All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:39:10
Part 3 - Great POTUS Debates: "Donald Trump" Interviews Prof. Jim Fetzer for DNI
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Matricist Warrior Chronicles where we search for the one, part three of the great POTUS debates starring Professor Jim Fetzer as himself and the Matricist as the Honorable Donald John Trump.
Are you ready to go, Mr. Fetzer?
I am indeed, Mr. President.
Thank you for this continuing interview.
Ring, ring, ring.
This is the Secret Service.
Is this Mr. Fetzer on the line?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hold for the President.
Click.
Click.
Jim, is it you again?
This is the President of the United States.
It is, Mr. President.
Great pleasure to join you again.
Okay, my time is very limited, but we'll do what we can here.
You let me know when we have to go, or rather you have to go.
In any event, I've revised the notes I had previously because I noticed on your Bitshoot channel As the recent title, you understand this is a job interview with the leader of the United States of America, correct?
And not that of the United Anarchists.
Yes?
Please explain yourself.
Yes, of course, Mr. President.
May I say I don't put up only I have a webmaster who puts up some stories himself as well, not only mine.
Yes.
Have you seen and approved that particular video that challenges the very idea of the legitimacy of government?
Actually, Mr. President, I've not had the opportunity to review it.
Oh, okay then.
Never mind.
In any event, I did see the video, parts of it, and...
In any event, let's move on to a DVD that I had a chance to see the better part of it, called United 93. This is a documentary-style film based on the events of 9 /11.
Now, I've seen enough of the behind-the-scenes featurettes for a particular documentary, which includes interviews with the families of the passengers.
And the airplane crew members, such as the pilots and the stewardesses, reported, alleged to have died on that day.
But I have to wonder, could it be that there were two Flight 93s or something along those lines?
Or are you saying all those people seen in this movie's DVD are paid fakers, as you said was the case with the Sandy Hook families?
Well, Mr. President, as I've explained before and elaborated in multiple video presentations about 9-11, Flight 93 was still in the air after it officially crashed in Shanksville.
It was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
Pilots for 9-11 Truth establishes on the basis of air-ground communication now.
I verified.
By obtaining Federal Aviation Administration records that the physical aircraft used for that flight was not even formally taken out of service or deregistered until 28 September 2005, meaning it was still in the air four years after it had reportedly crashed.
So I'm not asserting any passengers actually aboard Flight 93 died on 9 /11.
Rather the opposite.
Now, Art Olivier has a rather fascinating, somewhat speculative, report about Flight 93 landing in Cleveland, where the mayor, whose name was White, but who happened to be Black, even confirmed he'd been to the airport.
When Flight 93 had come in, I'm not in a position to disavow those reports.
Art Olivier has a very dark aspect to this, where they're all herded into a giant container.
They don't know what it actually is, but it's to destroy airplane parts at extremely high temperatures.
In other words, basically a crematorium.
That is his speculation.
I do not affirm it, nor do I deny it, but I think it's highly unlikely and improbable and really has more the aspect of a fantasy.
But I have no reason to dispute passengers who are aboard Flight 93 being alive today, although some, of course, may have departed this earth in the intervening years since the event occurred.
Well, assuming I understand you, and I do not know for sure whether I do, it sounds as if you're saying that the physical plane not only did not crash, but continued to be in service for months or years thereafter.
However, the whereabouts of the crew are uncertain because you have personally not tracked them down so I'm going to suggest a conspiracy theory which is if in fact the screenwriter director of the film was honest and he did his best to make a movie about an actual event and if in fact the 10 or 20 or so men and
women saying We're the surviving family members of those who died.
It could be that they were lied to, and the people did not actually die in a crash in Shanksville, but were taken off the board, murdered.
Maybe this crematoria has something to do with it, and the families were led to believe they passed away heroically.
Trying to fight the terrorists leading to the crash.
You follow what I'm saying?
And does that make any sense?
Because I cannot think of any other way to resolve.
Either the DVD is a complete fraud and all these people claiming to be surviving family members of the stewardess of the pilot and so forth are paid fakers, as you said, happened with Sandy Hook.
Or the conspiracy theory I just put out is the resolution.
Your thoughts?
Mr. President, it's entirely possible that, yes, I misunderstood the documentary.
These are surviving family members reporting their grief over the loss of loved ones.
I can only assure you that their loved ones, if they are now deceased, did not die in a plane crash.
In Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9 /11.
That much I can affirm.
And your further observations lead me to be more open-minded about Art Olivier's reconstruction of what may in fact have happened to them.
More I'm not in a position at this point to say.
This is very disturbing because the The individuals that look like actual surviving family members could only be real if they were lied to about the fate of their loved ones.
The only other possibility is that they're fakers.
They're faking to be what they claim to be.
In any event, perhaps I'll send you a copy of the DVD and you can make your own surmise.
As to what is going on to resolve this conflict.
In any event, I suspect that the same would be true of the airplane that reportedly crashed into the Pentagon.
If, in fact, that plane was a guided missile, we would have to account for the alleged physical plane itself that never hit the Pentagon.
And we'd have to account for the passengers that were alleged to be on that plane.
Based upon my collaborative research, Mr. President, flights 11 North Tower and 77 Pentagon were not even in the air that day.
We have the Bureau of Transportation statistics records, which normally for every commercial carrier has a gate time, departure time, wheels up, wheels down, the whole bit.
There's no record of either of those flights from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which substantiates they worked even in the air that day, Mr. President.
And it's easy, in my judgment, to fabricate this of alleged passengers, an alleged manifest, where Others would be welcome to Mursu and see if they could find any surviving family members, you know, who claimed that they had lost.
But those two flights weren't even in the air, Mr. President, I guarantee.
When you say two flights, I have a little bit difficulty understanding your speech.
You're saying the two ones that hit the towers were not in the air?
Flight 11, which was supposed to have hit the North Tower, was not in the air.
That was not Flight 11. That was an image of a plane, but not a real plane.
And what was the name of the flight that hit the South Tower, allegedly, reportedly?
175.
Are you saying that was not in the air either?
No, Flight 175 was in the air.
Pilots for 9-11 Truth tracked it and found it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after it had officially hit the South Tower.
The physical planes that we have to account for and the passengers reportedly on those planes would be 93, 11, and the other one you mentioned plus the Pentagon one.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, there are four flights.
But none of those crash sites were authentic, Mr. President.
They were all fabricated in vain, albeit in different ways.
Flights 11, North Tower, and 77 were not even in the air that day, Mr. President.
Before we move on to the moon landing hoax, as you call it, of all the dozens to hundreds, maybe more than a thousand data points, meaning evidence, logical argument regarding 9-11, what would you say is the top
Well, the most obvious, Mr. President, is the controlled demolition of building seven, which occurred seven hours after the destruction of the North Tower.
Where Building 7 came down in a classic controlled demolition.
Every engineer, physicist, expert whose look can see, even Dan Rather at the time was saying this just looked like the controlled demolition we've seen at casinos and hotels in Las Vegas, which was completely correct.
You have all the floors coming down at the same time.
Not blowing apart in every direction, simply coming down, leaving a pile of debris equal to about 12% of the original height of 47 floors, five and a half floors of debris.
Classic controlled demolition, wasn't hit by any airplane, had very modest fires that could not possibly have caused it to collapse.
Indeed, Mr. President.
Prior to 9 /11, after 9 /11 and on 9 /11, no steel structure high-rise has ever collapsed from top fire, some of which have been consumed in massive flames overwhelmingly greater than anything we witnessed on 9 /11.
Number two would be the fact that the north and the south tower, where externally we see blowing apart in every direction, All the floors remaining stationary had to be done by a massive source of energy.
They do not collapse.
And you can contrast with Building 7 to understand that.
Had they collapsed, because they were 110 stories high, 12%, they should have left a debris pile of 13 and a half floors apiece, but it's not there.
Father Frank Morales, for example, from St. Mark's Episcopal Church, who was a first responder on 9 /11, came onto my radio shows twice and explained that those villages were destroyed too or even below ground level.
Those are decisive proofs that what we've been told about 9 /11 was totally fraudulent and unrelated to the truth.
And the third, of course, would be About all four of the crash sites being fabricated or faked, that plights 11 and 77 weren't even in the air that day, and that plights 93 and 175 were still in the air after they, according to the official account, had crashed in Shanksville or hit the South Tower, respectively.
So if I understand you correctly...
the various steel pillars in the building.
They would have to be exploded in a particular sequence.
And in order to set those explosives, And program the computer system that has them go off in the proper sequence to fall as perfectly as it did, that would have to have taken anywhere from weeks to months to set the explosives.
You cannot do that within a few hours.
So it had to have been brought down that way.
Correct?
Yes.
Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties who owned the World Trade Center.
Yeah.
So would you happen to know, for a building that size, in all your research, have you ever come across the answer to this question?
What is the minimum amount of hours, days, weeks would it take to set the explosives so that the building would come down?
In that manner.
And let's assume there is no zoning application that has to be done to get the government to approve the demolition.
This is done secretly by spies.
What is the minimum time to just set the explosives and the computer program system that will have them go off in the correct sequence so it falls that way?
Does it take 10 hours to set it for a building like that?
10 days?
10 months?
Mr. President, none of that would have made any difference.
This had been in the works since around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The transfer, supposed to begin with the transfer into private hands just six weeks before by the Port Authority of New York, which was governed by Zionist enthusiasts.
into the heads of Larry Silverstein who was a personal friend of Bibi Nanyahu, where they had conversations every Sunday.
Had it begun at that point in time, I have I follow you, but I'm not asking what is the earliest that the conspiracy was put into effect.
What I'm asking, as far as you're aware, what is the soonest?
Because to me, that is the most compelling argument, being that it visually looks like a controlled demo.
Demolition, just by the video.
And those can only be done if the explosives are set in strategic places in the various steel pillars.
There's a certain minimum time you need to do that, to make it happen.
And that minimum time, I believe, is much more than the five or six hours.
Between the moment the first twin tower went down, causing pieces of debris to fire off in the direction of the building, It would have to take a week or a month or six months or something to do that.
Ipso facto, it had to have been an actual real-world conspiracy that was brought into effect, a crime scene.
Because it could not have been done quickly enough.
In other words, the fires, I'm sure you follow what I'm saying.
Now, it does raise another question, which is, being that you recall, would you agree that in 1993, when some sort of explosive caused many people to flee one of the two Twin Towers?
I don't recall if it was the north or the south tower.
Logically, would you agree the purpose of setting that explosive in the basement in one of the buildings was to cause the tower to fall, and not only fall, but fall over into the other tower so that both towers were to fall on that day?
9 /11 was supposed to happen in 1993.
Would you agree?
No, Mr. President, I would respectfully disagree.
I believe that that explosion, which allegedly had to do with the blind cheek, It was really set off just to test, to do a seismic study of what it would take to destroy the building.
I believe that was the purpose.
It was part of the planning, not intended to bring about the actual destruction, but to provide information that would be useful in planning for what would eventually take place on 9 /11.
Well then, in theory, if it had caused the tower to fall, the tower might have fallen over.
So 9 /11 hypothetically could have occurred back in 1993, which raises another question: what is the various, based on your research, the absolute earliest, not that people said we want to bring down those towers, but they actually started to take actions.
Would you say they began in 1990, 1985, 1998?
Well, Mr. President, I'd suggest there are other experts who are better positioned to answer some of these very specific questions.
I'd recommend Joel, for example, brilliant guy, qualified in four different areas of engineering, including electrical, civil, structural, mechanical, not aeronautical.
But he, I think, would be far better positioned to offer you accurate information than would I. Okay, then.
Based on what we've discussed so far, I'm convinced that we have to go forward with an investigation.
and it sounds like in order to capture the public imagination in the so-called court of public opinion, we should begin with, on day one, televised and C-SPAN and so forth, simulcast on the web, the internet, we should begin with building seven, showing how
And technically, the explosives had to have been set not on that day, but days, weeks, months ahead of time for the building to come down, which is my understanding.
When buildings are destroyed in Las Vegas or around the world in order to build a new building, this is a process that takes weeks or months, not only to get the government to approve the demolition site and how it'll fall.
But to actually send in a crew and very carefully and methodically set the explosives on the particular places in the building so that it goes down as smoothly and as perfectly as possible into its footprint to minimize the amount of cleanup afterwards.
And the danger, they don't want the building to fall over into another building or the debris pile to be so big that it's a much more expensive cleanup site, correct?
May I add a few points, Mr. President?
It may have been done by the outfit called controlled demolition that was brought in to help clean up the World Trade Center.
How appropriate is that?
So that in addition to this being a classic controlled demolition, it was a collapse in Building 7 because it's very clean, because all the floors are coming down at the same time, nearly at the speed of freefall.
Requiring, as you imply, that all the support columns be taken out at the same time, very sophisticated, the contrast with the North and the South Tower is stunning!
Because with Building 7, you do not have any explosion outward, you don't have the floors remaining stationary, and you don't have a pile of debris that should equal 13 and a half.
So by contrast, with Building 7 as a classic controlled demolition, you make the point not only that it was a controlled demolition.
But that it was a bona fide collapse and that what we had with the World Trade Center was not, in spite of endless repetition and description of one and two having been collapses, they weren't collapses at all.
The floors remained stationary.
They didn't fall.
They didn't fall concurrently.
Visibly outside, it was being blown apart in every direction by a very powerful source of additional energy.
And when it was over, there was no pile of debris, which ought to have equaled 13 and a half floors had these been collapses.
They were not collapses.
What word would you use, if not collapse, what word would you use to describe the fall of the Twin Towers?
Destruction.
Okay, destruction.
And visually, I've seen the videos repeatedly, it looks like they're being crushed, even if it's not that way, but visually it looks like they're being crushed from the top down.
No, they're blowing apart from the drop down, Mr. President, and some are spectacular.
There's one that Judy Wood refers to as the bombler, where you just see the North Tower, just a huge amount of debris and everything going everywhere, and in the foreground is Building 7, which has yet to undergo its demolition.
There's no possible way, once the contrast is made.
Once the public is exposed to the difference between a bona fide collapse and what happened to the Twin Towers, that they should ever use that word again, because it's a deliberate misdescription as an element of a psychological operation to make us, as it were, disbelieve our lying eyes.
Because what we're witnessing is in no way, shape, or form a collapse.
No collapse whatsoever.
The North or the South Tower.
They're blowing apart in every direction, requires a massive source of energy beyond what could have been provided by the plane impact or the modest fires, which really were really just artifacts.
They occurred in order to claim that was the explanation.
When it wasn't the explanation at all, most Americans are so busy getting food on the table and keeping a...
They don't have time to look at this, but a reinvestigation that simply emphasizes the key points I've been making here ought to cause the scales to drop from the eyes of the average American.
We would agree.
It looks like destruction and not collapse.
Controlled, apparently some form of controlled destruction, but not a controlled collapse.
But I'll assert again.
If you imagine God, an invisible super powerful entity, has a gigantic fist, or if not God, what is the other name?
Zeus.
If you imagine them, how would they crush the building with their invisible gigantic fist, it looks like they're crushing it from the top down.
We agree it's blowing apart in every direction, but it starts at the top and it gradually goes down.
The question is whether it was a directed energy weapon from and maybe also some thermite was also happening at the same time in order to guarantee that those things went down.
In any event, this dustification The only question is, how was it reduced to this fine powder?
Was it by the mini-nuke, or a directed energy weapon, or a combination?
Your thoughts?
Well, we have answers to the question, the U.S. Geological Survey.
The dust studies of 35 samples in lower Manhattan had elements that would not have been present had it not been a nuclear event.
Lithium, lanthanum, tritium, a whole host, some of which only exist in radioactive form.
And may I add, the so-called dustification would be an effect of a mini-nuke in the sub-basement.
It brings about...
It also would have the effect of creating the toasted cars.
So I assert, to my knowledge, as a philosopher of science who has been studying 9 /11, there is no aspect of 9 /11 that cannot be explained by the Mini-Nuke hypothesis, but there are aspects of 9 /11 that directed energies and termite cannot possibly explain.
Well, unless a mini-nuke is a form of directed energy weapon, in the sense that, as we recall, Judy Woodruff does not get into the politics as to who did it, why they did it, Nor does she assert where the energy is coming from, as we recall, not being an expert on hard materials.
So from that standpoint, Well, that's in my trivial semantic slide of hand.
I wouldn't accept that from a freshman student in a critical theory.
and what did burn should not have burned.
Is always raising the question, where is the source of the energy?
And how far away is that source of energy?
Yes?
Well, yes, but in my opinion, even the contrast is really quite striking.
very different effects.
You didn't have anything going on in Lehina or in Remember, they're blowing apart in every direction.
That's not an effect of a directed energy weapon.
And while it's true, it's reduced the ground level in Lahaina, Paradise, and Pacific Palisades, the homes are completely destroyed.
There is nothing there at all.
But it doesn't leave the effect of massive, you know, there was like up to two inches of dust scattered throughout New York.
I mean, it converted the buildings into very fine dust, which incidentally, Mr. President, is a signature of the use of nuclear devices.
In other words, what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki looks at the end of it all.
Very much like the destruction of the Twin Towers, a pile of rubble.
Mr. President, we're talking about fourth, fifth generation nuclear devices that are dialable as to how much energy they produce.
They have much lower radiation.
We're going to talk to Joe Olson once he becomes available because we would like to see him leading the public televised Reopening investigation of 9 /11,
and unlike the previous investigation that does not even mention Building 7, as we recall, the document they produced in the end, we can do the opposite, and we can start with Building 7. Yes.
Perfect.
Start with Building 7, then contrast it with the North and the South Tower.
You're already 50% home.
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. President, I endorse that.
And we hate to belabor the point for those who have heard this discussed countless times since 25 years ago, 24 years ago.
But it's clear to us for all the investigations that we could get into, conspiracy theories that we could try to substantiate as history and fact, actual, 9-11 is...
which would go perhaps farther than anything else to bring down my nemesis, the so-called deep state.
Agreed?
It would make a major contribution toward that end, Mr. President, I agree.
Then I'll be asking Joe Olson, once he's available, something that's always disturbed me, which is, are there any demonstrations of mini nukes that have ever been set off anywhere else?
And whether or not, and maybe this was the first time ever on 9-11 that a mini nuke was used, why you see no...
or perhaps it was destroyed.
Mr. President, if I may comment, the design was a tube within a tube.
The inner tube was 47 massive core columns.
The outer tube, the 230 very substantial support columns, which are connected by steel trusses filled with 48 inches of concrete and 208 feet on the side, an acre of concrete on a steel truss for each floor.
Which, as I've explained before, is a reason why planes weren't actually able.
No real planes could actually have penetrated.
A tower, a twin tower, because they were so robust, and where body seats and luggage, parts of the plane would have fallen to the ground, but there are no body seats, luggage, parts of the plane beneath the facades of the north or the south tower where the plane is alleged to have hit, which reinforces that it was done using imaginary planes.
We saw them, but they were not real.
There's a lot going on here that I think, yes, yes, can be pursued very well by the appropriate, unfettered engineers who speak the truth.
Mr. President, frankly, every engineer in the country knew the story of the Twin Towers collapsing was a fantasy that it wasn't even physically possible.
But I believe because of federal funding, they were worried they were going to jeopardize their source of revenue.
And it had the effect of inducing a form of cowardice, and engineers across the country, when they ought to have been speaking out in a virtually unanimous voice about all of this.
Okay, then.
We'll move on to another issue at this time.
Let's talk about the...
The point I was making, because these are very specialized weapons, they were destroying the building from the bottom up, the inner tube from the bottom up, with tremendous force, and then it had the residual effects that will be observed externally from the outside, going apart from the top.
All the floors remaining stationary.
And then leaving, you know, minimal residue when had there been any kind of collapse, it ought have been 13 and a half floors apiece.
That was a point I intended to interject.
Please proceed.
And in fact, we recall it said, perhaps you can verify it, that the Twin Towers were specifically designed and built not only to stop a jet from destroying them, but to withstand Yes.
They were built to withstand the then largest commercial carrier, which was a Boeing 707.
Not just one, but multiple hits.
Like five, ten jets could hit it from different directions and it still wouldn't go down.
Maybe start fires, but the building would not go down.
Yes.
Those buildings could not collapse.
The whole story is a fantasy.
Okay.
Then we'll ask Joe to address the question, why wasn't, if in fact there was something called the bathtub, why it wasn't destroyed, and how come the bottom of the, how come the river water didn't flood and completely...
Forgive me, Mr. That's why they had to come up with this ingenious plan on how to destroy him to preserve the bathtub intact.
So they not destroy the bathtub, which would allow Hudson River water to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world.
What would you say?
Well, it's such an important subject.
What would you say?
We're familiar with this whole idea that there was a Zionist angle and the objective was to take out But other than that political motive to set off the so-called War on Terror, what would you say were the other two or three motives to bring down the towers?
We're all aware of one, which is the idea that they had to come down by the law because of asbestos, so it was, in essence, an insurance scam hoax.
A way to collect insurance money and bring them the towers without bringing it down legally because of the expense of bringing them down through traditional legal demolition.
Yes, you're correct, Mr. President.
had an asbestos problem.
They couldn't destroy the building by classic controlled demolition because it would have released a...
Constructing scaffolds around the building to have it removed physically would have been prohibitively expensive, above a billion bucks apiece, so that was ruled out.
But it was extremely convenient to have a terrorist attack, and unfortunately, the then head of the EPA, Christy Whitman, declared that the air was safe to breathe when it was anything but.
We've had an accumulation of deaths of first responders and civilians who resided in the area as a consequence, and by the latest number I've seen, have risen as high as 70,000 deaths as a consequence of the contamination of the area by these events, Mr. President.
That's a further consideration worth noting.
So, what would you say are the other motives, other than to set off the War on Terror, the so-called War on Terror, and another way to bring down the towers, to destroy it, collect insurance money?
What were the other motives beside those two motives?
Mr. President, yes, number one political to give a justification, the so-called New Pearl Harbor for the United States to become militarily in the Middle East to take out the...
Second of all, it was for domestic political purposes to reorganize the government.
It was alleged to have been an intelligence failure when it was nothing of the kind.
So they reorganized the government, took 35 independent agencies and consulted them into this massive Department of Homeland Security, which was actually modeled after the East German Stasi, well known as one of the most effective secret police organizations the world has ever known.
Bad, bad, bad.
There's a proposal, Representative Luna, to repeal the Patriot Act.
Mr. President, that would be the right thing to do.
Third and least significant, of course, is the insurance scam that you have already accurately described, where Larry Silverstein, when he came into office, not only fired the security firm that had been looking after the World Trade Center since it first opened in 1970 and replaced it with an Israeli firm, but also renegotiated his insurance policy with anti-terrorist coverage.
So because they were two Blains, he claimed double indemnity and pocketed $4.5 billion on $114 million investment.
They don't call him Lucky Larry for nothing, Mr. President.
Okay, now let's talk about the Apollo moonshots.
We've heard you rattle off repeatedly anywhere from 10...
The one that we would like to address is the alleged Van Allen Belt preventing travel without shielding.
What makes you convinced that there even is a Van Allen belt, and that's not just fake science, to scare people into the idea of space travel, unless you have a huge government budget to create the kind of craft that can shield humans so they're not harmed during the travel,
and or be a billionaire who can perhaps bring about a feat like that, such as Elon Musk, who is convinced he can bring humans to Mars, and would of course require transversing the Van Allen Belt somehow without humans being killed by the radiation or whatever other type of energy.
Put differently, we're not convinced there is a Van Allen Belt just because someone says there is.
We suspect there is, but so much of what has been called science, especially since 2020, the year of seeing clearly, as in 2020 vision.
has been borne out to be fake in the area of virology and politics in general and history brought about by the COVID super wars.
Your thoughts?
Well, Mr. President, you're going to have plenty of physicists and astrophysicists who can give you more authoritative reports about Van Allen belt and its multiple manifestations, the existence of which I personally harbor no doubts whatsoever.
But let me mention, about a decade ago, an NSA spokesman himself said the greatest obstacle to a manned mission to Mars was a Van Allen radiation belt, because it would take five or six feet of lead in order to protect the astronauts from exposure, lest they be
So we even have it from NASA itself, and I dare say even Elon Musk, whatever his virtues, and they appear to be considerable, is going to be unable to overcome the laws of physics.
He's not going to be able to establish a propulsion unit to escape low-Earth orbit and navigate the Van Allen radiation balance.
And the very idea of a man trip to Mars, in my opinion, is an utter fantasy.
But then, as you've already implied, I have over 100 lines of proof that we didn't go to the moon.
So that may be, given the vastly less ambitious character of that project, simply traversing 250,000 miles.
To this small satellite circling Earth, the evidence is just overwhelming.
We didn't have the propulsion power to escape low Earth orbit.
We didn't have the navigation.
Stop, stop, stop, stop.
You're getting to one of those famous rants.
Before you do that, bottom line is, I want you to do that, but in a more structured way.
Because you have a tendency to kick off into these things.
You're so well rehearsed because you've done it many times.
I don't want listeners who've heard you before to suffer through that again.
So I want to focus on this issue of priorities.
So you're convinced that there's a Van Allen belt.
just because you're convinced there is doesn't mean there is one.
It could be a fear tactic so people don't, in the same way that pilots, No one, to our knowledge, has attempted to get to the moon or beyond because either they don't have the money, or even if they have the money, they won't attempt it because they don't know how to traverse the Van Allen Belt.
Well, Mr. President, as I've conceded, there are far more authoritative sources on the Van Allen Belt than I am.
Are you willing to agree that there may be no Van Allen Belt?
It could be a lie.
I wouldn't suggest that any more than I'd deny there was a moon out there.
No, no, I'm convinced, Van Allen.
Mr. President, may I say- We don't wanna belabor the point.
So you're not open to the idea just because you believe something But the problem is, if the Apollo moon landings didn't happen for dozens to hundreds of reasons you could give us, that means NASA is not reliable as a source of evidence.
And you yourself have said, once someone starts lying, whether in a court of law or not, you can't trust anything they say.
You should assume that they're lying to you.
So it doesn't matter what NASA says.
When you've already convinced in your mind that NASA is not a reliable source of information.
Bottom line, we'd like to know what the most powerful reason, because you and Joe Olson have given a lot of wonderful, logical-sounding reasons why the moon landing could not have happened since 1969.
But, as you yourself have said, technology has advanced tremendously since that time.
Now we have many nukes and not just big nukes.
So it could be that there's a way to do it now.
And maybe there is a way.
If, in fact, there is a Van Allen Belt, it's possible.
I'm not saying that it's true.
I'm saying it's possible.
I'm asking you to be open to the realms of extreme possibilities, that even if there is a Van Allen Belt, there is a way to do it.
There's a lot of talk about the secret space program, after all.
All these trillions of dollars that Catherine Austin Fitz It could have gone into a secret space program.
We could have a base, we could have humans on a moon surrounding Saturn right now, for all we know.
No?
Well, as an abstract logical possibility, yes.
But as a physical or historical possibility, in my opinion, no.
We don't have the technology.
And may I say, Mr. President, to return to your previous affirmation about NASA being an unreliable source, there's an exception in the law.
To assertions that are made by parties viewed as untrustworthy that are known as admissions contrary to interest.
In other words, in the saying of it, they are implicating their own guilt, which they would not do unless it were true, given they'd have powerful motives otherwise to act.
That they can't transit the Van Allen radiation belt.
That falls into the category of an admission contrary to interest.
Whether the spokesman realized it was implying that the moon landings of 1969 and '70 were fraudulent is something I cannot address.
But I can tell you the admission was credible, and I have no doubt it's true, as falling into that special category.
You know, Elon Musk, we get where you're going with this.
It's more likely he was telling the truth, even though it implicates the falsity of the Apollo 1969 alleged moon landings, which you tell us are fake, never happened.
Elon Musk is a good friend of mine now, as a result of his work with Doge, the Department of Economic Efficiency and all that, uncovering fraud.
Would you agree with me that he certainly looks to be a man of integrity?
He seems to be trying to save America, to end these international forever wars, to have a positive future, a Star Trek-like future, some have called it.
Are you saying he's lying about the Van Allen belt?
I myself, in my speeches, have talked about us getting to the moon.
Not just as a personal favor, I'll say this privately between you and me, man to man.
I want to reward Elon for helping me so much, for supporting me, coming out and helping me win the election.
I find it hard to believe that he cannot get past the Van Allen belt, if in fact it exists out there, this radiation area that humans cannot survive without adequate amount of shielding.
Otherwise, he wouldn't say it.
Or you're saying he's a liar and there's no way to do it.
And you'd be shocked if he, even if he's sincere and believes there's a way to do it, you're convinced it's absolutely impossible and that no one will ever be able to get past the Van Allen belt.
Your thoughts, sir?
Yes, and I'd say in all probability, it will prove to be an impossibility to...
Now, calling a person a liar is something I tend not to do, because that implies they know what they're saying is false, but they go ahead and assert it otherwise in a deliberate effort to mislead the audience into believing it's true.
He may have a sincere belief, so I'm not going to go so far as to imply that he...
He must have heard of the Van Allen Belt.
He wouldn't be able to have Starlink and Space Base and Starship, all this stuff that's going on right now.
He could not do all that without having heard of the Van Allen Belt, and he would not be talking about getting to Mars.
Get your ass to Mars, as was said in the movie.
Total Recall unless he has a way to solve that problem.
That doesn't make logical sense to you?
He's an intelligent man, clearly.
Yeah, I like him a lot as I do you, Mr. President, but that does not mean that I regard either of you as unequivocal truth-tellers.
I think for reasons mostly political on occasion, you may make assertions you actually know to be false.
For the good, to be the good of the nation.
And it's difficult for me to fault you on that ground.
But as a professional philosopher, as a philosopher of science, I have a dedication to truth.
For what reason?
Okay, maybe I'm trusting Elon too much.
But let's presume I am Elon.
I am Elon Musk.
You're speaking to him directly.
What reason would I say?
Something that I know to be false.
Why would I want so much money invested in the direction of getting some sort of presence on Mars if human beings cannot be there?
Because I'm not just talking about getting ships to Mars.
I'm talking about having a human presence on Mars so that if Earth is destroyed in a nuclear war, we have another place to go.
It's the whole basis of my argument, to be a multi-planet species.
Have you not heard me say that again and again on X and otherwise?
Why would I be lying?
Just guess.
What's a possible motive to lie about it?
I'm reluctant to regard what you're saying as lies, but I do regard what you're saying to be untrue, and your motives for saying those things that appear to me to be untrue are known only to yourself.
So you're saying that I'm not aware That it's impossible.
You're saying, myself, as Elon Musk, I am aware that there's a Van Allen belt.
I'm aware it has to be resolved, that issue, in order for human beings to survive the radiation and so forth.
But I am not aware that I'm lying to the people.
I don't follow you because they either know that I'm lying and I have a reason to lie for the so-called good of the people or I don't.
I'd be fascinated in the way you would have to solve it, Mr. Musk, because so far as I can tell, it's not a solvable problem.
It's not going away.
Well, let's approach this from another angle.
I want to give you a chance to finish your thoughts.
Give you another 30 to 60 seconds.
Go ahead.
If there were some novel way of protection from radiation that was lightweight, that didn't massively increase the thrust requirements for getting objects into beyond low-Earth orbit, that might be another matter.
So, you know, all the way.
New technological discoveries that might make it possible, but to my understanding today, it is not technically possible to transit the Van Allen radiation belt with living things, human or otherwise.
Okay, good enough.
When we apologize if it sounds as though we're quote-unquote badgering the witness, with you being the witness and us the unintended prosecutor, bottom line is badgering.
However, if we use the Grok search engine and ask the question, is there a way to get past the Van Allen Belt without human tissue being destroyed?
Maybe it's already there online.
In any event, I want to approach this from another angle.
You would agree, given the vastness of time and space, it's likely that humans are not the only living species.
That there are other species and other worlds throughout the cosmos, yes?
The probability is overwhelming that life has originated on others.
Okay, and you as an agnostic, you would argue that it could be and probably that there are species that are more technically advanced out there.
Just because we don't know that they're out there doesn't mean that they're not out there.
Yes?
Yes or no?
It's a possibility, yes.
I'm asking you, is it likely?
You're saying yes, it's likely there are other non-humans, so-called aliens.
Some call them extraterrestrial biological entities.
You're agreeing that many of them, maybe most of them, are more technologically advanced.
And would you also agree that they also have some way of traveling through space?
Yes or no?
What's the probability?
Well, it's tough to judge.
I mean, this is So the question is, if we have crop circles, which is an indication of a non-human presence, and other things, the many reports out there, people that are paid to be sober, Pilots.
They're paid to be sober.
Not only have the skill to fly a plane, take off and land, but to never succumb to the temptations of drugs or other vices that could interfere with their ability to fly.
There's a vast amount of reports of UFOs, unidentified flying objects.
There's a huge body of information out there to indicate That there are non-humans with their own craft, presumably coming from other worlds.
Because the only other possibility is they're coming from either the future or the past or another dimension, an invisible dimension.
If we preclude those possibilities, they'd have to be coming from other worlds.
And if coming from other worlds, they have to have some way to transverse the Van Allen belt without their tissue being destroyed.
And it's reasonable to believe that their tissue is just as subject to that form of radiation.
Yes?
You follow where I'm going with all this?
There's some problem here that needs to be resolved, these contradictions.
I love it.
I find it fascinating.
But I must say, Mr. President, I'm not going to have any value to you if I pretend to knowledge I do not possess.
There are going to be others far more expert than I in this area of investigation and research, and I would defer to them.
On your behalf, you want to consult others about this issue, which I find fascinating, but I'm not, in my opinion, sufficiently expert to address.
Okay, fair enough.
There are some who want, in fact, quite a few out there who want to see my face added to Mount Rushmore.
And while that would be a great honor, I would be satisfied with just...
And I would like to include as one of the feathers in my cap, actually getting a human on Mars.
That would be absolutely wonderful.
And if not Mars, then the Moon.
And I'm trusting Elon to, if he hasn't already figured out a way to get past the Van Allen belt.
That he'll figure it out.
And I keep hammering on that Van Allen belt because of all the reasons you've given why you're convinced the moon landing didn't happen.
You give a lot of powerful arguments.
To us, the most important one is the problem of getting past the Van Allen belt.
Because even if you could get to the moon, if human tissue cannot survive past that point in space, it doesn't matter if you can get the physical shift to the surface of the moon.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I agree.
I agree.
And if it can't be done, I'll be utterly fascinated at first to say that I'm in a state of astonishment over something I thought could not be done.
I will be among the first to acknowledge that I was mistaken and I'm in awe of this achievement.
I cannot wait to see how the future unfolds in this regard, Mr. President.
Well, we've been going for about 60 minutes so far.
There are quite a few other subjects, and it looks like we'll have to speak again at some point.
Before we move on to Alex Jones, the Houthis, and China's Trader Joe's, that creepy, sleepy, fake president of a man, tell us, sir, of all the arguments you give, why the moon landings could not have occurred in 1969.
I think that was the year, as I recall.
What is the most powerful argument of the dozens that you've given?
The single one, if not the Van Allen Belt issue, is there an even more compelling argument that could not have occurred?
The number one in your mind?
We didn't have the propulsion capacity to escape low Earth orbit.
We couldn't have thought outside of Earth's atmosphere.
And, of course, if you pass through these higher levels, it turns out they have heat temperatures that are so high they would have melted the elements of which the spacecraft was made.
Had they endured sufficiently in those areas to heat up, they would have melted.
And of course if we got there we couldn't have got back because we didn't have the massive rocket that it took to get us out there by hypothesis to bring us back, a little tiny Most never think about, if we'd gone, how could we have gotten back?
But if we had gone, we could not have gotten back with what we claimed to have arrived with at the time.
Have you ever taken the trouble to make a numbered list of all the different reasons?
And if not, what would you approximate as the length of that list?
Ten reasons?
Thirty?
A thousand?
A hundred.
A hundred.
Have you ever taken the trouble to prioritize that list from the most compelling to the least significant, those hundred-ish reasons?
No, but it could be done.
I mean, the proof that the evidence we've been given is fabricated and fake is overwhelming, such as a flag waving on the moon's surface when it has no atmosphere, such as a footprint.
In a photograph of astronaut boots on the moon that includes a sneaker from a person from the staff who inadvertently was captured in the photograph, or the converging lines.
We have shadows that converge when there was supposed to be only one source of light, the sun so distant.
All shadows would have been parallel and non-convergent.
Those are among some of the more obvious proofs that it was elaborate fakery.
The one that we find the least convincing of all is the idea that, well, if you're on the moon and you look up, you should be able to see the stars at all times.
Now, maybe that's true, but we've always felt, well, in the daytime, when you look up, you see a blue sky.
You don't see the stars.
The light of the sun is washing that all out, so it's invisible.
So we would suspect that if you're on the moon and the sun is shining down upon you, the brightness of the sun would wash out.
All those points of light of the stars.
In other words, you'd have to be on the dark side of the moon in order for the stars to come out.
Agreed?
I disagree.
Even a Soviet cosmonaut said that, you know, from his space flights, that the stars were ablaze.
I mean, there are billions of stars.
And because you don't have the Earth's atmosphere, They're not twinkling, but there would have been billions of them, Mr. President.
There's no possible way they could have seen blackness out in space.
No possible way.
No, what I mean is when you're on the moon, it makes more sense that the sun is shining brightly upon you, that you're blinded by the light of the sun.
And so it's difficult or impossible to see the stars at that particular point.
Now, I could be wrong.
It's just something that's always troubled me.
It's one of the weakest arguments I've always felt, of the many good arguments, that that one just never held water for me.
Bottom line, in the same way that I approach these other conspiracy theories, which apparently are real events, conspiracy, not theories, but conspiracy history, did this fake moon landing, if in fact no one landed on the moon in that year, Maybe they did years later in a secret space program, but we're not talking about after 1969.
Was this treason?
Was there any aspect of the so-called fake moon landings that was treasonous?
By extension, what was the Cui Bono?
Who benefited to lie about it?
How many are still alive to this day, approximately, that had a hand in that treasonous activity, lying to the American public, and or are now conspirators after the fact to cover it up?
How many should be in prison over it, and or be required to pay a fine, and how much of a fine for this ongoing moon landing hoax?
Your thoughts, sir?
Well, it was motivated by politics, but, Vic, the first.
Space satellite had been launched by the Soviets and it appeared to create the impression worldwide that the Soviets were more advanced scientifically and technically than the United States.
So JFK inadvisably, in my opinion, declared the project of putting a man on the moon.
And it was just all wrong.
Dick Nixon, who would eventually, you know, assume the presidency after Lyndon made a decision not to run again in 1968, was willing to go along with a fraud.
And it's so obvious because he's allegedly having phone conversations with astronauts on the moon 250,000 miles away, which would have required it.
Sound delay.
Treason.
Treason.
Was any of this treasonous to the American public against the Constitution?
I wish we had laws that the government can't lie to the American people, but we put government out of business.
But didn't we?
You've often spoken of the Smith-Munt Act, if that's how it's pronounced, and Obama and all that stuff, and how you can propagandize lie to the people as of...
Right.
So, if that's all true, then you cannot legally do PSYOPs back in the 1960s and 70s, correct?
Even though, no doubt, the anti-intelligence organizations, as I like to call them, they've done all kinds of PSYOPs.
Legally, they couldn't do it.
So it would have been illegal to hoax a lending and lie about it to the public.
No?
Yes?
Let me just say that's very damn interesting, Mr. President.
The Smith-Budd Act of 1948 was fully in place at the time.
It precluded the use of the same techniques of disinformation and propaganda that were used abroad within the United States as was going on within the United States.
It was a case of disinformation and propaganda.
I think there's a case to be made here.
It might very well qualify, though the thought, honestly, has never crossed my mind before.
Now, what aspect of this is damn interesting, whether or not it's treason, and if not treason, whether it at least rise to the level of a felony, and if not rise to the level of a felony, at least be a misdemeanor?
Your thoughts?
That it might be a violation of the Smith-Munn Act in 1948, occurring in 1976.
Fascinating.
If it was a violation of the Smith-Munn Act back then, 1960s and 70s, which reportedly is when the moon, I believe the last moon landing was said to be about 1973 or 6 or something like that, as memory serves.
If it was a violation, would that rise to the level of being treason?
Well, I would welcome an investigation.
Again, I'm not an expert on the laws related to treason, but I say it's a very interesting idea.
I'm glad you brought it up.
I am learning something here.
This is good.
I like it, Mr. President.
Well, I'm seriously considering you as a Director of National Intelligence, after all, DNI, and part of that, I would insist, If you want the job, I would require you getting together with Joel Olson and the top 7 to 10 to 100 experts that we can pull from around the world to reopen publicly, air out not only 9 /11, but all the other conspiracies that you've talked about.
Sandy Hook, all of this.
Yes?
Wouldn't you love to see that happen?
Yes.
And as Director of National Intelligence, wouldn't you insist that that be part of your job to have all these things?
Your books turned into actual investigations on C-SPAN 24-7?
100%, Mr. President.
I'm your man.
What would you say would be the top 3 to 7 to 10 conspiracies that you would actually want?
Bonafide, thorough, 24-7, aired on X.com and C-SPAN and wherever else, whatever part of the fake news media would cover it.
What would be these conspiracies that you would want explored for the court of public opinion, whether or not it results in arrests, a perp walk, prison, treason, hangings, executions, or whatever?
What would you say?
I know Sandy Hook is near and dear to your heart.
There's JFK.
That's two.
9-11.
That's three.
The moon landing.
That's four.
What other ones would you want done in your tenure?
RFK.
We've already said that one.
No, no.
You said JFK.
I'm talking about Bobby.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, yes.
Excuse me.
I'm talking about Martin Luther King Jr. and the Epstein files.
That needs to be thoroughly aired.
There's so many.
They're so massive that have made such a difference.
But those would be among the top.
That's the top half a dozen or seven.
Does that cover all the books that you have for sale on your website?
I believe you've produced about six to twelve books.
Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland.
I've done a lot of research on Las Vegas, but there are a host of other of these minor events, staged events that are intended to affect public opinion.
It's mostly opposed to gun control.
Though they haven't actually had that effect, because for the most part, after these events have been staged, increase in sales and guns and ammunition has occurred.
So that's pretty interesting that in some ways at least they have been counterproductive.
What would you say all of these, let's call them, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume that you're right about everything and you're never wrong.
And these are all conspiracy histories and not conspiracy theories.
What would you say they all have in common, whether it's 9 /11, the Boston bombing, the moon landing?
Is there anything they all have in common, other than the idea that there's an official story, which is a fake official story?
They all have a political rationale, each and every moment.
The ultimate purpose being, who benefits?
To put these hoaxes on the people.
Well, usually it's powerful interests who are controlling the government who have derived the benefit.
I mean, we have also a lot of phony military stories about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
You know, when you go into 9-11, it had so many manifestations, including the slaughter in Libya.
We got ongoing today in Somalia.
Eventually even working our way to Yemen and the Houthis, Iran still in the sights of those who want to destroy the most peace-loving nation in the world, which hasn't launched a war of aggression against any other states since 1775.
Well, speaking of Iran, we've heard you say that repeatedly.
You mean to tell me that of all the so-called terrorists out there, whether it's the Hezbollah or Hamas or ISIS or any of those, You don't believe the entity called Iran and the individuals running that political entity, that nation, that state or jurisdiction, whatever, they don't fund these things?
You don't believe that they're really that peaceful?
Well, that's of course an excellent question.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I am all for Hamas.
I'm all for Hezbollah.
Stop what I'm talking about.
Forget about that word terrorist.
I'm just talking about the idea that when you say peaceful, you mean they're not engaging in aggressive acts.
Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, Iran, however you define Iran, those people in that part of the world called Iran, Persia, whatever, you're saying...
Most certainly not.
ISIS, which was created by the United States.
Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Barack Obama created ISIS in 2012.
So the Iranians had nothing to do with ISIS.
But let me say, you're talking about groups of resistance.
No doubt they have funded.
My declaration was Iran has not launched a war of aggression against any other state.
But what's the difference between funding groups of resistance, whether they're terrorists or freedom fighters, what's the difference between that and a politically open so-called declaration of war?
Well, you just said there is.
That is the difference.
I mean, look, Arabia defended itself against the onslaught from Iraq, which we— Are you saying there's a difference?
Because that's the argument about Israel, so-called Mossad, the allegation— Perhaps true allegation is, what is the strategy?
By deception thou shalt do war.
Wouldn't it make sense that Iran, through deception, does war?
In other words, that they're funding groups that are actively engaged in hostile activities to the so-called enemies, their perceived enemies, real or perceived or actual?
Your thoughts, sir?
I may be...
There may be a parallel there, but Iran, to the best of my knowledge, is not engaged in assassinations, for example, but it could be.
I mean, you know, the tactics that the Mossadis used have been extraordinarily effective.
I've not thought of an equivalence there.
But I would open to further exploration of the issue here.
It has seemed to me, however, that Iran is a non-aggressive nation, that it's not trying to manipulate other nations in the world by coups and financial investment and so forth, such as the United States has through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and even sending in the Marines.
If there's a degree of difference, it's a degree of difference that in my judgment represents a distinction in kind.
I do not see Iran as having committed offenses of the magnitude or character that the United States and Israel have committed that lead to their having a status of rogue state.
Out of control in terms of the international world community of nations.
Iran, I think, is very centrally located among those who are upholding international law, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions.
The US and Israel, however, alas, are not.
Bottom line is you're open to the idea that they do have their own agents, call them spies.
Call them freedom fighters.
Call them terrorists.
That they're doing something, despite outwardly, openly, no declaration of war, that they're doing something that is antagonizing their neighbors.
Or do you feel Israel and /or any of Israel's allies, such as the United States, there's no basis for wanting to end the existence of Iran?
Or at minimum preclude their so-called right to have a nuclear weapon.
Unless you're convinced they already have nuclear weapons, so that whole thing is a canard.
Well, they don't even want nuclear weapons.
Frankly, they merely have more sophisticated than nuclear weapons.
They have plasma weapons, I'm told.
They have hypersonic missiles.
I think Iran is...
And if Israel launches an attack on Iran, Israel is going to be very surprised by the enormity and the devastation that Iran can inflict in response.
Why then do you believe I continue to say Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon when you're convinced, A, they don't have one?
And even if, B, they do have one, they don't need one because they have more sophisticated weapons and /or can respond with such devastating force.
As Joel Olson says, by the time the planes are firing rockets at Iran, they cannot get home because Iran would destroy the airfields.
There'd be nothing to return to, including destroying the major cities of Israel.
Propaganda, Mr. President.
I've been talking about Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon for decades.
It hasn't happened.
They've disavowed.
They don't want them.
Even you, Mr. President, I'm very troubled to say, have talked about Iran wanting to get nuclear weapons when it appears to be completely untrue.
What is your suspicion as to my motive?
Why do I keep talking about this?
They can't have a nuclear weapon.
I think you're supportive of Israel that you are sufficiently embracing of the Zionist ideology to pursue issues where, frankly, given your declaration as a candidate, wanting to end the stupid wars, and to be a non-interventionist, which I endorse 100%, that you're being affected by none other than Bibi Netanyahu or I.K.A.
Bibi the Butcher.
It's been all for genocide.
Why?
Why?
What do you believe?
What's your best guess?
Am I a religious fanatic in support of Zionist Israel objectives for a greater Israel?
Or is it they have some blackmail on me and I have to do certain things?
Not everything maybe they want, but certain things?
Just your speculation as to what drives me, sir.
Oh, I'd say there's a combination.
I believe you actually converted to Judaism in 2017.
I believe you are very devoted to Israel, that you actually are putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.
massive donation to your campaigns earlier by Sheldon Adelson, now by his widow, Mary, have made a profound effect.
I think you have been influenced.
Mr. President.
Well, I can assure you, if in fact you're hired as DNI, you're going to see some things you've never seen before in the files that may cause you to think differently.
Let's move on to my other friend and ally, Alex Jones.
On what evidence do you say that he's controlled opposition and or a limited hangout?
Have you off and on listened to at least a dozen or more, perhaps as much as a hundred as I have?
Parts or all of his many rants from his videos over the years?
No, I have not actually, Mr. President.
I've seldom watched Alex.
Our most positive interaction was in relation to 9 /11 when he organized the American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in June of 2006, where he invited me as founder of Scholars for 9 /11 Truth to give the keynote address.
And where the four members of the panel on Sunday, which was recorded by C-SPAN and then broadcast seven or eight times, ran an hour and 45 minutes, were all members.
Scholar Steve Jones, physicist from BYU as my co-chair, Bob Bowman, who had a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from Caltech, had been the advisor on Star Wars projects to President Reagan and Ford.
Webster Tarbley had authored the book.
Sir, please answer the question first before you get into collateral issues.
What evidence do you offer, being that you've hardly ever listened to him, that he's either so-called controlled opposition and or a limited hangout?
And I'm not saying he is or he isn't.
I just want to understand your perspective.
It's not particularly something I've...
Many commentators have observed that Alex would not talk about Israel and Israeli influence on historical events or over our Congress until of late.
How do you mean of late?
That Alex would not talk about it until recently?
It's come to my attention more recently that he's talked about Israel on his show, which he hasn't done in the past.
There's been some speculation that his wives were Jewish and were his handlers to keep him on the straight and narrow.
And of course, If I may say, Mr. President, your crackdown on Harvard and student protests, in my opinion, could not be more wrong and inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
But we're not talking about Harvard.
We're talking about Alex Jones.
Yes.
I felt as an ally, supporter, he's cheerleading my and my administration's work a great deal recently.
Before and since the November 5th, when we finally returned.
Bottom line is I have listened to Alex many times.
I do so in my free time when I can.
Whether it's part or all of his rants, I would say I've listened to him anywhere from a dozen to hundreds of different times.
And he's been very critical of Israel at times, and in particular of Bibi Netanyahu.
And in fact, he prides himself on the fact.
Well, maybe Pride is not.
He has pointed out that no one has interviewed more of the surviving members of the Liberty attacked by Israel.
He has said it very clearly.
Whether I agree or not, he does make those acts.
He even accuses me of doing things from time to time.
He's not happy with my relationship with the vaccines and other issues.
That's all welcome news, Mr. President, because he has a vast audience.
And I'm very glad to hear those reports from someone who's following him more closely than am I. I mean, I'm hardly an expert on Alex.
And I pretty much think he does a lot of good because he raises a lot of issues that are important issues and brings in alternative points of view, which the mainstream generally does not.
So I've applauded that from the beginning innumerable times.
He does not typically follow through to assess the evidence in detail or which hypothesis is best supported, but that's okay.
I think he's doing a lot of good for the country by and large.
Obviously, I was disappointed that he didn't stand fast on Sandy Hook because he had early reporting that was very good, including one of his right there.
Yes, what are your thoughts on that?
What are your thoughts?
Do you believe that he, A, doesn't know you exist?
Actually, he would have to know you exist because you've interacted with him directly, your testimony minutes ago.
So he knows you exist.
Does he know that your book about Sandy Hook exists?
Has he interviewed you on the subject?
How could he not know, as a friend once said, and the question is not how do they know, the question is how could they not know?
Yes.
Well, during the video deposition in Connecticut, he asserted that he'd never read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which I found incredible, because here you have the only objective scientific investigation.
Has he interviewed you about the book or about the subject?
He has not, and he ought to have.
It would have been a good thing.
Have you asked him to?
Have you asked or asked people you know to contact and say, please contact Jim?
I could do that.
I could do that.
I think that's a great idea.
He has a phone number.
Almost every few days he gives out his phone number.
I have it somewhere in my records.
And I believe if you go to Infowars.com, there's an email address that you can use to send in whistleblower reports.
I love it.
I think it's a great idea.
There are developments in my case here in Dane County.
That would be very worthy of being reported on his show for his vast audience.
Hard to believe, but then again, you're such a busy guy continually researching the news and putting out content.
Has it never even occurred to you to send him an email, give him a call, or ask audience members to do it for you?
Say, talk to Jim, interview him about Sandy Hook.
Not that he would.
Maybe he wouldn't.
It's a great idea.
I'm going to follow up on that, Mr. President.
Maybe we'll have new news about Alex, me, and Sandy Hook to report at our next conversation.
Now, I'm not an expert on this issue, but as I recall, whether he...
This could be a pointless line of effort in the sense that...
One of his accusations, in addition to the bankruptcy proceedings he's been having to be enduring and all the lawfare he claims he's a victim of, as a consequence of the default judgment against him, the claim being that I couldn't have a trial, I was simply declared guilty, and I had to...
Put differently, to quote HRC again, the Hillary, what does it matter whether Sandy Hook was a hoax if he's presumed to be guilty of hurting the feelings of the family members by talking about it in a way that they don't like?
Hurting feelings?
Hurting feelings is in the ground of defamation, and it's most certainly no violation of First Amendment, and he was shortchanged by the courts, no doubt about it.
And what does it matter if he does interview?
Let's say he interviews tomorrow, he gives you all the time you need to show, to give the top 10, 50, 100 reasons why Sandy Hook had to have been fake, that no one in fact died.
How could it help him in his court case?
Again, I'm not against it.
I would love to see you talking to him on this issue.
Rather than continually interrupting you, as he does with most guests, the moment he can think of something to say, he interrupts.
I really hate listening to interview people sometimes.
He's a guest when he's ranting and not talking to someone.
Would it be of any benefit for him to give you this time on air?
Your opinion, sir?
You have tremendous benefit, incidentally.
I volunteered to be A witness in his cases in Connecticut and in Austin, an expert witness, to explain how we know that it was a charade that was a FEMA drill where nobody died.
That was presented as mass murder to promote gun control, and there was no interest.
In fact, both sides opposed me.
I also made that volunteer in the Remington case, and both sides, both the plaintiff and the defendant, did not want to hear.
Well, this is not surprising, given that you yourself got railroaded in your own lawfare having to do with Sandy Hook.
We're convinced that you were, in fact, you were a victim of lawfare, just as I was, by the so-called deep state.
Did you approach him before or after knowing that...
They'd already decided he was guilty, and the only issue to be discussed was how much money he owed for his crime.
Very similar to what happened to me.
Did you approach him knowing that he was pronounced guilty?
Yes or no?
Oh, no, it was before.
It was while the cases were going on.
I mean, there wouldn't be a point in my appearing as a witness later on, unless it would be to mitigate damages.
I was even in contact with his attorney.
Could it hurt him?
Could it hurt him potentially?
Being that you yourself have been railroaded in every way possible, you may still prevail on Sandy Hook.
Given the change of the administration, my promise that the government will not weaponize, the DOJ will not be weaponized.
In fact, you might want this new attorney who's in charge of the pardon department, the pardon attorney, I forget his name, he also will be in some sort of anti-weaponization of government.
You may want to reach out directly to him.
There is a direct email for the pardon attorney department in the DOJ.
That's great.
You've given me two excellent suggestions, Mr. President, but I have four appeals pending before the Court of Appeals District, four right here in Wisconsin, and because they're so damaging to the judge in this case, he retired.
He retired from the bench five and a half years early.
His name, coincidentally, was Frank Remington.
He retired from the bench five and a half years early when his term was only over in one August.
In 2030, he retired on May 3rd.
I believe in anticipation of having the case removed from him by being recused or even being removed from the bench because I'm alleging criminal conspiracy between him and the Posner attorneys to deprive me of my constitutional rights under color of law.
And it's a matter I'll be glad to go into in great detail when next.
We have the opportunity.
Well, to me, this is beside the point, because if there's one thing I've learned about politics, and I suspect you know, and I have to state the obvious, to quote Hillary again, what does it matter?
To quote Virginia Kennedy, a disbarred Virginia lawyer years ago, she was saying the facts and the law don't matter when you're dealing with a corrupt court.
And more often than not, you are.
There's a vested interest for the...
The moment the decision is made to get an arrest warrant to go after you, there's an intent to arrive at a certain conclusion, no matter how much time, money, and energy they have to spend.
So, put differently and simply put, the particulars of your case are only relevant as far as the day-to-day Moment by moment decision, what you're going to put on paper or say during oral argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that really matters so far as winning is strategy.
And the most powerful strategy is having connections in the old boys' network.
In other words, if I make the right phone call to Pam Bondi for her to say the right thing to the pardon attorney, the anti-weaponization of government, your case in the Sandy Hook issue will just go away.
It will just be gone.
Regrettably, this must be my last contribution to our conversation today due to conflicting commitments.
But the American people are entitled to know the truth.
They have been sandbagged.
They've been deceived.
They've been played for suckers and saps.
What is it about?
San Diego, Boston bombing, Orlando, Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, Las Vegas.
They deserve to know the truth.
9-11, JFK, and on and on.
Yes, yes, yes.
And that's my role, to contribute to exposing the truth, because I believe Americans are entitled to know the truth about their own history, Mr. President.
I'm not disagreeing with you, sir.
I'm simply saying that if I make the right phone call, your problems will just go away.
The thing of it is I can't be, you know, I have reason to believe you're not recording this.
You promised me that you're not doing this as a man of integrity.
And I, I, I just can say that I will do what I can, and I can assure you that if you do the initiating, reach out to Penn Bondi, reach out to Alex Jones, reach out to the pardon attorney, the anti-weaponization, you might be surprised the changes that might occur.
You have to initiate.
You have to play dumb.
And don't say I'm your friend.
Don't say I help you.
I had anything to do with this.
Mr. President, I thank you for all your support, and I'm looking forward to our fourth and final interview in the near future.
Much appreciated.
Okay, then.
We're not done with Sandy Hook, but I'll finish the last two or three questions.
And, in fact, you see in the script that we had emailed to you before this conversation began.
Stay on for a moment or so as the Secret Service signs off with you.
I apologize for interrupting, but I have to go.
And I look forward to our next conversation.
I'll be glad to answer or attempt my best every remaining question you have, including, of course, extensively about Sandy Hook.
No problem.
Again, Secret Service will be on the line next in a few seconds.
Goodbye, sir.
▲
Export Selection