw the plane swerve over it, that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.
	And I said, well, look, Roy, he's in most danger as a witness.
	If his story isn't out, if we get his story out, he's gonna be okay.
	Because then there's no reason to take him out.
	The story's already there.
	So I asked Roy to go back.
	Dave was reluctant to do it, and the next thing we knew he was found dead in an abandoned building.
	What a shock.
	Yeah, he knew too much.
	So, you know, they claim that the Pentagon, of course, has these five rings.
	Let me pause you for a second because this might actually be interesting to you.
	I have a very close friend who worked security at the Pentagon.
	Now, he wasn't at the Pentagon at the time of the attack.
	He actually worked the night shift.
	He was in the Navy.
	And he worked security forces and he was headed home when he found out that the Pentagon had been hit and then he turned around and went back And because he had a high enough level of a clearance, he was allowed to go into the E-ring where they had to go through and pick up all of the stuff.
	And he's like, yeah, he's like, I didn't see any evidence.
	I saw a lot of dead bodies, but I didn't see any evidence of aircraft.
	And I didn't see any evidence of like luggage or anything that had to do with the plane itself.
	Excellent.
	That's a great witness, Ron.
	I love it.
	But what he did say is that he watched a box truck come on to the Pentagon and they put up a fence and then a, like a, what do you call those things where you pop up a tent or whatever, you have like a little, so they put this little like pop tent up and
	And then the guys that were going into this, they had access to the inside of the box truck and they all had FBI jackets on.
	And what they were doing is they were walking out of this fenced-in area with cameras and they were putting evidence on the ground and taking pictures of it.
	So, what he says is he literally witnessed the FBI planting evidence and taking pictures of it.
	Ron, that's our FBI!
	These are the guys who are supposed to be the truth finders!
	I mean, is this outrageous?
	I mean, what a great... That guy's sensational, Ron.
	Sensational.
	I'd love to interview him if he's still around.
	Is he still on tour?
	He's a good friend of mine.
	Yeah, he's a good friend of mine.
	I'll ask him if... Ron, tell him I thought to do it.
	Meanwhile, remember, we always saw Jamie McIntyre explaining that from his own close-up inspection.
	There's no sign of any plane having hit anywhere near the Pentagon.
	He got it right, Rod.
	He got it right.
	You know, he was forced to retract, and he did it in the following way.
	He said, only a fool would deny that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
	And he was thereby saying he'd been a fool to think he was supposed to report the truth without observation.
	And he retired.
	I mean, he was the best reporter they had at CNN, but he retired as a consequence.
	And then you had April Gallup, who was a civilian employee, who said she came in for work, she brought her infant in, and when she touched her computer, wow!
	An explosion took place.
	And she said she walked out of the huge hole that was thereby created, and wow, she could smell cordite!
	She could not, she could not see any parts of any plane in any way, shape, or form.
	And when I mentioned the cordite, let me go back to this.
	It says right there on the wall, you can't quite read it, it says punch out.
	Now this is supposed to be in the seam ring.
	They claim it was caused by a part of the landing gear.
	But, but would it come in at an angle?
	This is perfectly or virtually perfectly round at an angle it would have been asymmetrical and it said punch out and they reported again the smell of cordite.
	So what we're talking about are explosives that were used to create the effects that were then going to be attributed to a plane crash.
	Now, this is Major General Albert Stubblebine, then retired, who was a former head of U.S.
	military intelligence, including signals, meaning photographic.
	He was doing an interview in Germany.
	And he was asked, you know, about the Pentagon.
	And he said it was easy to tell that no plane had hit the Pentagon because there was no imprint of the wings on the facade of the building.
	And believe me, he got it right.
	In fact, I like General Stubblebine so much.
	We did a special on an earlier show I had called The Real Deal.
	Where I went through all the evidence, just like what I'm presenting here, for the four crash sites.
	And we're only now in the second, of course, Shanksville Pentagon.
	We'll come to the North and the South Tower.
	And General Stubblebine, Ron, not only agreed with me about all my proof, but he added further reasons I was right.
	He added further reasons I was right.
	All four of the crash sites were fake, and none of them were genuine.
	He added more reasons.
	You know, I didn't realize that we weren't going to go back to Shanksville, and I wanted to share something, and I don't know if you've ever seen it.
	We can go back.
	I just want to share something real quick.
	I want to share this.
	It's going to take over your screen for a second.
	This is Aeromexico 498 that crashed in Los Angeles, I think it was like 1986.
	It had its tail sheared off by a commuter plane or by a private plane and it literally turned down and it went down almost Like in the same in the same manner that the flight would have crashed upside down.
	Yeah, right.
	Okay.
	So and then here's like a this is this this is a like a an animated picture of it.
	But this is the crash site.
	And if you look and you see all, I mean, all of the debris and everything that was there.
	I mean, it didn't penetrate the ground and go straight into the ground and get sucked up.
	It just didn't.
	That doesn't happen with airplanes.
	It just doesn't happen with airplanes.
	Right.
	You're absolutely right.
	It does not happen with airplanes.
	And it didn't happen in Shanksville and it didn't happen there.
	You're 100% correct.
	And we were talking about General Stubblebine.
	Now, later, the members of Congress were called out.
	They were told, and it was supposed to be Flight 93, that the gamble was going to be a target.
	So they came out on the steps, looked across at Potomac, and what did they see?
	Billowing black smoke.
	No, it's very peculiar, because the fire had already been extinguished by those two lime green fire trucks.
	Let me take it back, right?
	It had already been extinguished, right?
	And now all of a sudden you have all this billowing black smoke?
	So what in the world was going on?
	Well, I looked into it, and it was coming from a series of gigantic dumpsters in front of the Pentagon, and it had nothing to do with a plane crash.
	And get this, Ron, I had a member of the scholars came to Duluth, this must have been early 2006, and he shared with me 40 frames he had from some National Geographic special where you could see the daylight between the dumpsters with the smoke coming up and the building.
	In other words, this is just one more theatrical effect.
	I was just going to say, it's theatrics.
	It's done to create, to generate the appearance that there's a major fire.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Now, if you look here, this is Edward Hendry.
	He had a very early book on 9-11, and he captured from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics their pages for flights on 9-11.
	And what's important a little bit bigger.
	It's very, I can't see it.
	Can you expand the screen full on that 1 just for that 1?
	Let me see if I can do that.
	I probably can double click double click on 48. just go over there and double click on it.
	Yeah, I'm doing that, but let me see.
	See, maybe there's another way that I can get it.
	Oh, here we go.
	Hang on a second.
	It's been so long since I used.
	It's been so long since I, since I, oh, I think there we go.
	There we go.
	Here we go.
	Let me do it again.
	There you go.
	So this is a Bureau of Transportation Statistics chart showing no American Airlines Flight 77 scheduled to depart Dulles Airport on 9-11.
	It's not there.
	And, of course, it wasn't even in the air!
	I mean, how bad is that?
	I just concluded the discussion of Pentagon by recognizing Thierry Masson.
	Yeah.
	Hunt the Boeing.
	Yeah!
	Hunt the Boeing!
	You're on top of it, my friend.
	That's exactly right.
	Hunt the Boeing.
	You're getting an education because you're talking to somebody that you probably didn't know knew as much as he does.
	I love it, Ron.
	I love it.
	I'm delighted.
	You know a lot.
	I'm really pleased.
	Really pleased.
	So, I mean, have you got more questions about the Pentagon?
	Because I'm going to turn to the Twin Towers and what was going on there.
	I don't have any more questions about the Pentagon or Shanksville.
	I don't believe, first of all, I don't believe any of the four flights that were used ever ultimately crashed at their destinations that they've told us.
	I think that all four flights were Either not used or taken and put into, uh, taken someplace where the, where the crews were taken off and very likely executed, uh, you know, you know, or just gotten rid of in some fashion.
	I don't know how or what, but I mean, if they're willing to do all of this, if the, if the powers that be are willing to, to conduct an operation like this for the purposes of the very last thing that you would want would be to have living witnesses.
	Well, an awful lot of people knew what happened here.
	I mean, let me even go so far.
	I had a little old lady call me up from Brooklyn to tell me that the rabbi had told the members of her synagogue not to go into lower Manhattan that day.
	And we know that a day ago this messenger service was telling Jews who worked at the World Trade Center not to come to work that day.
	That's right.
	I believe the total number of Jews who died on 9-11 was one.
	Well, and Larry Silverstein, just who never, ever, ever missed work.
	Oh, he just so happened to have a dentist appointment at his wife's.
	Dermatological.
	Dermatological.
	Oh, whatever.
	Skin.
	Yeah.
	Whatever.
	Yeah.
	He always had, with his daughter, he had breakfast on Windows on the World, top of the North Tower, every morning.
	But that morning, neither he nor his daughter.
	Never.
	Aren't they just lucky, Ron?
	Isn't it lucky?
	So fortunate.
	And I love how the people in the World Trade Center that That we're working, uh, that we're scrutinizing things for the SEC.
	Uh, we're not, maybe not the SEC, but for private companies that were, you know, that were being, uh, that would have ultimately had to answer to the SEC.
	We're like, wait a second, there's some hanky stuff going on.
	And multiple people had questions.
	And so everybody brought all their evidence to this big old boardroom up on the fricking top of the South tower.
	And none of them survived except for one who didn't make the move.
	Well, well, it's like I go back on 9-11 at the Pentagon.
	I mean, Rumsfeld had had all the budget experts and the accountants gather in the West Wing, which, Ron, as you know, was the one wing that had been reinforced, nuclear reinforced.
	It was bereft of property and personnel, with the exception of these experts who were supposed to be tracking the $2.3 trillion.
	But he announced it the day before.
	I mean, he announced it on a Monday.
	And this is a story that's going to grow legs.
	So if you're an experienced Washington politician like Rumsfeld, you would only report that Friday in the hope it gets lost in all the weekend news.
	But he reported Monday as though he knew something.
	We're going to intervene.
	That's a great point.
	And he'd be able to waltz into the halls of Congress and ask for billions more in defense spending, which is exactly what happened.
	That is, you know what, I have to tell you, I had never considered the fact that they, because they always like to report things that they want to go away, they report them on Friday so that the people have the weekend to drink it off and forget about it.
	But if they report it on a Monday, then they have five days to talk about it.
	And I had never thought about that.
	That's very interesting.
	Yeah, good, good, good, Rod.
	Turning our attention to the Twin Towers, they were this, as I was explaining before, tube-within-a-tube design.
	Well, look, they won many architectural awards.
	They were among the most robust and innovative office buildings in the world.
	Here you can see that inner tube, the massive 47-quart columns.
	The design was to create all this open office space.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, so you had the massive 47 core columns and then they were connected to the external steel support on 230.
	They were very formidable themselves.
	We'll see later.
	Connected by steel trusses that were filled with four to eight inches of concrete, a variance being that they had four inch deep grooves.
	So in some places it was four inch deep and other places eight.
	But because the building were 208 feet on a side, What you had was each floor steel trusses filled with an acre of concrete.
	I mean, you know, the idea of planes were going to penetrate, intersecting with multiple of these floors is an absurdity, but we'll return to that.
	Moreover, I had Chuck Baldwin, who's a retired high school math, physics, and chemistry teacher, who did analysis.
	He discovered, you know, that the thickness of the steel was six inches in the sub-basement, five, four, tapered off to the very top.
	It was only a quarter of an inch.
	Which is related to the idea of the pile driver theory that, you know, these top floors collapse because of the heat and then they cause the lower floors.
	It's an absurd theory.
	This top percentage was a tiny percentage.
	You know, it's like you're suggesting 3-4% of the mass of the building could overwhelm the lower 97.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	Not only that, but John Skilling, Who is in charge of the engineering firm explained the buildings had been designed with a safety factor of 20, Ron, 20!
	That's high.
	I know, very high.
	That means each floor could support 20 times its expected load.
	20 times it could support, which indicates these were among the safest buildings in the world.
	Now, here you see the total design.
	People think of the Twin Towers, but there were actually seven buildings altogether.
	And here you can only see, you know, where the North and the South Tower were intended to be.
	Now, there was asbestos in the buildings, and there was a major renovation program also for the elevators.
	Ace Elevator is conducting what was supposed to be the largest elevator renovation program ever undertaken.
	But there was a problem with asbestos.
	Now, I'm going to get into the politics of this situation and how the World Trade Center was transferred into the private hands of Silverstein Properties, Larry Silverstein, just six weeks before the event, just six weeks before the event.
	But the fact is, the asbestos problem was well known.
	They were under an order to abate it.
	They could only do it if they constructed steel scaffolding around the buildings, it would have run about a billion bucks a building, or a classic controlled demolition, which they weren't allowed to do because all the asbestos would be exposed into the atmosphere.
	How convenient, Ron!
	Yeah.
	There was going to be a terrorist attack to take out the two buildings that Larry Silverstein needed to have removed and where, you know, he already had plans for the new Freedom Tower, which we see in New York today.
	Already they had the plans.
	So we had 9-11 and look at this.
	It's as though the terrorists had intended to take out all and only buildings with a WTC prefix.
	I mean, it was virtually a matter of surgical precision.
	And when I talk about When I talk about members of the Port Authority to transfer, they include Frank Lowry, Eisenberg, Ron Lauder.
	These are all very prominent Zionists.
	No!
	Yeah, we got, of course, Larry Silverstein.
	Would you believe he and Bibi Netanyahu are personal friends?
	They have a conversation.
	Oh yeah, they talk like once a week.
	Every Sunday!
	Every Sunday, Ron!
	Every Sunday!
	He and Bibi!
	And among the first acts he did, he fired the security firm that had been in charge of the building since it first opened in 1970 and hired, guess what?
	An Israeli firm!
	An Israeli firm!
	It is an amazing coincidence, Ron.
	At a certain point, I think that Israeli firm had at the head of the, at least at the World Trade Center, wasn't Marvin Bush in charge of that for a period of time?
	Yeah, he was involved with the company.
	That's right, Marvin Bush.
	They brought in a guy named John O'Neill to be head of security.
	His first day was 9-11.
	John O'Neill knew too much.
	Way too much.
	He was the FBI guy who knew all about Al-Qaeda.
	Yeah.
	So guess what?
	Certain parties, like Willie Brown, was told not to fly on 9-11.
	Guess who called him to tell him, Condoleezza Rice?
	Yep.
	She just happened to call her buddy Willie Brown and said, don't fly that day.
	Lots of others got the message.
	I mentioned Odego notified Jewish employees not to come to work that day.
	A Goldman Sachs big firm, they didn't have their people come in that day.
	Here, as I was explaining, we had Donald Rumsfeld explaining about the missing $2.3 trillion the day before.
	Here, you have a key player now.
	I'd say he plays a major role in your scenario, Ron, because his company manufactured remote-controlled devices for aircraft.
	It was the flight termination system, and they did that down in Florida.
	Yeah, yeah, you're right.
	We turned from there to what happened in New York with purportedly with Flight 11.
	Here it is.
	There just happened to be A French film crew.
	The Nade brothers.
	The Nade brothers.
	It just happened to be, there's a brilliant guy, Raphael, Scottish, did a study and said for the Nade brothers to be in exactly the right position to just swing up their camera to capture this hit required the satisfaction of over 100 improbable circumstances, Ron.
	Over a hundred improbable.
	And here's something else.
	You'd hear the sound.
	Let me show you.
	I actually have that clip here.
	Watch this.
	I'm going to play it here real quick here.
	And this actually is a digitally remastered clip.
	So it's going to be of a fairly high resolution.
	So it's processing.
	Go ahead.
	And when it's ready to go, I'll... You go ahead.
	You go ahead.
	Oh, I'm waiting.
	Here we go.
	All right.
	Here we go.
	I had one.
	I had one.
	So that was.
	Very good, Ron.
	That was wonderful.
	Well, a woman who called herself a web heroine did a huge amount of work on Flight 11 allegedly hitting the North Tower.
	She slowed down the video and it got what looked like a series of flying pigs hitting the building.
	And it's very curious, that impact, because this is a first-hit flash, but look at this.
	It had what initially looked like an elongated Z on the left, but later, when the smoke clears, it turns out to be an expanded V, and not only that, it extends the right wing.
	Now, that tip of that wing run is extremely fragile, The idea that you'd be able to, you know, would extend is indicative of funny business going on here.
	And of course there was a lot.
	Now it appears that behind the smoke and there was all this glitter, you know, little Making me wonder whether this is what George H.W.
	Bush meant by his thousand points of light, because, you know, these little points of light were visible here.
	Yeah, we got the plane intersecting with multiple different floors.
	I think it's seven here, eight at the South Tower.
	And remember, each of those floors, an acre of concrete on a steel truss, covered by the very formidable external steel support columns, Actually, no plane could have penetrated.
	No real plane could have penetrated the buildings.
	We'll come back to this, Ron, because I know you're going to have an argument.
	Here's part of what I have a colleague who thinks that the damage was actually done by a missile being fired at a building.
	I don't buy that, but it's interesting and he wants to make the argument.
	And then once again, Ron, once again, we have the fact that Edward Hendry had obtained I'm going to zoom in again.
	I don't know if you can hear that or not.
	I'm trying to make it silent.
	Here we go.
	Finally, I'm getting it to work.
	Showing no American Airlines Flight 11 scheduled to board Boston-Logan on 9-11.
	You know, there we have it.
	I'm going to explain in relation to 175, where we have so much more footage, how it appears to have been done.
	Ron, we're about halfway through what I have to present.
	I don't know if this would be a good place to take a break.
	Let's see, we're about an hour and a half in.
	Do you want to pause?
	Because I know you said that you overbooked yourself and you have another thing that you need to do.
	I do, I do.
	And it's on, get this, General Stubblebine was married to Reema Labow, who's a doctor.
	And it's Dr. Reema who's interviewing me now on 9-11, Ron, on this very same subject.
	Let me just mention one more point here.
	This is a final slide.
	This is actually a very good place for us to end part one.
	Over 200 Mossad agents were let into the United States under the guise of being art students, and several groups of them were known as the Gelatin Group and were given free access to the North and the South Tower.
	They did what they call performance art.
	They actually did Put, you know, hanging out in space on the external part of the building.
	And if you look here at this photograph of the gelatin group, there are all these boxes.
	These are fuse holders.
	Those fuse holders appear to have been used to implant the explosive that would blow out the cookie cutter cutouts on the side of the building.
	When we had all the smoke taking place, beneath that smoke, the cutouts were being created.
	So you got that effect, that look as though a plane had hit.
	Well, let me go back to this video real quick, the one that I just played.
	And I want to play it here.
	And then we get a last video.
	Thank you.
	Okay, that didn't do what I wanted it to do.
	But I was trying to show.
	Let me stop this here.
	Let me remove, stop sharing, and then I'm going to present a different screen.
	Yeah, let me make just one point in passing.
	Go ahead.
	Naughty Brothers is an anagram of Duane Street, which is where they were doing this filming.
	They just took the letters and rearranged them to make Naughty Brothers instead.
	Man, Rod!
	That's interesting.
	Here, now watch this.
	Okay, so I'm going to do it very slowly.
	Okay, can you see that?
	Yeah.
	The plane is coming in very slowly, and you'll see a little bitty flash on the building right there.
	That's where the flash begins to happen, right there.
	You see a little flash.
	Okay, now watch.
	The fuselage shadow will not come into contact with the building until Now, so that external flash happened because it was flown.
	It was it was launched from the aircraft.
	I believe that was the flight termination system.
	And when you look on the bottom of flight 175, everybody talked about that had that elongated thing on the bottom of it on the on the on the one on the one side of the fuselage.
	And I that's what I believe was happening in there is that it had that They launched a missile to get it into the building to ignite the explosion to make the fuel that was inside that 767, which I believe it was loaded with fuel, to make the explosion that much more brilliant.
	Now, that's supposition and speculation on my part, but that's... I remember how I explained it in Scientific Reasoning.
	We have to be open to new evidence and alternative hypotheses, because of all our knowledge, it's tentative and fallible.
	So this is going to be a perfect illustration of where we're going to have conflicting interpretations, but there'll be recent opportunity for us to sort it out and look further and for our audience to draw their own conclusions.
	Let me tell you, I'm just really impressed with how much you know about 9-11, and I'm delighted we're doing this.
	And to do it thoroughly as we are doing it requires more time than one show would take.
	So I'm delighted to come back for part two.
	Let's do it.
	I would love that.
	You know, I'll just tell you a little bit about me.
	What I do three to four weeks out of every year is I go back right around 9-11.
	I go back and I rewatch everything that I can get my hands on.
	And I do that.
	And every time I do that, I pick up something new.
	And I connect new names and dates and I see, oh, this actually connects back to that now, because now I have more, I've got a more broad base of information to, you know, to pick out names and things.
	So it's like, I because I do this once a year.
	I think what it does is it keeps me sharper.
	It's like sharpening that sword every year where I'm back in and listen and looking at this event and I firmly believe that 9-11 is one of the most significant events in the history of our country going back.
	I would say the first major obviously, there's many but in terms of in terms of diabolical tyrannical legislation that was passed the first one as a result of The first, well, they wanted to do something after the first, the trade center bombing in 93, but that didn't really have the impact that they wanted.
	The second one they did was with the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
	But then the real deal was the Patriot Act after 9-11.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	With their head on the shelf.
	Yes.
	Who's ready for the right occasion.
	I'm delighted.
	I'm just delighted with all of this and looking forward to part two.
	Let's do it.
	Well, I don't know, when are you available to come back?
	Tomorrow?
	The next day?
	Are you anything going on over the weekend?
	Actually, I might be able to do it tomorrow if you had the time.
	I think I could do it tomorrow.
	I do have something to do tomorrow, but we'll communicate offline.
	You got it.
	We'll work around your schedule, my friend.
	I think I can do it tomorrow.
	Okay, awesome.
	Well, Jim, hey, thank you so much for taking the time today to come back, and we'll look forward to having you in the next, if not tomorrow, certainly within the next week, because all I'm doing, the only content that I'm doing on my channel now up until 9-11 is basically 9-11 content.
	That's all I'm doing, just because I think it's such an important topic for people to Well, I so treasure having the time to explain these things in detail because usually you got a fixed time frame and you got to move, move, move.
	And I don't want to leave our audience behind.
	I want them to be with us every step of the way.
	Right.
	Well, Jim, thank you.
	Really appreciate your time this afternoon, and look forward to catching up with you here in the next day or two.
	Real pleasure.
	I'm enjoying this tremendously.
	Very happy to hear that, and I appreciate it.
	I take that as a compliment, and I appreciate that compliment.
	Yes, yes.
	Thank you very much.
	All right, guys, so we will be back here.
	Don't know exactly when, but keep an eye out.
	It'll be sometime probably in the next 48 hours.
	We'll have Jim back on to finish part two.
	So, Jim, thanks so much and enjoy the remainder of your day.
	Thanks, Ron.
	You too, Mike.
	You too.

▲