Jim Fetzer - Real Deal Media's 9/11 Debate: Jim Fetzer VS Richard Gage (6 September 2025)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 8, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

02:12:03

Real Deal Media's 9/11 Debate: Jim Fetzer VS Richard Gage (6 September 2025)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know, Australia is supposed to be the land of free thought and liberation of any hierarchy of the patriarch, correct?
	Well, this came to my attention here.
	Somebody posted this.
	This is in Perth.
	This is a book place.
	And look at the sympathy of this little bookstore for children of what they're doing with drag queen story time.
	This is unbelievable.
	And there's not much pushback against this probably until tonight.
	There's the fake Lucio Ball.
	And it says the following, for nearly five years, we've held a regular drag queen story time with incredible storytellers.
	Someone's baby who just offered their baby to like the Aztec gods, Lucio Ball from hell, who's preying on the children.
	And this is all the way in Perth, Australia.
	In the theme of diversity, I mean, I'm going to do my own story time now.
	I'm going to do my own story time.
	I figured if the ugliest Lucio Ball drag queen from hell can do it, why can't Dean Ryan?
	Why can't Dean Ryan do his story time for kids?
	So I wrote a book over the weekend, just in case you were wondering.
	And here it is.
	You're the first to see it.
	It's now called Drag Queen Piñata, Tolerance for the Mexican Tradition by Dean Ryan.
	And that's Drag Queen Piñata, Tolerance for the Mexican Tradition by Dean Ryan.
	And I'm telling you, I think it's going to be a big hit.
	And I'm talking about the hit that little Timmy's going to be doing, but I think it's going to be just a marvelous success.
	In fact, I even hired Lucio Ball to be the first hit and be the actual piñata.
	I think that's going to be a lot of fun.
	So that's going to be my story time for the kids.
	Who knew I had an inner children's author inside me, right?
	Right.
	I mean, that's diversity, isn't it?
	think so.
	In the two decades since one of the most frightful days
	in American history darkest days, courage, and the amount of it, comes from a place of solitude.
	a place where freedom lies is the reason America and a unity we haven't seen since, ever since 2001.
	Now, two of the most prominent leading men of the 9-11 truth movement have come together to debate some of the most cofficient issues happenings that took place on September 11th.
	Now, enter the bottle of your potence.
	No second fly, it was a bomb.
	All right.
	What a night it is.
	Indeed, Real Deal Media presents.
	Real Deal Media presents the 9-11 debate.
	Yes, it is.
	What an exciting night to be alive.
	Good evening, everybody.
	This is a one and done kind of deal, a one and only rare occasion here at Real Deal Meeting, as it is the 9-11 debate.
	I am Dean Ryan, your debate host, moderator to some, as tonight is quite the spectacle.
	We're going to be seeing two legends take the stage here in Duke and Out like we've never seen before.
	And a real, real precision of an argument between planes, no planes, bombs, thermite.
	Who knows?
	And really, who wants to know?
	So let's not waste any more time.
	And now let's welcome to the stage first here.
	You may know him from the shows that I do with him each and every week.
	He hosts his own show, and he does a lot of shows and many, many books he's authored.
	He's a gentleman who was the original founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, the one, the only, the legendary Jim Fetzer.
	Jim, welcome to the stage.
	Oh, Dean, I'm so pleased to be here and with Richard Gage, whom I admire immensely for the efforts he's done to create public interest and concern over 9-11, especially by focusing on building seven, which without any doubt is the Achilles heel of the whole deception.
	There you go.
	See how Jim likes to butter up his opponents before he goes in for the kill.
	I love his strategy.
	Okay.
	Our next patron here tonight is a man who is I met in Mexico many years ago, and we had a great time and we just exchanged the ideas and food for thought.
	One of the founders and of the architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth, a man who's really inspired the hearts and minds across the world about what really happened to those towers.
	Let's welcome the one, the only Richard Gage.
	Richard, welcome.
	Hello, Dean.
	Hello, Jim.
	Great to be here with you guys.
	This is going to be awesome tonight.
	And yeah, I agree that Building 7 is the piece of evidence that knocks everything over.
	And since we agree on building seven tonight, we're not going to discuss that.
	I'm going to miss it personally.
	Yes, that is true.
	That is for a good point there.
	Okay, let's, this is how it's going to work here.
	As we have both gentlemen that are ready to go here, is we're going to see just who's going to be the winner here tonight.
	Towards the end of the debate, we're going to be asking the live chats as we are broadcasting live on the Realty and Ryan over there on Facebook.
	Yes, we are.
	As well as Dean Ryan TV on the highly shadow banned YouTube channel over there on Dean Ryan TV and the newly frozen Rumble.
	We're going to be asking everybody to vote towards the end of the event here.
	And the winner wins a prize from the Realty Media Store.
	Isn't that something special?
	And I believe a five-day cruise too, depending.
	So let's get it on here tonight.
	Okay, let's get back on the stage here as I'm going to set it all.
	Is everybody okay with that?
	We got the rules here.
	Jim, are we good with that?
	Richard, we're all good.
	I'm good with the crews.
	Vote for me.
	Vote for me.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	No cheating too.
	No, no hitting, no biting, all that stuff.
	But we're going to tackle two major differences, right?
	Would you say there's at least two major differences between both of you?
	At least.
	Yes, at least.
	Okay.
	You know, one of the big ones that comes to mind, I think is we're going to talk about first here is nukes versus no nukes and thermite.
	Am I correct on that?
	I hope I'm seeing the right terms on me.
	Okay, so because I don't have any bias at all, no favorites.
	It's got to be your favorite, Dean.
	I can't be.
	Well, I can't be bribed.
	That's for sure, Richard.
	I can be bribed, as you mentioned earlier.
	We're going to flip a coin here, as you can plainly see here.
	We're going to flip a coin here.
	I have a quarter that is, well, it was left in my pocket during laundry night.
	But anyways, I'm going to ask the guys to tell me what they want.
	Heads or tails.
	Jim, heads or tails?
	Sure, heads.
	Heads.
	Okay.
	Okay, heads.
	And then you'll get to choose if you want to go first or last.
	Are we good with that?
	Okay.
	Go.
	Okay.
	Well, this is a little too hard.
	He lost the coin, Jim.
	You know what?
	From this angle, it looks like heads to me.
	I defer to Richard to proceed.
	I'm glad.
	Okay, yes.
	It's live television.
	Anything and everything will happen.
	Go ahead.
	Richard, your choice.
	You want to go first or last?
	Oh, is that what you're saying, Jim?
	Or did you make your choice?
	I won the tossing and I elected for Richard to go first.
	That's what I thought.
	Okay.
	So Jim wants me to go first.
	I'll go first.
	Richard will go first.
	And then we'll get to Jim's small presentation on nukes.
	And then we'll have a little bit of chance to rebuttal and I'll throw some odd-end questions to you.
	Okay, so let's get going.
	Well, just in terms so everybody understands the structure.
	We're each going to give a 15-minute presentation.
	Is that right, Dean?
	That's right.
	And then we're going to have five minutes to rebut that 15-minute presentation alternatively.
	And then we're going to do that for no planes as well.
	So stand by.
	It's going to be quite an easy thing.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	I don't want to show all my cards, but go ahead and I will be awaiting.
	Go ahead.
	Richard Gage, everybody.
	Here he goes.
	All right.
	Thanks so much.
	Great to see you guys.
	Thanks for attending.
	And would you go ahead, Dean, and share my screen for me?
	And I appreciate that.
	And one other thing here.
	Let's get going.
	By the way, most of this evidence that you're going to see today, well, much of it, is going to be in Washington, D.C. at our conference, Turning the Tide.
	So I want to invite everybody to it.
	If you can't make it to Washington, D.C., which will Tucker is addressed, Tucker Carlson is addressing the conference.
	And Ron Johnson is Senator Ron Johnson addressing the conference.
	And so many other family members, firefighters, live conference in person, 300 people in Washington, D.C. If you can't be there, watch it on redacted.
	Well, you can get there by visiting our website, richardgage911.org.
	You can watch the live stream for free.
	Clayton Morris will be streaming all three days.
	So we're going to begin today with the evidence of extreme heat.
	Now, this is not disputed between Jim and I.
	We both talk about extreme heat.
	It's the source of that extreme heat.
	Well, the FEMA did their metallurgical examination on the steel.
	What did they find?
	Never before observed.
	Intergranular melting, turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese with rapid oxidation and sulfidation.
	Sulfidation doesn't come from nuclear weapons.
	Liquid iron doesn't come from nuclear weapons.
	Hot corrosion attack on the steel.
	Not with sulfur, nuclear weapons.
	Sulfur is added to thermite to become thermate.
	Much more effective at cutting through steel.
	So it's the source of this heat that's in question.
	And we have 2,500 degree temperatures.
	We have molten iron pouring out of the South Tower minutes prior to its collapse.
	Was that molten iron created by nuclear weapons minutes before the collapse?
	In all likelihood, not.
	And so this is not lead.
	This is not aluminum.
	Those don't glow bright orange yellow in daylight conditions.
	So we're finding the evidence of thermite.
	And in the 90-minute presentation that I gave on night one of this three-night series on Dean's platform, you'll find lots and lots more evidence that I don't have time to give you.
	What I do want to share with you is that we have iron, molten iron.
	This is not created by, again, thermite.
	Molten iron is the byproduct.
	Excuse me, it's not created by nuclear weapons.
	Molten iron is a byproduct of thermite.
	Sulfur is added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel.
	So we have the source of the molten iron.
	We have the source of the sulfur.
	And it's in the dust, too.
	The U.S. Geological Survey finds billions of what?
	Previously molten iron microspheres, billions of them, up to four tons in all the World Trade Center dust.
	This is not created by nuclear weapons.
	This is created only by thermite.
	The EPA says this is a signature component of the World Trade Center dust.
	We don't know what it is, where it came from, but these previously molten iron microspheres are, if they are not in there, then it's not World Trade Center dust.
	So we have lots of additional support and evidence and sources and documentation of these molten iron droplets.
	Where do they come from?
	Well, you burn thermite and you get what?
	Molten iron droplets.
	If we threw out all the World Trade Center dust, we not only have the evidence of ignited thermite, we have the evidence of unignited thermite.
	Team of eight international scientists led by Niels, Harrot and Copenhagen find, in all these seven independently collected chips that were sent to them the same thing.
	They find aluminum and iron.
	And anyway right, aluminum and iron.
	Uh, so that's the ingredients of thermite.
	These particles are at the nanoscale.
	They're found at that size a thousand times smaller in a diameter of human hair throughout all the World Trade Center dust and every all of these chips all seven samples that they collected found have these.
	So this is not made by nuclear weapons either.
	These are unignited chips of nanothermite and this is developed by Lawrence Livermore LAB early on.
	They call it superthermite.
	It's explosive composites based on thermite reactions at the nanometer scale.
	What do these red-gray chips produce when they're heated?
	They produce molten iron microspheres.
	So they're producing the molten iron microspheres, not nuclear weapons.
	As if we didn't know where these spheres came from, they're found attached to partially ignited red gray chips, as you see here and here.
	This is all in a 25 page peer-reviewed paper in the Bentham OPEN Chemical Physics Journal, produced in 2009.
	Nuclear weapons cannot create unreacted thermitic material incorporating nanotechnology.
	This isn't all the World Trade Center dust, along with the previously molten iron microspheres.
	So let's look at the twin towers and see if nuclear weapons are bringing them down or not.
	Watch the lower red line, the point of plane impacts.
	This building is being destroyed uh not, it's not destroying the.
	The upper section is not destroying the lower section, it's being destroyed in and of itself.
	It is going down smoothly symmetrically, right from this block up above.
	Now we're told and we'll get to that that there's a nuclear weapon going off in the basement that's coming up all the way and somehow magically stopping at the red line and starting this series of explosions which then travel down the building.
	So what would have kept that needle of plasma, as is hypothesized from uh, from just going right on up through the roof?
	What we have?
	Open elevator shafts uh, in in the core of the building.
	Um we, we also have uh well, we'll come to that.
	We have 156 first responders that are talking about explosions.
	Flash flash, flash.
	They're seeing at the lower level of the building.
	Uh, with popping sounds, initially in orange, and a rigged flash came out of the building.
	Uh saw a number of reef light sources Being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15, you saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by what?
	A crackling sound, not a boom, like a nuclear weapon before the tower collapsed.
	Now, this is happening before the tower collapsed.
	Flash, flash, flash.
	Then it looked like the building came down.
	You ever see professional demolition charges, they say?
	And there's 156 of these first responders talking like this.
	When I heard that friggin noise, I figured that's when the building came down.
	Pop, pop, pop.
	That's not a nuclear weapon going off.
	That's a series of explosions.
	We've seen these.
	We've heard these before, like the old hotels when they come down in Las Vegas, for instance.
	An explosion in the South Tower hit about the fifth floor.
	I figure it was a bomb because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing.
	Several that explosions that are synchronized, not one.
	And the building was blowing out on all four sides.
	You actually heard the pops.
	You heard the pops of the building.
	Well, these explosions are picked up 20 miles north from Pacific Palisades, and they occur at the time of the plane impacts, a 0.9 magnitude.
	Not at the time of the point plane impacts, but actually when they occur 14 seconds before the plane impact occurs.
	So there's an explosion before even the plane impacts, which means there's bombs in the building that went off even before the plane impacts.
	Same with the North Tower, the South Tower.
	In this case, 17 seconds before we have bombs going off before the plane impact.
	Now, NIST has their way of fudging this data, and you can see more detail about that in the 90-minute presentation on Dean's platform.
	But what were those explosions?
	Well, bombs had gone off in the basement before the plane impact.
	This is many witnesses, including Willie Rodriguez and dozens of others, are witnesses of explosions in the basement before the plane impact.
	There's no nuclear bomb going off before the plane impacts.
	I don't think Jim will suggest that.
	But we also have explosions before the building collapses.
	How far in advance?
	Five seconds.
	The seismic signals occurring five seconds before the building even collapses.
	And that's important.
	And the same thing occurs over in the corrupt.
	By the way, this is corroborating the results of the witnesses of the first responders.
	So we also have the same thing in the South Tower, in this case, seven seconds before the first debris even strikes the pavement.
	There's a bomb going off.
	Excuse me, there's seismic signals that are being detected.
	Well, we talked earlier about how this needle plasma ray went up.
	Well, then after it gets, somehow it magically stops at the point of plane impacts and then works its way back down somehow.
	We have explosions going off in the South Tower, just like the firefighters described.
	Second, synchronized floor by floor, like a belt, all these explosions, individual explosions, zooming in and looking at the leading corner of these explosions.
	We have in this looped video a dozen independent, relatively small explosions, altogether, hundreds and hundreds of them.
	This is not a nuclear weapon going off.
	This is a series of explosions that are synchronistically timed, just like the firefighters described, and just like we can see here right before our eyes.
	And so we have to ask ourselves, what happened to the concrete?
	Well, 90,000 tons of concrete was pulverized in mid-air.
	As a matter of fact, what's pulverizing the concrete?
	This is where Jim and I disagree.
	We found that concrete is pulverized by temperatures, high temperatures, 1,500 degree Fahrenheit temperatures, which is not high for thermite.
	We have three, four, and 5,000 degree temperatures documented by official sources, many of them.
	But what happens to concrete?
	It turns to white powder, decomposed hydration products, sand, gravel, and cement powder.
	It's fire safety journal says same thing at 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit.
	Concrete specimens subjected to a temperature of 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit were completely decomposed.
	Concrete decomposes.
	That's what's decomposing the concrete.
	Thermite, 3,000 and 4,000 degrees, heating up the concrete floors, melting the metal decking and evaporating the lightweight steel trusses, none of which are found at the bottom of the pile.
	So it's not the detonation speed that Jim will argue that thermite doesn't have, and I tend to agree with him.
	It's the heat that pulverized all of this concrete.
	Now, how did they get this material in?
	Well, they might have had during the fireproofing upgrades that occur in the months and years prior to 9-11 at the point of jet plane impacts, a dark operation, painting the bottoms of these floors with nanothermite.
	They also had access through the core columns and beams, core columns in the building, which had immediate access to the, excuse me, they had access to the elevators in the building that had immediate access to the core columns in the beam, in the building.
	But they would have had to have gone through all of the elevator hoistways, creating a lot of dust, which was picked up by witnesses, amazing amounts of dust in the weeks before 9-11.
	They had an elevator modernization.
	It was the largest one in history.
	So here's the needle that Jim will be talking about.
	And we discussed somehow it magically stops at floor 100 or 90 in the North Tower.
	And how does it do that?
	I want to hear that from Jim.
	Richard, you got about a minute and a half, about two minutes left.
	Okay, thanks.
	Well, we also have a question of radiation.
	And I'm going to suggest that there's no evidence.
	This is from AE 911 Truths FAQ, frequently asked question number 15.
	No evidence exists for the elevated levels of alpha, beta, and or gamma radiation consistent with nuclear blasts.
	No evidence exists that the WTC destruction in the aftermath in the elevated radiation levels consistent with a nuclear blast.
	We have quite a lot of radiation that would be produced, an extremely loud bang, which was not heard, and one bang, and brightness levels that are 10,000 times brighter than the sun, they say.
	So we also don't have, this is a long FAQ, and I refer you to FAQ number 15 and AE 911 Truths.
	If nuclear blasts had occurred at the World Trade Center, we'd have many secure acute radiation syndromes cases.
	And we don't have this.
	Nothing from those conditions.
	we can't assume that the WTC cancer cases are related to radiation.
	There's a host of problems associated with that theory.
	The tritium that's found is way below the levels that would be expected in any nuclear event.
	The U.S. Geological Survey does not prove radioactive fallout in the UK.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	Richard.
	Yeah, Richards, sadly, we have to end it there, but you did a great job.
	You know, I'm sure Jim's going to have a lot to dissect when we get to that point.
	But all right, so let's get Jim on the floor here.
	You did very well.
	Very well.
	Thank you very much.
	Richard, we'll come back to you.
	Okay, here, let's go here.
	Jim, are you ready?
	Are you ready to follow that act right there?
	Go right ahead.
	Okay, so you're going to hear Jim's take on the potential, if not more than possibility, of nukes.
	Here we go.
	Just a word or two about Richard's early slides.
	I think when you had the lifter, you know, holding, it was glowing, that that was actually fabricated evidence, because if it were that hot, it would have been transferred through the metal to the device and it would have been unable to operate.
	Plus, what seems to be leaking from the building is not molten iron, but the Fiji Bank building had a whole series of batteries there, and they appear to have been melting from its lead.
	It's not molten steel.
	Good point.
	Should we allow Richard to respond?
	You want Richard to respond to that real quick?
	He's going to have a rebuttal afterwards, Dean.
	See?
	Okay, we'll give it to him some more.
	He can take it.
	Yeah, let's do my slides.
	Yeah, here, of course, is what it looked like originally, just as a reminder, because I'm going to draw a contrast, and I'm not only going to talk about, you know, Richard's views, but others as well.
	Here we go.
	It was a tube within a tube design, the 47 massive core columns to create this open space.
	We had, of course, the thickness of the steel from the bottom very thin at the top.
	Yet what we witnessed was this blowing apart in every direction from the top down, not the kind of crunching jam-pack that the government insists occurred, which wasn't even physically possible.
	As Chuck Baldwin has observed, for every unit of downward force in those top floors, there were 118 units of upward.
	John Skilling, who designed the building, said they had a safety factor of 20, meaning every floor could carry 20 times its expected load.
	The whole idea of a collapse, of course, is manifestly absurd when we look at this event.
	And frankly, how anyone could think this would be a result of nanothermite combined with conventional explosives is bewildering to me.
	A nanothermite is incendiary.
	It does achieve high temperatures, but it has very limited explosive force, only 1 13th the power of TNT.
	And even combined with conventional, it could not have brought about an effect of this magnitude, which is simply stunning.
	Here we have, of course, that molecular dissociation of part of the core column of the North Tower, which Judy Wood likes to emphasize in her desire to promote the idea that directed energy weapons were involved here.
	But it would also have been an effect not of nanothermite, but of the use of nuclear devices, which similarly bring about molecular dissociation.
	The buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which incidentally is a signature of the use of nuclear devices conversion into very fine dust.
	We had Trump, of course, talking about there had to be other factors involved that day, that bombs had to have been used.
	And I submit he was on the right track.
	Yes, it's correct that Hans Palmer has described the destruction as a matter of a mini nuke in the sub-basement, destroying the inner tube from the bottom up, and then having the effect of blowing apart the outer tube from the top down.
	If you look at Palmer's report, you find it's coordinated both what's going on inside with what was taking place externally and essentially vaporizing the inside of the Twin Tower.
	There was additional effects taking place.
	There was some squibs that were being blown out.
	Lower portion of the building at this point remained intact.
	The path of least resistance, gas was destroying location of expansion.
	Paper was being blown all over the place, which is rather astonishing.
	But this may be most important.
	Energy was released from the tower by the breakage of the Faraday cage that led to the toasted cars and the, you know, the amount of very fine dust, which to my knowledge, nanothermite is incapable of explaining entirely.
	And the fact that the design of the Twin Towers made them Faraday cages meant that they were immune to electromagnetic pulses, which are the core of directed energy, which therefore leads me to submit that Judy Wood's theory of directed energy weapons in relation to Twin Towers was not even a physical possibility.
	Thus, you have a Faraday cage in the absence of an electrical field.
	Charged particles in the wall of the cage respond to an applied electrical field generated inside.
	The electrical fields generated inside cancel out the applied fields, neutralizing the interior.
	It would not have been possible to destroy using directed energy weapons, nor can nanothermite explain debris ejected at a 45 angle outward from the building.
	Thus, we have the winter garden where dews and nanothermite go to die.
	This is a summary of some of the most important scientific facts.
	Jet fuel fires, even if they burned hot enough and long enough, would cause the buildings to sag and gradually collapse.
	Jet fuel could not have ejected 300 tons up at a 45 degree angle, 600 feet outward into the winter garden, nor could nanothermite or directed energy weaponry.
	To explode steel, an explosive needs a detonation velocity of 6,100 meters per second.
	To explode cement, a detonation velocity of 3,200 meters per second.
	Kerosene, the principal constituent of jet fuel, has a detonation velocity of only 1600 meters per second, while nanothermite believe it or not, and Richard has conceded the point has a detonation velocity of only 895 meters per second.
	And given it's such a feeble explosive, it's rather bizarre to suppose that it would be used for a demolition project of this magnitude.
	Indeed, Niels Herrot, an associate professor of chemistry from Copenhagen, has estimated it would have taken 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite to destroy a Twin Tower.
	That's rather like filling up with circus peanuts.
	I mean, it really reflects the absurdity of the position.
	Many nukes, however, would have had the observed effect.
	Now, when I reviewed Judy's book initially, I gave her a five-star review, but I pointed out that there was a problem because while she'd eliminated large nukes, she had not also eliminated smaller nukes.
	Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, PhD, brought together an enormous quality of high quality, enormous quantity of high-quality evidence that functions as a partial foundation for evaluating alternative explanation.
	What she has done has classically been referred to as a prelude to future research.
	The word indirect believes in her suntitle, since indirect evidence of directed free energy technology is less meaning in a closer approximation.
	She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	That also cannot have been by thermite, thermate, nanothermite.
	She offers reason for doubting it was done by newts, but her arguments actually only rule out large nukes in the sub-basements, not sophisticated arrangement of mini or micronukes or advanced newts of the kind that appear to have been used.
	New evidence based on the U.S. Geological Survey dust samples indicates the destruction of the Twin Towers was primarily a nuclear event.
	The most important defect in her book is a failure to report or come to grips with the presence of barium and strontium, thorium and uranium, lithium, lanthanum, nitrium, chromium and tritium, where she mentions the latter, but inexplicably minimizes the value of her tritium that were obtained, which was scientifically irresponsible.
	The idea that directed energy weapons were used is seriously undeveloped.
	Her strongest claims are that do provide vastly more energy than conventional explosives and can be directed.
	Anyone familiar with the gross observable evidence knows the former to be true, where mini or micronukes, not to mention a new positron antimatter technology, satisfy both conditions.
	For the latter and bestow it was done, serious students that check out the Vancouver hearings were invited, Judy and John Hutchison to speak.
	John had already agreed when Judy cut him off.
	The U.S. Geological Survey dust sample evidence is among the most important proofs of the use of nuclear devices, since some of these elements only exist in radioactive form.
	There's additional evidence, however, the medical maladies, which were highly analogous to those experienced at Chernobyl.
	At the time of this publication, there were about 7,000 who had serious medical maladies, but the number today is about 10 times as large.
	We're talking about leukemia, multiple myelomia, pancreatic, esophageal cancer, cancer that are generally very odd, but exhibit the same pattern as we found at Chernobyl.
	We also have the enduring heat signature that followed afterwards.
	Here, for example, is a map showing some of the hotspots that endured until mid-December.
	I dare say there's no way in which nanothermite or conventional explosive Verdu could possibly account for this phenomenon, which therefore serves as a basis for disconfirming or refuting those hypotheses.
	Plus, remember the effects of directed energy weapons.
	Whether you're looking at Paradise, California, as shown here, Lahaina, Hawaii, or Pacific Palisades, California, this is the type of effect you get.
	The buildings are destroyed completely, while the surrounding foliage, such as the trees shown here, remain intact.
	That is not what occurred at the Twin Towers.
	And I submit that it cannot have been done by directed energy weaponry.
	And I would add as a very important caveat, the buildings were surrounded with aluminum cladding.
	And it turns out that if you had the effect of a nuclear device, the interaction of the steel, which of course is iron combined with carbine, interacting with the aluminum cladding would have produced nanoparticles of the very kind Richard Gage has described so extensively as having been indicative of what occurred on 9-11.
	Much appreciated.
	Okay, well, that settles that.
	Yes, very good.
	All right, let's bring Richard up here to the stage.
	Jim, did you get everything down there?
	Is that, is that?
	That's good.
	Okay, okay.
	Just want to make sure.
	Actually, you're right.
	I think there was one more slide I had.
	Let me pull it up since I have the time.
	You're right.
	Here it is.
	Can you see it?
	Key points about the heat.
	I'll just say them.
	They're significant indeed.
	The endurance of the heat, the intensity of the heat till mid-December.
	Key points.
	You got heat beneath Manhattan post 9-11.
	Intense and long-lasting fires.
	Fires within the debris pile burned for months, contributing to the prolonged heat at the site.
	High temperature.
	Thermal measurement taken by helicopters showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees Fahrenheit to over 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit due to the ongoing underground fires.
	Impact on rescue and recovery.
	The intense heat at the site pose challenges for workers, melting the soles of their shoes and requiring careful consideration for the safety of search and rescue dogs.
	Thermal hotspots.
	Initial analysis of thermal data from September 16th revealed numerous thermal hotspots in the region where the buildings collapse with temperatures greater than 800 Fahrenheit gradually cooling.
	But Dean, what's important too to note is that Rudy Giuliani was bringing all these dump trups right off the bat the day after 115.
	Imagine how hard it would be in New York to line up one dump truck yet 115.
	Judy astutely observed it wasn't just what they were hauling out, it was what they were bringing in.
	Hundreds of tons of dirt to absorb the radiation, the residual radiation, which is exactly what was done by the Soviets at Chernobyl.
	A notable parallel.
	Yeah, that's great.
	And we saw that in Lahana too.
	They got rid of all those structures and what have you.
	Okay, let's bring Richard Gage.
	Okay, Richard, since Jim elected to have you go first, we're going to have Jim pick up.
	We have a response to Jim's.
	Right.
	You want to pick apart Jim's structure for his little presentation?
	We'll have Jim rebuttal yours.
	Go for it.
	Yeah, we each have five minutes to do that.
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	Jim, thank you for that great presentation.
	I want to make some comments.
	If you'll show my slide, Dean, we've got, Jim mentioned that we don't have molten iron or steel here, but lead.
	Well, both lead and aluminum are not glowing in daylight conditions.
	So we're not talking about melted batteries or melted airplane.
	A. B, there are several photos online that show the hot material being picked up by crabclaw excavators, many of them.
	It's three or four feet from the hydraulic lines, and they don't burn up.
	So that's a statement that's just not backed up.
	Is it a good idea?
	No.
	The spire, Jim mentioned, is not, he says it's the few remaining columns that stand 900 feet in the air for five seconds after the tower is destroyed.
	It doesn't dissociate.
	You can see it in the video that I have, which is high resolution, not the low resolution of Jim's.
	It's descending frame by frame, straight through the concrete powder that's been shaken off of it.
	So I wanted to clear that up.
	And then lateral ejection by thermite or high energy explosives to suggest that it can't do that is simply a suggestion.
	It's not backed by evidence either.
	We maintain high energy explosives are capable of firing a 200-pound cannonball three miles, and that's the energy that we have to fire these 300, excuse me, four and eight ton structural steel sections laterally.
	Next, he mentioned that these diseases at Chernobyl parallel the ones at the World Trade Center.
	The 40-page paper produced by the AE 9-11 Truth team in FAQ 14 is, or 15, I think it is, it refutes that in detail.
	I just wanted people to know that there is a source of refutation.
	I don't have the facts at my hand.
	We also have persistent heat, agreed with Jim on this three months.
	Well, thermite has its own source of oxygen.
	Can burn even under water.
	We saw that there's up to four tons also, by the way, of unignited nanothermite.
	So that's igniting over a period of time with its own source of oxygen down below.
	Jim suggested that nukes can produce nanothermite.
	Well, they didn't produce the red-gray chips of nanothermite that are found in all the World Trade Center dust by this team of science led by Niels Herrod and Copenhagen, Stephen Jones, and others.
	They find the unignited chips.
	They thought they were paint, but they're not.
	They have the ingredients of thermite in them at the nano scale.
	So this is embedded in a chip, all of the chips that they found.
	And so they're embedded.
	That wasn't created by a nuclear weapon.
	Finally, we.
	Oh, that's it.
	Those are the comments I wanted to make.
	Okay.
	Jim, you want to respond to Richard's discussion?
	Oh, sure.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	I like Richard.
	Very cordial manner.
	Look, it's easy to fabricate evidence.
	I've spent like 30 years sorting out authentic evidence from fabricated or fake evidence, beginning with JFK, which is just abundant with fabricated evidence.
	I'm suggesting what is being suggested here was aluminum or, you know, glowing.
	It's supposed to be iron or no such thing.
	It's easy to colorize.
	Understand that equipment is run hydraulically and it's made of metal.
	Metal is a very good heat conductor.
	So if this, if this mechanism were picking up something that was glowing as hot as that, the heat would be transferred through the metal to the mechanism and it couldn't operate.
	I mean, this is virtually the level of common sense.
	And here's another point.
	Given the nanothermite only has the explosive force of 1/13th of TNT, why wouldn't you use only a tiny 1/13th as much TNT to equal the amount of explosive boards of nanothermite?
	And as a point I made, when Neil Herrot himself, whom Richard frequently cites, declares it would have taken, what, 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite to blow up a twin tower.
	Take it seriously.
	That's staggering.
	And I reiterate, those little chips he's talking about are predictable consequences of the demolition of a twin tower when it's covered with aluminum cliding by virtue of the interaction of the aluminum with a carbon in the steel.
	I submit we can explain everything that Richard would cite that appears to be accurate by means of the mini nuke hypothesis, but he cannot explain many of the phenomena I've identified here, which are explicable by mini nukes on the basis of nanothermite plus.
	Well, just go ahead.
	Again, these chips that they thought were paint like primary paint, but they're not.
	There's more than a ton of these throughout all the World Trade Center dust in the unignited form.
	That's like paint.
	Now, that wasn't created again by Mini Nukes.
	That was in the dust, which means it was in the building, which means it was, for whatever reason, unignited portions.
	Regarding the lateral ejection of these, we've got to have high energy explosives or propellants such as thermite, nanothermite, that have higher degrees of propulsion capabilities.
	This is how you get a jet off the ground with propellants.
	And they have incredible force.
	And we haven't measured what thermite can or can't do in terms of the propellant force.
	We're not talking about detonation capacity here.
	Interesting.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	Well, I lost faith in nanothermite by June of 2006 when Alex Jones organized his American Scholars Conference and invited me to be the keynote speaker.
	I met with Steve in the hallway the day before Saturday and said, Steve, do you still believe nanothermite could do everything you claim, blow up part of buildings and everything else?
	And he assured me, oh, yes, yes, it could.
	And then when I searched into the matter more deeply, including research with T. Mark Hightower, who's a chemical engineer, and he surveying the literature, discovered that nanothermite only has a detonation velocity 895 meters per second, whereas it requires 3,200 meters per second in order to destroy concrete 6,100 meters per second to destroy steel.
	I knew we were off in fantasy land, that this was a no-brainer, a non-starter, and it was mistaken.
	And in fact, later, November, I began interviewing Judy Wood because I found her directed energy hypothesis more plausible and reasonable as an explanation than nanothermite.
	And there was a revolution in scholars.
	Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others conducted a fabricated membership drive.
	I was in Athens, Greece, giving a presentation that would run three and a half hours broadcast by satellite worldwide about what happened on 9-11, which was a really sensational while they were dismembering scholars, sad to say.
	And I think it's because they wanted to protect a cover story that I already had found to be inadequate.
	I wasn't at the time advocating many nukes, but I certainly recognize that directed energy couldn't be the solution.
	So I submit, take a look at the evidence, ask yourself, what sense would it make to make a feeble explosive?
	And nanothermite is a feeble explosive.
	1 13th the power of TNT.
	You'd be better off with TNT.
	And the effect would be more devastating.
	But Jim, they couldn't afford to use TNT, obviously, because that produces extremely loud bangs and very bright flashes, dead giveaways for controlled demolition.
	So this is the reason, presumably, that they went to thermite.
	And thermite can produce four, does produce four and 5,000 degree temperatures, which we have already seen in the literature can pulverize, not pulverize, but decompose concrete to its original constituents, sand, gravel, and cement paste.
	Well, guys, we could be talking about this till the cows come home, thermite versus nukes, but we have to take a quick network break.
	Standby there.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Listen, everybody, this is, we're getting to the good stuff here.
	When we get back, we're going to be getting into planes versus no planes, and that should be a real doozy.
	I can't wait because I don't think we really touched upon that too much in either of the presentations, unlike we're going to be doing here in the second half.
	Then I'm going to make my best effort to start representing the DEWs, the do's, do.
	I'm going to do the do and get the guys take on that, as well as your Q ⁇ A. Because, and by the way, if you've already put questions, try to copy and paste those when we get to the Q ⁇ A part, because I won't remember what those are and you might not either.
	So anyways, we'll be back over this break here watching Real Deal Media's incredible epic real deal debate here for 9-11.
	Don't go anywhere.
	Be right back, but joining
	me for this effort tonight, uh is somebody who is also known as the Big Kahuna he.
	He was in the water early this morning with me riding the tsunamis.
	He goes by Johnny Tsunami, but we know him as Jim the Big Kahuna Fetzer.
	Jim, welcome.
	There you are.
	There you are.
	Yes.
	And yeah.
	Fascinating.
	He seems to have petered out, petered out.
	And who weren't better, ladies?
	You tell me because Jim was stopping me.
	What a brain he has there.
	I was on a cruise ship when my daughter dared me to enter the men's body competition.
	I won most athletic legs.
	I won most athletic legs.
	Really?
	Jim, you know, out of all the years I've known you, I've never seen your legs before.
	Now I'm oddly curious.
	Yeah, I was on a cruise ship.
	It was on a cruise ship.
	One of those things.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Did you know?
	Did you know?
	Jim Fetzer is an award-winning leg bodybuilder.
	He won first place.
	I never knew that.
	Well, see, Richard, you learn something new every time.
	Okay, we're going to get back to it here.
	But before I do, tonight's show is brought to you by you, the members out there who make this possible.
	Well, I'm still Dean Ryan, who's cruising with you to slightly midnight and beyond here.
	I'm still him.
	But yes, you make it possible by going to givesendgo.com for the Real Deal Go campaign.
	Yes, you do.
	You know who you are out there.
	And I thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
	All of us do that make these broadcasts possible.
	So thank you in advance.
	And also, too, we also want to thank the Night Owls, the Visionaires with Debonairs, the players from the Himalayas, the iconics, not ironics, for making this possible.
	And you can be a night owl too.
	You got to do is go to REAL Dealmedia.tv and sign up tonight and become an RDM member and be part of the community of the late, late NINE OWLS and get the full, all access, all the time kind of content that you need, you want and you can share with others, the kind of information and intel you get from out of all of our incredible talks backstage and our extra shows too.
	Now, following tonight's show uh, the members and members only will get a, an exclusive chance for a meet and greet with Jim Fetzer and Richard Gage, and so we're going to have a drink, a cocktail or two uh, with all of you after this show.
	You don't want to miss that.
	Just that announcement okay uh, let's welcome back the stage Jim and Richard.
	Um, you know uh, we're gonna into planes but um, I have to ask everybody uh, just right off the bat, I mean, you know, can you believe?
	It's almost?
	Uh, it's two decades now, it's almost 25 years.
	We're now reaching that point.
	September is always a big time of uh, the year around the september 11th, but um uh, would you guys say, you know that your message today is more meaningful to people than it was, like really shocking in the beginning.
	I mean, has it evolved?
	Uh, have more people approached you since uh, that dreadful day?
	Well, I think coincidentally, there's been an increase in interest in 9-11 for unusual reasons, probably because actually it was an Israeli op and there's more attention on Israel, given the genocide taking place on the Palestinians, and people are starting to scrutinize what the hell is going on here.
	It was a brain trap of Ehud Ulmert and Benjamin Then Yahu, to design an event that would be used to justify American forces coming into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states.
	That served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region, and it's worked like clockwork.
	Wesley Clark explained at a speech of the Commonwealth CLUB in San Francisco in 2007 that the plan was to take out the governments of seven countries in the next five years, including Iraq and Libya, Syria and Iran, with all of Syria which is now run by a former IDF guy in Israeli student, where only Iran remains.
	It was very successful.
	It also led to reconstruction of the American government with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department OF Homeland Security, which consolidated 35 heretofore separate agencies, many of which were competing to develop intelligence in a manner to create only one unified view.
	That would be the official government position, bad, it needs to be undone, the Patriot Act unraveled and those responsible held accountable.
	Uh and Richard, i'm sure you were going to say the same thing, uh.
	So let me ask you, uh Richard uh, and maybe Jim too, but how did this?
	How did architects and engineers and scholars, how did that come together?
	Was it just a?
	Was there an aha moment of of somebody in in in the uh community?
	I mean, what was the, the driving force uh of that uh?
	Was it years later, I mean just in 2006?
	Uh, I heard from David Ray Griffin on the radio, what, uh?
	That there was a third tower that came down, that the, the beams were dripping with molten iron.
	Uh and and, And yes, steel has iron in it, but this, we're talking molten iron droplets, by the way, Jim mischaracterized that accidentally, I'm sure.
	But I started this because I was angry because I'd been lied to on massive my world turned upside down.
	I knew I had to do something.
	Buildings.
	I'm an architect.
	I had to get the world woken up.
	And I thought it would take about six months because the evidence is so clear, especially as Jim and I agree on building seven.
	So they all agree with me, but very few of them do anything.
	Real quick, too, and we're going to get started with the plans versus no planes.
	September 10th and prior.
	Were both of you, any of you, were you guys very politically astute involved in the national discussion and discourse?
	Or did that all change?
	I had begun initiated collaborative research on JFK in 92 after Oliver Stone's Magisterial Film JFK had been released.
	When I discovered the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association abusing his journal for political purposes and I, with extensive editorial experience, realized perhaps some of us with special background and ability, such as I, an associate editor, Senez, an international journal for epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science had to become involved.
	And I reached out to a then member who was complaining about the abuse of journal by the name of David W. Mandig, MDPHD.
	And we initiated what would become a major collaborative research where I brought together groups of experts to expose what happened, published three books to shatter the cover-up.
	And once that's done, you get a very good idea of what's going on.
	And thus, when I was at home in Duluth the morning of 9-11, we got a phone call from our daughter, Michelle, residing then in Brayden, telling us to turn on the TV.
	And when we did, there was the North Tower smoking.
	And we saw something happen with the South that wasn't entirely clear what.
	But when the buildings were destroyed, being said repeatedly, they had collapsed.
	I knew this was a physical impossibility.
	But I remember so clearly thinking to myself, when would I ever be in a position to do anything about it?
	And yet in December 2005, I was in the midst of a discussion thread with about two dozen experts from around the world.
	And it occurred to me, founding a society that could sponsor lectures, announce them, publish videos and so forth, and be a kind of a sorting out place would be a good idea.
	And I found it scholars for $9.
	Wow.
	Well, we're going to get started.
	And I guess when 9-11 happened, you know, I thought to myself, you know, in about 25 years, I'm going to be hosting a debate between Jim Fetzer and Richard Gantz.
	You know, that's the first thing that came to mind.
	Okay.
	So there we have it.
	And we have the live chats are on fire here tonight on all three of them.
	And thank you for that.
	We're going to get to your questions coming up soon.
	And then we'll get to the DEW.
	So right now, we're going to do planes versus no planes.
	Richard believes there's planes.
	Jim doesn't believe there's planes.
	And we're going to make their, they're going to make their case for it.
	And we're starting with Richard.
	Is that true?
	Richard or Jim, would you like to go?
	I guess.
	Yeah, I started last time.
	Why don't we have Jim?
	Okay, so we're going to have Jim go first.
	There you go.
	And Jim, we're going to have Jim set up his slide as he does that.
	Is a slide showing?
	Not yet.
	Go ahead and find that out.
	And while you do that, we have a lot of people who are commenting.
	We have, let's see here.
	We have 9-11-2724-7 saying Gage said himself many times flashes were seen and bangs were heard.
	Yes, the bang that was heard around the world.
	Okay, let's see on Rumble here.
	We have now Rebel Mammoth says 200 mini nukes stolen from Soviet Union in the 90s.
	Timeline is there.
	Wow, I did not know that.
	Thank you for that.
	Okay, so Jim, are we ready?
	Okay, we are.
	I think we are.
	Yes.
	So here we have what's supposed to have happened with a plane that's flying at an impossible speed for a 767 at 700 to 1,000 feet.
	We have it making an impossible entry into the building.
	We have it seemingly pass all the way through the building without any loss in velocity and breaking out the opposite side.
	We're supposed to believe this is real.
	Now, there appears to have been previously positioned explosives in the building to create this impression of a massive explosion.
	But notice how the nose, the nose seems to pop out on the opposite side of the screen.
	The nose pops out on the opposite side of the screen.
	Now that is simply absurd.
	We know the nose of an airplane is among its most fragile features.
	It's loaded with electronics.
	We also know what happens when birds encounter a plane.
	They do tremendous damage.
	We see here, for example, we know the very substantial design of the buildings, as Donald Trump has reviewed for us in my previous presentation.
	We know we're witnessing a physical impossibility.
	So what's going on?
	Some want to argue that this, the test of a phantom jet fighter where it was set up on a railroad trestle and fired with a rocket into a nuclear-resistant bunker, but shattered into a million little pieces would be an example.
	But the Flight 175 didn't shatter into a million different pieces.
	And unlike this, it did allegedly enter the building and even pop out on the opposite side, which is just ridiculous.
	Some believe that the cracks on the facades were made even perhaps by a missile.
	Notice, this was one argument that's been made.
	But what I think may be even decisive is this.
	Notice we're going to do a close-up on one of the facades, which I believe were designed by the gelatin group planting explosives.
	And look, what do you see there?
	There's a woman there inside the building, inside the building, waving at us.
	You see her there?
	How would that be possible?
	How would that be possible?
	If the official narrative were true, the building would have blown everything apart.
	There'd be no living souls to be waving there.
	That means it's merely a facade.
	It's merely a stunt.
	Meanwhile, would you believe in addition to the engine that was found at Church Ann Murray, which was under a steel scaffolding and an undamaged canopy just sitting on the sidewalk when it would have been churned up and damaged had it been happening for real,
	where Jack White discovered Fox News footage showing a white van there and agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy, apparently planning it there, where it turns out to be an antiquated engine that wasn't even in use at the time.
	There was a discovery of a landing gear found in lower Manhattan wedged between two buildings.
	And notice, wedged in the landing gear is a piece of rope that was used to put it in position.
	In other words, we're talking about fake evidence.
	Here's a report then.
	And the date was April 27, 2013.
	A piece of landing gear believed to be from one of the commercial airplanes that crashed in the World Trade Center has been discovered between two lower Manhattan buildings.
	The piece was found in a narrow alleyway behind 51 Park Place and 50 Murray Street in Manhattan's financial district.
	Includes a clearly visible Boeing identification number.
	But I have no doubt it was a plant.
	Indeed, there's an enormous amount of research on the plane-no plane phenomenon.
	Here's from a piece by 9-11 revisionist published in 2023.
	Once upon a time, there were 210 steel-framed steel core towers.
	Today, they're not there anymore.
	Nearly 22 years ago, each one of these 110-story towers were supposedly hit by a plane.
	We saw it on TV.
	So it must be true.
	And they apparently caused this, the kind of destruction we've been reviewing here.
	Two 110-story steel core towers and five more buildings had strange anomalies.
	They were extremely robust in their destruction.
	Look at the external steel support columns we find here and there.
	Here's a nice illustration of the solidity of the buildings.
	It would have been impossible, impossible for any real plane to have entered either of these buildings.
	It appears too many people are forgetting.
	They're forgetting how massive a 110-story building with a steel core, an outer steel beam shell covered with aluminum cladding really is.
	We apparently had two plane hits, two separate towers.
	The alleged first plane was only captured by one video, but the second was captured by a bunch, as many as 52.
	And I've reviewed what we've discovered.
	The footage you see is real, but it defies the laws of physics, really.
	It does break the laws of physics, aerodynamics.
	And that's why no one in the 9-11 Truther movement or the Truther Talking Heads really want to talk about the alleged planes.
	Let me add as a personal aside.
	It took Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, members of scholars, a year and a half to convince me I had to look at the airplane footage.
	And when I did, I was astonished because you not only had the impossible speed, you had the impossible entry, you had the impossible traversing, you had the nose-out phenomenon.
	This was clearly fabricated.
	There would have been a real plane would have crumpled externals of the building.
	Body seats, luggage, wings, tail would have fallen to the ground.
	But we know there are beneath the facades, no bodies, no luggage, no wings, no tails, no passengers.
	The effect, had it been real, was absent, which means it didn't happen.
	Here's a video that helped you get up to speed.
	Well, here's John Lear, our nation's most distinguished pilot.
	When I founded Scholars, I also established a scholars forum at 911scholars.ning, n-i-n-g.com.
	It's there today.
	You can go to the 9-11 Scholars Forum and you can read John Lear's affidavit on the non-occurrence of tower hits on 9-11.
	It was not possible.
	You can also read an interview with John Lear with me on the real deal, the envelopes and airspeed by John Lear.
	John Lear, Michael Morrissey, Rob Massamo, the head of pilots for 9-11 exchange on planes, no planes on 9-11.
	What I'm telling you is there's a bonanza of evidence here that the 9-11 movement can take advantage of.
	You got Ed Ward, a whistleblower who passed away.
	We have a university study finding fire did not bring down World Trade Center Building 7 on 9-11.
	We have newly released FBI docs that shed light on apparent most sought for knowledge of the 9-11 attacks.
	But where are the hundreds of people who went missing from the four planes on September 11th?
	Could all the recordings shared by the government be part of a perception management psyop, part of a trauma-based mind control operation?
	No, you must be a tinfoil hat freak to think that.
	How dare you?
	Well, strange fact, at the airports where the people were expected to arrive that day, while the live feeds were happening at the various incidents, you had TV crews at the airports, but no family members turned up to be interviewed looking for their family members.
	But you did have people on TV was giving interviews on September 12th.
	And what do you think about this interview?
	You call your mother, but you introduce yourself.
	Hi, mom, it's Mark Bingham.
	You know, I'm your son.
	But there was a movie made about the brave people on Flight 93, which actually was in the air, but did not crash in Shanksville and was not even taken out of service until 28 September, 2005.
	How dare you put on your thinking cap for five minutes?
	Can you do that?
	Now listen to the rest of the info and the passengers and cell phone calls in the video.
	They were taped in advance.
	An important update is the following.
	The controllers of the weaponized, and this is an advocate of dues, directed energy technology had planned out every detail of the attack to provide elements of argumentation.
	It could be used to make it impossible to get to the deadly truth of the attack.
	For this purpose, the airplane reality, the perception that real airplanes were crashed into the towers and that these events were the cause of all the distraction is the most powerful feature of all.
	The controllers would very easily have used hijacked airplanes and crashed them into the towers, but this would have interfered with the various details of their demonstration, such as the giant fireball-like explosions that became the visual icons of Osama bin Laden and his worldwide terrorism network.
	A couple of comments.
	No, it would have been impossible for real planes to have entered the tower.
	That was the original plan, I have no doubt.
	Then they discovered it was impossible, and they had to figure out an alternative to carry out their plot and make it appear as though the planes had exploded inside the buildings so they could be used as a pseudo-justification for their alleged collapse.
	More importantly, the social engineering psychologists who planned the cover-up, the choice not to use real planes, but to stimulate their action was the most powerful act of deception that could ever be conceived.
	Meanwhile, an update, a re-pivot of the disingenuous 9-11 truth movement started to take place in 2024, where 9-11 truth-stodging heads started talking about the planes, which they never did after this podcast with 9-11 Plane Research when it started to go viral.
	It prompted 9-11 Plane Research and myself to shift through the 9-11 plane disinformation peddled by the 11-11 truth movement.
	Meanwhile, Richard has been subjected to attack, as has I.
	I call this guy, Richard Gage, a 9-11 gatekeeper, as he's been around for 20 years and doesn't seem to acknowledge the work of Dr. Judy Wood on where did the towers go.
	Many say he's part of DIA.
	I've been accused of being part of CIA.
	I, writes libertarian 99, started 9-11 in Canada back in 2005.
	The group later got Richard Gage to cover a presentation at Time.
	We thought he and Professor Stephen Joan were heroes of real truthers.
	But after 20 years, it seems they were inserted to get ahead and set the 9-11 narrative before Dr. Judy Wood's fact presentation came out in 2012.
	So now he's seeking proof that planes actually hit the building before going into a debate.
	I did post a video of FBI head agent in charge of 9-11, John D'Souza, who was in charge of sifting through the leftover debris, where he says the FBI did not find any airplane parts in all the leftover debris.
	He also said they believed it was a high technology illusion that was seen, but his FBI superiors told him to shut up and not cause waves.
	Basically, stick with a fake government story of 19 hijackers where I've explained how it was done using holograms.
	Here's now a guy challenging me.
	You state, Dr. James Fetzer, at 143 in the video you did a while back.
	It's very unfair that Judy Wood should be isolated in the 9-11 truth movement.
	If you stop and realize we've been working on this stuff, satellite-based news for decades, this has been a priority of the Air Force to develop space-based weapons that will allow us to control Earth from space.
	And you can't do that unless these weapons have devastating power and that's what they developed.
	And we have never been let in on the secret.
	Why have you changed your opinion now, Dr. James Fetzer, that only conventional nuclear devices, not advanced technology, were used on 9-11?
	I greatly appreciate if you'd reply back on this important question with your detailed answer based on sound scientific and engineering principles, which I have sought to do.
	I'm actually inviting some of these Judy advocates to come on my radio shows this coming week to dig deeper.
	But I think we already have enough information to know that it wasn't done with dudes.
	Just look at that and compare it with the afraid after that concludes.
	Yeah, that's a very, very powerful picture there.
	Anyways, Jim, there you are.
	Okay, that concludes your argument for the case of new planes and new planes and all.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	And I think Richard's about ready.
	And Richard, are you ready to defend your case and make your case?
	You bet.
	Let's look at the evidence if you can put it up on the screen.
	Yes.
	Okay, here we go.
	Starting now.
	All right.
	I prefer to look at the actual evidence.
	And Jim pointed out one of those pieces of evidence.
	And that is that there are 53 different videos showing the plane hitting the second tower.
	Now, this is denied somehow by those, not Jim, suggesting that there were CGI planes or that they were video composites.
	Well, no, they would have to have gone not only to the corporate videos, but the individual videos that have surfaced right away and over the years, all of which have show real planes hitting towers and these fireballs that are ejected not by an explosion inside the tower,
	but by the plane and the jet fuel themselves, because you can see that they are driven in the direction of the plane.
	You couldn't force an explosion that was preset out one side of the building in such directional vector.
	So we have also evidence that these planes were heard, not just seen.
	Those videos show, they are witnesses that show the sound of the airplane and the sound of the impact, many of them.
	Jim suggests that these planes were holograms, actually.
	But that wouldn't explain the hearing of these planes.
	Listen.
	You don't hear planes too often, especially loud ones.
	Here comes the plane.
	He hears it.
	He's looking up at it.
	I stopped because I wanted you to see that he doesn't know what's coming, but he hears it.
	You don't hear planes too often.
	And then the camera check catches up.
	And the guy, while he's filming, he turns where he thinks the plane is now, which is way over to the left, and luckily catches it.
	That's not a setup.
	And by the way, you can also see coming up.
	We'll see that.
	There's also a second video.
	Many people don't know this of the first plane hitting the North Tower.
	And this is a video that is taken from the tunnel.
	And there's the plane and it goes into the tower.
	And there's the explosion.
	So he catches that.
	There's two of those.
	Ricky DeSantis said he heard the second plane come in.
	He looked up and he saw it above him because his hand was on the door.
	He was opening the tower, a door, to get in to the building.
	And he looked up, having heard the plane, and he saw the plane hit the building.
	The explosion came down the face of the building and blew him back.
	And he broke his back.
	So many witnesses heard, we heard a loud plane.
	I heard this plane flying in kind of low.
	Then pow.
	So they're hearing not only the plane, but the impact in the building associated with the plane.
	I heard that plane come overhead again and again.
	This is Captain Patterson talking about his captain, Mallory, who said he saw the plane.
	Mallory would describe the thing came right over his head before it hit the building.
	And so many witnesses, I saw the plane hit the building, the floor.
	The plane hit a building above me in the stairwell.
	It shook violently.
	It shook violently.
	We smelled the jet fuel and the heat ball and it rocked back and forth.
	It felt like forever, maybe a minute.
	Then it finally settled because the building is swaying back and forth.
	All of a sudden, the shift of an earthquake.
	Every joint in the building jolted.
	We all got knocked off balance.
	One of my co-workers, Alicia, was trapped in the women's room.
	The door jam had folded in on itself and the sealed door was shut.
	There was a huge crack on the floor in the hallway.
	It's about a half a football field length long.
	So this is the damage that the plane had done to the building on the floor that this gentleman, Michael Wright, was at.
	And that's the 81st floor.
	Now let's look at the plane.
	We're told that this plane exited the building.
	So that would mean that it would be CGI, not hologram.
	But it kind of looks like a plane, right?
	But let's look carefully.
	It seems as if the video fakery live TV compositing crowd is gaining a lot of momentum.
	And this video taken by Kai Simonson, who is on Chopper 5, is the most debated video by far because of this supposed nose out feature.
	So video fakery advocates will say that this is a live compositing error where the layer mask simply drifted to the left because of the chopper motion.
	And then in order for the perps to cover up their mistake, they had to add a nose into other pieces of footage like this Gamma Press one.
	However, the fact that it's even in the Gamma Press video is one reason to believe that this was just a real life event that happened to be caught on live TV and not a compositing air.
	For example, these other videos taken from the West, they show the exact same thing.
	This video taken by Andrew Foster is showing it, and so is this one.
	These are like the other nose out footages that no one talks about.
	So I mapped out the location.
	So let's look at all the different videos that show this.
	one shows it this one shows it this one shows it this one shows it this one shows it it's all the same stuff It's the same smoke.
	It's the same.
	And it's not a plane.
	It's a nose, as you'll see.
	This one shows it.
	This one shows it.
	All the videos show it.
	On the left, you see a real plane on the other side of the building before it impacts the building.
	On the right, you see the dust explosion exiting the building.
	You can see that they're very different in appearance.
	So no, this is not an airplane nose.
	On the bottom right, you see the nose out.
	On the bottom left, you see the plane nose in.
	I got a little stump there for a minute.
	We also have video by, I forget who this was, but did a great job showing that this plane, in fact, maintains its acceleration.
	Excuse me.
	It actually doesn't maintain its acceleration through the building.
	So they can time it to the nose out theoretically.
	And what was shown here and concluded is that indeed the plane the nose out comes after the plane.
	In other words, it's not the plane.
	The plane decelerated and stopped inside the building.
	What continued was the nose out.
	Now, watch carefully.
	On the lower, well.
	You see this is another video of the plane hitting the building.
	And he looks up and he sees it.
	But look at the windshield down low.
	There's a reflection of the plane on the windshield.
	Look carefully.
	I'm looping it so you can see it again and again.
	On the left side, right here, right about here.
	You see the plane whiz by.
	So, no, that's not a hologram.
	No, it's not CGI.
	Let's listen to Captain Richard Patterson, who was tasked by the FBI, along with his being directed by the FBI.
	That brings me to the pieces of the jet that were strewn across Messi Street, et cetera, that you asked about earlier.
	Yes, indeed, there were aircraft parts.
	I mean, large pieces that were too big for, say, two men to even drag.
	But there were any amount of smaller structural pieces, smaller sub-assemblies, components, hydraulic actuators, electrical components, wiring, all sorts of stuff.
	Yeah.
	And were you picking those pieces up?
	And if so, why?
	So at one point, we were instructed that any wreckage was to be brought, any that could be moved, brought to there was a collection point.
	And then there was a front end loader and a dump truck going around scooping up the heavier stuff, like a whole landing gear or a giant.
	I don't even know what it was.
	I'm not an aircraft engineer, but obviously larger parts of what could have been the plane at the North Tower as well, for that matter.
	Okay.
	And we have Richard Bailicki climbed over human dead bodies and body parts, as well as pieces of aircraft fuselage, fallen building debris while trying to avoid building occupants falling around him.
	So he challenges the official story.
	He's not a mouthpiece for the official story.
	He believes that he's seen the evidence and agrees that the evidence for controlled demolition.
	I won't argue this plane part because I don't know the details, but we have pieces of equipment like this life raft.
	We have on top of building five, we have a fuselage section.
	We have this piece.
	We see the number.
	It's been pieced together.
	And we have an aircraft, a wheel stuck in this exterior structural steel connection landing on Cedar Street several blocks away.
	There's many photographs of this.
	That's a piece of landing gear that just happened to neatly slice into the gap between the structural steel columns on the exterior.
	We have this piece, which Jim refutes, but I don't know.
	I'm not so sure.
	There is a piece of rope hanging off of it.
	I don't know what that means.
	So the impact opening has been mischaracterized as a roadrunner type thing, but look at it on the right.
	It's actually not that.
	You can't hardly tell that, for instance, the South Tower particularly is even a plane.
	We have damage that is easily recognizable as the size of the airplane.
	What created this damage?
	Thousands of cutter charges that are perfectly timed, that not timed but placed to look exactly like an aircraft.
	And was the wing cutting the vertical columns?
	No, it cut the cladding.
	The aluminum cladding is fragile.
	You can see here that the cladding was pulled, removed off of the vertical columns.
	They weren't cut.
	These are individual three high, three wide structural steel units welded in the shop, very strong, but they're bolted together with only four bolts up at the height the plane hit.
	Four bolts at the top of each of these columns and the bottom.
	All the plane had to do was push in this section.
	And when it did, it bent the metal inwards.
	An explosive would have bent the metal outwards.
	So we have speed being a very key factor.
	The kinetic energy is doubled by doubling, quadrupled, by doubling the velocity.
	So can water penetrate steel?
	The sharpest and most powerful weapon in the world is water at a speed of 3,500 kilometers per hour.
	Water creates an incredible pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch.
	To put that into perspective, it's like having nine elephants standing on your thumb.
	Can a ping-pong ball penetrate a ping-pong paddle?
	Yeah, if it's going fast enough.
	We can't intuit what these are, what the capability is at these speeds.
	We just don't think that in those terms.
	Can a straw penetrate a wood column?
	Yeah.
	Can a piece of wood penetrate a much, much harder piece of concrete in a tornado at these speeds?
	Yeah, 300 miles an hour here.
	Can a pumpkin penetrate a car door?
	Yeah.
	A car door can be penetrated by a pumpkin.
	And wings are not the parts of the wings that are light that cannot push in these structural steel sections, they were shredded by them, as you see in this analysis here, computer analysis, not too different than an egg slicer, where the plane is the egg or the wings of the plane are lighter.
	They're being shredded by the vertical columns and by the horizontal concrete floors.
	It's actually being diced.
	The plane is inside.
	And so is it decelerating?
	Yes.
	We have 130 tons of aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel.
	That's 37 tons of fuel.
	That's a lot of mass.
	You're hit with a beer can that doesn't have any beer in it.
	It's not going to hurt.
	You fill that beer can full of liquid and all of a sudden you got a whole different energy.
	Kinetic energy quotient.
	And this is accepting that the 70%, a 70% decrease in velocity in their analysis.
	We have observed deceleration of UA175 during the impact at the South Tower in this analysis by this author.
	And Accam Spock has done a visual analysis of the plane deceleration, found that, yes, it did decelerate.
	Eric Salter did a numeric analysis.
	He found that, yeah, it did decelerate.
	So the conclusion that these analysis should satisfy critics that there was an actual aircraft impact with substantial mass.
	We have the swaying of the tower, which explosions could not do.
	And this is given by in this video, there's the plane.
	And all of a sudden, you can actually see, if you look carefully at the upper part, it's swaying back and forth up to three feet.
	And you can tell because these columns are three feet, four inches apart from each other.
	And you can see them as the sway against the vertical corner of the other building.
	So that's pretty darn interesting.
	Yeah, Dean, are we out of time?
	Okay, yeah, I think we're out of time.
	We're out of time.
	Like a minute more to go.
	Do you want to finish your thought there?
	Yeah, this is the measured oscillation of the World Trade Center, too, after impact.
	And we have observed the left wing going behind.
	And finally, I just wanted to show.
	This is impossible and proves the image is a fake video.
	If we draw the position of the dark brown building in the 3D model, we can see that the building is, in fact, in front of the towers.
	So it is perfectly correct for the plane's wing to disappear behind the building.
	And yet this is used by so many people to say, C, C G I, C G I, they got the placement of that building wrong.
	It's just kind of an optical illusion.
	So all this evidence is coming up.
	Not all of it, much of it.
	In the Turning the Tide Conference in Washington, D.C. with Senator Ron Johnson, who's called for a new investigation.
	Encourage all of you to come.
	Tucker Carlson himself will be directing his message to the members of the Turning the Tide Conference, the 9-11 truth movement.
	He's actually speaking at a 9-11 truth movement after denying early on anything valid that they have to say.
	Yeah, for Ron Johnson to be there, too.
	That's a big deal.
	Okay, let's bring Jim up to the floor here.
	We'll have, Jim, you heard what Richard said, which flies no pun intended in the face of your argument.
	Well, there'd be a lot there to disentangle, Dean.
	I mean, the planes in New York is like the most complicated issue, which is why I spent so much time patiently explaining it during my earlier presentation.
	It cannot have been CGI.
	It cannot have been video compositing, because in that case, the image of the plane would only have been visible in the broadcast footage.
	But we have over 500 witnesses reported seeing a plane approaching the building.
	Some said large, some said small, some said commercial, some said military.
	It cannot have been CGI or video compositing.
	However, as I showed then, I have a page from an Australian military manual for an airborne holographic projector.
	That is what Richard D. Hall work reveals.
	Check it out.
	Richard E. Hall, 3D radar 175 flight study.
	And the sound they heard was that the sound projecting the image of the plane, where the plane that was projecting is found in the radar, but not the image projected, meaning you have the image of a plane 1,200 feet to the side passing the building.
	And as for the claim of deceleration, that's simply factually false.
	We have counted the frames for the Ezra Connie video from the side, Edmund Fairbanks from above.
	The plane travels its whole length through air in the same number of frames.
	It travels its whole length into the building.
	No diminution in velocity.
	Easy.
	Anyone there can verify for themselves.
	So don't let yourself be played.
	Richard, are we being played as Jim is alluding to there?
	I mean, because I hate being played.
	You want to rebuttal Jim's rebuttal?
	Well, the sound coming from a plane 1,200 feet to the side, projecting a hologram.
	I'm not saying that technology doesn't exist, but 1,200 feet would not.
	Well, first of all, is there radar of that plane?
	Is there visuals of that plane?
	You would think that would be talked about by people who would see a second plane.
	But the sound is so, if it is projected from 1,200 feet away, I mean, and what they're hearing is the sound of that plane.
	Well, what did they hear impact the building?
	And then the explosion.
	So witnesses heard the impact of the plane, and then they heard and saw the resulting explosion mostly out the other side, which is a directional force, which pre-placed cutter charges couldn't create such directional forces.
	We heard it too.
	The audio, the audio, you're right, Richard.
	I did hear an airplane in your footage earlier.
	Jim, how do we explain the audio?
	And then we're going to take some questions because we are running out of time, guys, here tonight.
	Go ahead, Jim.
	Explain the audio.
	And in my presentation, Richard might want to review.
	I explain that there was an explosion that took place in the building that was designed to drain the systems of water at the same time.
	Only they had a hand-eye coordination problem.
	So they were 14 and 17 seconds off kilter.
	I've explained it all very patiently.
	This is a theatrical event.
	This was a made-for-movie TV.
	They used lots of Hollywood techniques.
	You had seeming causes that were bringing about effects at a completely independent origin.
	And if you want to understand what happened on 9-11, that is a perspective you must adopt.
	Okay.
	We are running out of time, everybody.
	We could go for another three to two days at this point, but let's get some questions.
	And I'm going to bring up DEWs too, as promised.
	Let me sort of rumble.
	Here we go with, well, right off the bat, we have something, girl, saying, why wasn't Jim invited to your turning the tide conference?
	Richard, that's a good point.
	You know, Jim, he was there in the beginning, you know, with a lot of the other organizations.
	Why was not Jim, who's one of our legends, invited, Richard?
	I don't know.
	It wasn't discussed.
	He wasn't excluded, but he probably would have been if it were discussed.
	Jim has some unusual views, as you've unusual and in my opinion, in the opinion of most in the 9-11 truth movement, not backed up by science, as you've seen in this debate on both Mini Nukes and the World Trade Center, Mini Nukes and the planes at the World Trade Center.
	So that probably has something to do with it.
	So, okay, so it wasn't Richard's decision, because I'm sure Richard would have invited him to.
	Notice how Richard's begging the question by assuming I'm wrong, which he most certainly has not shown.
	So I dare say that was a bit of a self-serving, you know, explanation.
	Yes.
	And none of my work comes from me.
	I bring together the best experts to establish what actually happened.
	People are competent in areas where I am not.
	I have the modesty to know.
	I don't know everything.
	So I bring in people like aeronautical engineers to help me.
	Physicists, structural, mechanical, electrical.
	That's how I proceed.
	And I'm sorry to say there are other groups that are far less scientific and objective than his scholars for 9-11 truth.
	In all honesty, Jim, do you think it's because you actually long ago, before even all the craze lately, you think it's because you brought up the Israeli angle to this event early on before anyone else did?
	Well, that's the thing that disturbs me.
	It's always disturbed me about Judy Wood and about architects and engineers.
	They will not talk about who was responsible and why.
	And frankly, in the absence of that context, most of the debate about how it was done is just scientific techno googlygook to the American public.
	They need to know the broader picture, which scholars have explained and they have not.
	When I have time, which is rarely in an interview, I do discuss who benefited.
	We can talk about it right now if you want.
	And who is peripherally responsible given the dancing Israelis, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, of the Mossad and Israel.
	And so it's been a long, it's been a long time.
	We can have a part two.
	And let's go further.
	We're going to take some questions.
	And I guess I'm the only one that believes in the hijacker theory.
	Is that correct, Jim?
	It's no proponent.
	Just me?
	Just me?
	Okay.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	So in regards of direct energy weapons, what are we, you know, just to bring back some good old American cheer here, what are our thoughts about that?
	I asked the audience and our patrons here at the Deus.
	The direct energy weapons, as you can see right here, they have a passage of right by the government.
	They're already coined over there.
	They're used for targeted individuals, as we had Anna Toledo on the show to tell us.
	Is it crazy to think?
	And because I've always often wondered, and either one of you can answer this too, and I'm not the most skilled in the dues, but how do we explain, as Jesse Ventura once begged the question, how do we explain all the loose leaf paper going around flying everywhere if direct energies weren't used?
	And I kind of subscribe to the fact that I think it was a combination of everything that could have been used because it was such an early on, you know, kind of an event before this new technology came out.
	And they probably didn't know which was going to land or didn't.
	But how do we explain the loose leaf paper?
	Who wants to take a stab at that?
	This is not a mystery, Dean.
	A big plane hits a big building full of paper and paper is going to go flying everywhere.
	That is not a mystery.
	It doesn't all burn up because it's not all impacted by inside the flame ball, the fireball.
	Well, that ends the show, everybody.
	We want to wish you a good night.
	One more point.
	I go.
	Thank you, Richard.
	Go ahead, Richard.
	Finish your thought.
	Go right ahead.
	Are we off the air?
	I don't think so.
	We're still on the air.
	We're still live.
	And by the way, I support your conference wholeheartedly.
	I want the truth to come out about 9-11.
	Whether I'm a part of your conference or not is insignificant to me.
	And I wish you well with good luck.
	Why wasn't I invited to the conference, Richard?
	How come?
	We understand why Jim wasn't.
	How about me?
	Go ahead, Richard.
	I thought you actually were saying goodbye, and I guess you weren't.
	So in the 90-minute presentation that I gave on night one of this three-night series, I gave 30 different arguments against do.
	I was actually more debating do like Jim tonight than many nukes.
	So I encourage everybody to look at those detailed discussions about that.
	And paper is just an irrelevant factoid.
	It's not indicative of anything.
	Well, okay, very good point.
	But it means paper means things to me.
	Okay, let's go to a different one here.
	We have a lot of people on Rumble.
	We have the real General Mahati says Jim goes pretty hard against Israel.
	That's probably why he's not invited.
	Yeah, well, you know, a lot of people.
	Not why he's not invited.
	Actually, I support Jim and laud him for his early naming of these co-perpetrators.
	Conspirators, right?
	Conspirators.
	And so, yeah.
	Okay, here's another one here: we have OC Yudish.
	Oh, sorry.
	I remember what I was going to say.
	Sorry.
	Real quick.
	Okay, go ahead.
	There are people who address the Israeli issue, including genocide, including forever wars, including false flag operations like 9-11, including their involvement in them.
	They're in the turning in the tide, and it's going to create some controversy, which we're going to just have to deal with.
	There you go.
	See, Jim, Jim feels better now.
	There you have it.
	You have one vote from Richard.
	Okay, here.
	Let me continue here.
	We have Mr. Watland, respect for both of you.
	Good points to ponder.
	I think so too.
	No matter which one you go with, but choose wisely.
	Okay, no, here we came.
	Rebel Mama said Jimmy came out swinging in the last round.
	Oh, that's right.
	By the way, everybody, we want to get your votes before we get out of here because we have to bust some bubbles here tonight and pick a winner and not a contender here.
	Okay, we have Bob Dole, who's here tonight.
	And what a privilege and honor that is, Mr. Bob Dole.
	Thank you very much.
	And notice these gentlemen are very cordial, very rare these days.
	That's true, but what about Richard?
	Thank you for me and Jim are cordial.
	That's very nice of you.
	Here's another one here.
	We had okay, nine.
	Can you repeat that question from earlier, please?
	As I was asking if you could help me.
	Thank you very much.
	Will Jim and Richard be taking questions from the chat?
	Absolutely not.
	No, not tonight.
	I don't think so.
	We have Susan Stevens heard along the Israelis were involved.
	Now, this is okay.
	So the Israeli factor is all the talk of the town.
	I said to Jim earlier that if there's any kind of an event or situation that could ever mirror The just over-the-top coverage of 9-11, it would be what's happening right now with the Israeli involvement, not just in 9-11, but that's coming out with all the events.
	And just to prove the point here, the FBI, that's one of the blacked out sections, I believe, and Richard or Jim can correct me in the FBI report on 9-11.
	Is that correct, Jim?
	That's one of the ones that is blacked out.
	And they keep pointing towards Saudi Arabia, the Saudis that are behind it.
	And they can't hide it.
	Peripheral.
	This was an Israeli plot.
	It was brought about compliments of the CIA and the neocons and Department of Defense and the Mossad, but it was driven by Bibi Nat Nyahu and Ehud Ulmhert, who wanted to justify American intervention in the Middle East to benefit Israel and the Greater Israel Project.
	Good.
	And I'm not going to disagree with any of that, Jim.
	In fact, I internally agree with it.
	But I'm an architect.
	I've worked with architects and engineers.
	We have 3,600 architects and engineers signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation of the destruction at the World Trade Center.
	And so that's our area of credibility.
	And we do try to stay in it, though I slip up increasingly every day here.
	Yes, you did.
	No, here, or no, you don't.
	Here we have Deimeron TV asking who won the debate.
	Press one for Jim and two for Richard.
	One for Jim, two for Richard.
	Vote tonight.
	Vote tonight for who you're American.
	I need that cruise.
	Thank you.
	I've never been on a cruise.
	Well, look, it's been a tremendous pleasure for me to join you in this endeavor because we both care about 9-11 truth.
	And I think the more interest generated, the better off we are.
	And I'm very glad you're pursuing your conference.
	And I wish you all the success in the world.
	If you ever find there's anything I can do to contribute toward that end, you let me know.
	Thank you, Jim.
	That is just very gracious of you.
	Appreciate it.
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah, you should have heard him before the show, Richard.
	It was all different.
	I don't know.
	Oh, all different.
	I don't know who this guy is right now.
	Okay, here's another one here.
	Hammertime brings up this point.
	Military planes painted to look like passenger planes could be.
	Great question.
	Can I address that?
	Well, are you going to just jump to the next question?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Many people said they saw, including Ricky DeSantis, who was right under the plane, said it was a gray plane.
	It's a military plane.
	And Jim would be the first to agree that a civilian aircraft would have a real tough time maintaining its structure at 500 miles an hour at virtually sea level.
	So most of us in the 9-11 truth movement believe that the planes were swapped out and that they could control military aircraft like they can't control civilians.
	That's true.
	Okay, I had more questions.
	We don't have much time here.
	Let's get to this next one here.
	I want to get to as many as possible.
	Twilight asked, what caused all the dust in the buildings prior to 9-11?
	That's a good question.
	I didn't know that part, but I knew there was a hurricane the day of.
	Well, hold on.
	That's a different story.
	There was dust, lots of it inside the towers.
	And this is primarily coming from Scott Forbes, who is a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, who was up in the tower.
	And he was saying there was all this dust in the two weeks before 9-11 everywhere on our desk, everywhere.
	Well, this is gypsum board dust in all likelihood that was in the way of the elevator modernization workers who had to cut through the gypsum board to access the core columns and beams in the building.
	Let me add, I think this would have been indicative of the gelatin group priming the building, not only for its destruction, but especially great the cookie cutter cutouts and the facades.
	And by the way, military plane, civilian plane, no real plane could have entered one of those buildings.
	It would have crumbled external to the building and parts fallen to the ground.
	There were no parts.
	They weren't there because there were no real planes.
	Oh, okay.
	Here's another one.
	We have 9-11-24-7.
	Thank you very much for asking.
	A question, how did the molten material from the South Tower not melt the aluminium cladding?
	We don't take a stab at that real quick.
	We don't know that that molten iron pouring out of the tower, which is pouring, I mean, you pour yourself a cup of coffee, the coffee pours out and away from its source, that it had some pressure behind it, apparently.
	And we're so far away, we don't know that the aluminum cladding didn't melt.
	We're so far away, but yet so close.
	We have Claudine says, Jim, my sunshine.
	See, Jim is a son of his own sunshine there.
	Okay, very good.
	We have a lot of money.
	But she's giving me her vote, Jim, not you.
	She just likes you better.
	She thinks you're better looking.
	Well, that's true.
	Here's Flow and Hustle over there on Rumble saying, and if the Hutchinson effect twists metal beams like pretzels, pretzel wetzels do, how could it not have been a dew energy do?
	Well, that's a logical fallacy.
	Jim will point that out right away.
	The Hutchinson effect is real.
	It's small.
	There are small objects on a table that do really weird things.
	Yes.
	Does that scale 100,000 times to the size of hundreds and thousands of steel sections, which were warped like pretzels in the extreme heat of thermite cutter chargers, laced thousands of them throughout the building?
	No.
	And given the design of the buildings, created them as Faraday cages, the dew hypothesis would not have been applicable to those buildings.
	Okay, here's another one here.
	We have the great Seth Black asking, the helicopter videos from five miles away before the helicopter zooms in plane, a miles away plane hits.
	Okay, well, let me ask the question too that kind of goes into what I was asking.
	Can we explain the hurricane?
	Was there a hurricane?
	Was that a rumor?
	Does anyone know anything about that?
	Well, there was a hurricane.
	Judy claims it may have been the source of energy for the directed energy weaponry, but I've explained why.
	The directed energy weaponry cannot have applied to the towers as Faraday cages.
	It would have been applicable, impossible.
	And there's no conceivable way to direct the energy of a hurricane, particularly one that was how many miles away, Jim?
	I think 120.
	Does anyone know?
	Okay, this is from Hammer Time over there on Rumble.
	Does anyone know about Putin in possession of the true satellite map and vision of 9-11 that day?
	Does anyone know about that?
	Okay, no.
	All right.
	So there's that one.
	Let me get here.
	Surprising.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	I believe, yeah, asbestos, always asbestos everywhere.
	Okay.
	Always asbestos.
	Okay.
	Here's another one.
	We have Susan Stevens.
	What about the empty hand?
	Hold on.
	It said the questioner is referring to the elevator hoistways being lined with asbestos.
	I don't think that's true.
	The fireproofing was from the two inches of gypsum board in the hoistways.
	Asbestos was everywhere else, primarily on the steel as fireproofing, on the floors, as vinyl tiles, on the everywhere else.
	And there was a direction from the Port Authority to remove the asbestos, which couldn't be done by a conventional demolition because it would have all been exposed to the public.
	And scaffolding would have run about a billion bucks apiece.
	How fortuitous two planes just happened to come along and do the job for Larry Silverstein to pocket at least four and a half billion on a $114 million investment.
	They don't call him Lucky Larry for nothing.
	He did that.
	He was able to do that because he put massive terrorist insurance on these buildings, which he acquired just six weeks prior to 9-11.
	Yeah.
	Here's my question.
	I had a chance to interview for a film I was doing a long time ago, someone by the name of Michelle Little.
	I don't know if you're aware of her.
	Her brother was.
	Yeah, her brother was a firefighter and tragically killed on 9-11.
	Oh, and they wouldn't give her answers about what happened.
	So subsequently, from my recollection, she said, well, two weeks later, she went going to the World Trade Center Plaza, Ground Zero, as it was known back then, and wouldn't get answers.
	And her workmen's construction boots were melted all over the middle.
	And as she was noticing that, she claims that there were Marines there, U.S. Marines, and there was a sniper on one of the tall buildings in the plaza, and they were pointing at her.
	And the Marine who was in charge of that particular area said, one more move and they'll shoot you.
	As she saw them moving gold out of the area.
	Does anyone want to expand on that?
	And I'm sad that that never got more coverage because it got coverage.
	And it was Die Hard 3 where that whole plot played out.
	To my knowledge, the gold heist occurred before 9-11 because it would have contaminated the gold.
	They had to get it out of there before they'd used the mini-noose to destroy the building.
	And they did.
	So it was never important.
	She's the first witness of a gold heist.
	I don't know how that was down in the basement.
	I don't know where she was, but I'd be real surprised if she actually saw Goldheist in process.
	Yeah, she saw the sniper.
	Okay, there's that one.
	Let's see here.
	What do we do?
	Two more questions.
	And by the way, we're going to count your votes here in a second.
	Okay, we're going to count the votes.
	Here is Flo and Hussell, who is on fire tonight.
	Thank you.
	What about the possibility of the plane being a drone?
	That's a good question.
	People have said, was it a drone?
	Were there bombs on the planes or any kind of explosives for that fact?
	Or were they just box cutters on the planes?
	Well, I better answer that since Jim doesn't believe there was actually a plane that was flown.
	I was hoping Jim would answer that.
	Into the building.
	But I believe, and I've looked at a lot of this evidence.
	I haven't researched it.
	I haven't studied it.
	I haven't presented it.
	But I think most in the 9-11 truth movement agree that they were remotely controlled aircraft and that in all likelihood, nobody was on those probably military aircraft.
	Which begs the question, what happened to the family members?
	Well, we certainly don't know.
	And we all want to know that.
	Do we think that, you know, I've often sorry, let me ask Jim.
	Jim, what do you think happened to the family members?
	It's very easy to create lists of names of reported passengers, Richard.
	And when they're fictional, who's going to be able to refute them?
	I mean, it would be a vast task.
	Well, let me start the enormous enormity of the fraud.
	Let me do disagree with you on that publicly.
	So, because I know some of the family members of the victims on the plane, including Ellen Mariani, who genuinely grieved for a long, long time.
	So maybe those victims were never allowed on the planes.
	Maybe I've heard that the real planes took them to an off-shoot military base and kind of gassed the people who were in the real planes.
	I've heard that.
	Well, it's a morbid day, but let's continue on here.
	I think this is a great question, and we're going to end on this.
	Sorry, they did have to make cell phone calls.
	I agree with Jim that those were either made under duress or videomorphed.
	I'm more of the former.
	The real plane landed.
	These people were encouraged or forced to under pseudo making a drill out of it.
	They were asked to call their loved ones, but there was no background noise on the planes.
	It was the whole many holes in the cell phone.
	Let me get to this final question here.
	And this is from Jerry Elitalo.
	Thank you for asking.
	We need a lot of great questions.
	There's so many great questions, too.
	Real investigation would include hundreds of witnesses who were excluded by the 9-11 Commission investigation, suggesting their testimonies will eventually lead to further revealing ugly truths about 9-11.
	So here's the question.
	Let me translate: do you think there's more that we don't know and will learn about 9-11?
	Or have we just learned everything that can possibly be learned about that day?
	Why don't we start with you, Jim?
	No, no, there's always more to learn.
	And even though, for example, with JFK, we know about 95% of what happened there.
	Look how many years later we're still learning.
	And I look forward to Richard's conference producing even new information that most of us have not previously heard before.
	And Jim, do pay attention to the particular seismic evidence that's brand new that's going to be presented on Wednesday, September 10th, after my presentation of the evidence.
	Ted Walter is going to be discussing rock-solid evidence that there were explosions before those towers came down and before the plane hit the tower.
	Well, you know what, guys?
	Believe it or not, we're out of time.
	We are out of time.
	And let me just say, no matter which narrative these guys, these two believe, you know, I'm for a big tent kind of person.
	We need a lot of unity.
	And I think we achieved that here tonight.
	I mean, right, guys, I mean, we achieved that tonight.
	Nobody played dirty.
	I thought Richard would at one time, but I was wrong.
	He played nice.
	Here's Dirty Playing.
	How are you going to vote today?
	Vote for the crews.
	So we're going to count everybody's votes here.
	You can still vote at this time.
	Both guys are in the running here.
	And it looks like so far it's tied, but one to one.
	How many viewers do we have?
	No, we're on three platforms right now.
	We've had over 200 people watching live today.
	It would have been a lot more if we weren't shadow band.
	We had someone who voted three, a Vipath over there in Rumble.
	Sure, who was that for me?
	Three, I'll take that vote.
	Um, you can write in the vote.
	Uh, we have Rebel Live, you're the break.
	Uh, Rebel voted one for Jim and two for Richard.
	Okay, uh, there's that one.
	Uh, it looks like it's a tie, everybody.
	I can't say who.
	Uh, uh, we have Real General Motti that said, I think Mr. Gage lost some points off the bat when he said Jim has far out beliefs.
	I would have to agree on that.
	I couldn't believe he said that on live television.
	Far out beliefs.
	You said that Jim is far out beliefs, uh, has far-out beliefs.
	And far out, that's what exactly does that involve.
	That's far out, man.
	I mean, Jim, I want to apologize, Jim.
	I didn't know he was going to uh say that.
	Okay, um, we have I thought it's all been fair game, not a problem.
	Okay, so we'll end on this.
	We have Flo Hustle.
	I think you said it, Bass and Rumble.
	Uh, he said, send them both on the cruise together.
	Okay, yeah, we will do that.
	Um, you can catch Richard Jim turning the tide cruise.
	Yeah, you can catch him September 10th over there in Washington, D.C. with uh, Jim's senator over there from Wisconsin, uh, Ron Johnson, uh, Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Shaffer, Tucker Carlson, John Chiriot, whistleblower, lawyer fire, Ruth, uh, yeah, all kinds of people, that's right.
	Uh, Rick Taylor, Ruth Buzzy, all of them.
	Uh, so you'll you don't want to miss that.
	Uh, there, they'll be there, and uh, yeah, I think I think this is great.
	These two guys agree the official story is bunk, uh, yeah, I think so too.
	I think so, too.
	Uh, anyways, thank you, Richard, Jim.
	You can catch Jim eight days a week over there on Revolution Radio, and you'll also catch him right here on Real Deal Media on our number one late night show, World at War, together every Tuesday, I believe.
	So, we thank you, uh, Jim.
	Uh, if you're a member, you can catch these guys.
	Come backstage and have a drink with us as we wind down and you get to meet and greet these two legends right here.
	Legends.
	So, I want to thank both of you guys for being here, Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer.
	And I'll tell you what, everybody, no matter how you slice it, now's the time to have these types of conversations of intellectual discourse, conjecture.
	And that's the way it should be because we have to come together as a people here.
	We've had a fragmented country since 9-11, if not prior, but now is the time, and I can feel it.
	So, for Richard and for Jim Fetzer, I'm Dean Ryan saying, Thank you for sharing a bit of your night with this real deal debate here.
	Until next time, always remember to stay tuned and stay away.
	night, everybody.
	Bombed in order to build a not take a plane.

▲